Brad Smith ’81, who serves as Microsoft’s general counsel and executive vice president for legal and corporate affairs, spoke on campus on Friday about how reforms of immigration and education policy can be made to address problems currently affecting the technology industry. The Daily Princetonian sat down with him to discuss his personal story and his passion for using the law to support the technology industry.
The Daily Princetonian: I wanted to start with your time at Princeton. What from your time at the University speaks to your career now, both in terms of your legal profession and your involvement with the intersection of high-skilled immigration reform and education reform in the United States of America?
BS: It actually is very much connected. I graduated in 1981 from the Wilson School, but I was on work-study. My junior and senior year, my work-study job was to work for the University’s director of government affairs, a woman named Nan Wells. So I worked for her on campus during the school year, and then I interned in D.C. in the summer. The policy issues that the University was focused on were in fact technology policy issues — basic research funding from the National Science Foundation, the Plasma Physics lab. So that was what first got me interested in technology policy. Then when I got to law school, this was the time when personal computers were just starting to come out. And I think in part because of that experience — the technology policy — I took an interest in reading about these things, and I was an early user of the PC. That’s what started me down that path.
DP: So when you came to Microsoft, did you come with that interest in mind?
BS: Yes. I graduated from Columbia Law School in 1985. I spent a year clerking for a judge, and one of the coincidental developments was when I went to work for the judge in the federal courthouse in Manhattan, I took my computer in. This was the first year that anybody had ever brought a computer into that courthouse. When I moved to Washington D.C. the next year to work for a law firm, when I got the job offer, I said that I would accept the offer only if they would give me a computer for work. Nobody had ever asked for that before. They agreed to do it, and pretty soon lots of people were having computers at work. That set me farther down this path of technology issues. When I was at this law firm, I had the opportunity to start doing work for software companies. I was in Europe for a lot of this time; Microsoft and other companies were expanding into Europe at this time, the early ’90s. So I was hired by Microsoft in 1993 to move to Paris and lead what was called the European Legal and Corporate Affairs team. That put me full-time in the middle of these kinds of issues.
DP: Did anyone inspire you to get involved in these technology policy issues?
BS: Well, there were a lot of people who encouraged me to pursue the interest. When talking about technology policy, I would actually start with Nan Wells, who was the director of government affairs at Princeton. I would also say, more generally, the experience I had in the Wilson School. The thing that was so interesting about education here was that it so often involved connecting two different things. Technology and policy — those are two different concepts that come together. When I was in the Wilson School as a junior, we did a policy conference on the economics and policy for the performing arts, and you might think ‘well, what does that have to do with technology and policy?’ Basically, I was well-exposed to the way different disciplines intersect and interact. It was always this intersection of two very different fields that then could come together, and you could see how powerful a multidisciplinary approach could be. I think that’s part of what inspired me to pursue technology and policy.
DP: What about your job as a lawyer for Microsoft do you think helps you pursue technology policy and education reform?
BS: This is the kind of job that actually puts you at the intersection of the work of a single company with the work of an entire industry and society more broadly. In effect, one of my roles at Microsoft is to be on point for the issues of the day that involve that kind of intersection. So by definition, that gives me the opportunity to address a lot of important, sometimes broader, issues. Doesn’t mean I can afford to ignore the straight and narrow and deep issues that might relate to a particular contract negotiation that is very important, but part of my job actually does involve the intersection between business and technology and law and society. That’s just a fascinating place to have the opportunity to work every day.
DP: So about your advocating technology policy, I felt that there was a little bit of a dichotomy in your speech today. You seem to be arguing two different points — one for highly skilled immigration reform and the other for education reform in the United States. You did connect the two, but what do you view as the more crucial fight for Microsoft today?
BS: Well, I am very passionate about the opportunity to pursue these two ideas together. It is another very good example of two issues that at first blush have nothing to do with each other, but on a second glance, you realize that they are quite interconnected. They are both reflections of the current shortage of skills in the population in the United States. What it means is that in the short run, the only way we can fill jobs is through more immigration, but in the long run, we need to do a better job of educating Americans. And, what I think is really interesting, is the opportunity we have this year through immigration reform to raise visa fees [in order to] raise money that will enable us to invest more in education. So, I’m excited about this idea of connecting these two ideas. It has been endorsed by the White House, it’s been endorsed by the Gang of Eight, there is a similar group in the House of Representatives that has also taken up the issue, and I think that it is gaining momentum.
DP: In terms of the raising of the visa fees to $10,000, how did you come up with that figure, and while it may be accessible for larger companies such as Microsoft, do you think that paying that fee for visas would be feasible for smaller start-ups?
BS: First of all, I don’t think that there is anything magical about that number. If the fees go up $8,000, that will raise more money than if they go up $1,000 or $2,000. The most important thing is that we take some steps that are going to raise more money to enable more education investments. I personally don’t think that a higher visa fee is a significant market hindrance. If people want to have an exception for smaller companies, I certainly wouldn’t complain about it. Part of it is, the opportunities to raise money for federal spending are pretty limited. We obviously have just gone through a sequester, and it’s very unclear what other opportunities there will be to bring more resources to bear. This is an opportunity that I think is too important to pass up. And I think therefore we should seize the moment.
DP: How much of this interest in technology policy and education reform is a recruiting tool for Microsoft, and how much of it is a larger interest in seeing American education reform?
BS: It’s both. It’s definitely both. We don’t make any bones about it — this is important to our company. It would be difficult for me to invest as much time as I have if it were not important for our company. It’s important for every single company in the technology sector, which is why all of us in all of these companies are working together on it. And I think people appreciate that it is important to our ability to fill jobs and keep jobs in the United States. But it’s also something we’re passionate about. I think most people who have benefited from breakthroughs in computer science recognize the importance of continuing to have more breakthroughs. And when you work every day with people whose lives have been transformed by their own personal opportunity to master this field, you appreciate very keenly what it can mean for other young people.
DP: You mentioned the Immigration Innovation Act as something you were in favor of. If you could create the policy in any way you wanted, what would be your ideal technology policy to push today?
BS: I would take the Immigration Innovation Act — which is actually pretty close to what is in the bill introduced by the Gang of Eight in the Senate this week — and the one significant change I would make is to find a way to put more money into the STEM fund. I would look at ways to raise more money through visas or green cards to make that possible.
DP: Do you think it’s possible to convince someone through education to get into the computer science field, or do you think it is something that someone falls into because of their own interests?
BS: I think it is important to recognize people come to any particular field through multiple different paths. So there is no single right answer. You certainly hope that you will excite people in school. If people don’t have the opportunity to get excited about things in school, I just think life for younger people is less interesting. There’s a reason why [movie theater previews encouraging the study of computer science] are also important. There’s a reason why information on the Internet needs to play a role. There’s a reason why we put videos into movie theaters across the country. We think that there are many ways to try to reach people and hopefully, many ways to try and excite them.
DP: What would you suggest to an aspiring computer scientist today — perhaps a University student considering computer science as a major? You suggest that there are a lot of job openings, but from a student’s perspective, the economic downturn seems to have put a damper on getting future opportunities.
BS: Well, I would say that if you want to major in computer science, you have a bright future. And I think you have a bright future from two perspectives. First, this is a field that is going to continue to create a lot of new jobs that are going to pay very well. Second, this is a field where you can contribute to products that can change the world. If you want to make somebody’s life better, there is a good chance that the power of technology will be a valuable tool that will help you pursue that goal.
DP: Lastly, from your work right now, what is the prognosis for high-skilled immigration reform as well as STEM-based education reform?
BS: I think that when it comes to immigration, we are at a special moment in time. It doesn’t mean that we will necessarily succeed. But we have a higher chance of succeeding in 2013 than in any year in the last two decades. So it is enormously important. The focus is principally going to be on immigration, but we took this idea of connecting immigration to education last fall, and when I started in September, we were the only ones talking about it. To have the White House endorse it, to have it embodied in the Senate Bill, to have people in both houses of Congress supporting it means that potentially this is a magic moment for some important steps for education reform as well.
Read More
GSG meeting covers beer jacket distribution and student government consolidation
Gray CollinsFifteen minutes after the Graduate Student Government (GSG) meeting was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, GSG President Amari Tankard GS walked in, wheeling a cart of wine, beer, and cheeses to be distributed among the attendees.
Fifteen minutes after the Graduate Student Government (GSG) meeting was scheduled to begin on Tuesday, GSG President Amari Tankard GS walked in, wheeling a cart of wine, beer, and cheeses to be distributed among the attendees.
Newly elected USG officers aim to prioritize dining reform, transparency, and budget accountability
Clara DochertyThe ‘Prince’ sat down with the newly elected executive board for the Undergraduate Student Government, who hope to focus on dining, transparency, and financial accountability concerns.
The ‘Prince’ sat down with the newly elected executive board for the Undergraduate Student Government, who hope to focus on dining, transparency, and financial accountability concerns.
Two-thirds of undergrad grades at Princeton last year were A-range, faculty report says
Haeon Lee and Nico David-FoxThe 2024–25 academic year set a record for the highest percentage of A-plus and A grades given out by the University in the past 20 years, representing 45.5 percent of all grades, a nearly 20 percentage point increase in the past decade.
The 2024–25 academic year set a record for the highest percentage of A-plus and A grades given out by the University in the past 20 years, representing 45.5 percent of all grades, a nearly 20 percentage point increase in the past decade.