1. Remarks by Dr. James L. Applegate
Vice President, Lumina Foundation
For the IAU International Conference: Strategies for Securing Equity in Securing Access and Success in
Higher Education at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya
November 17, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in a conversation with representatives from around the
globe about one of the most important challenges we face in the 21st Century: securing equitable and
broad access and (most importantly) success in higher education for the world’s people. The current
massive inequities we see threaten global economic development and political stability, not to mention
literally the lives of billions of people across the globe.
Before continuing, however, let me frame the perspective from which I address this issue. As has been
noted, I am Vice President for the Lumina Foundation. Lumina is a private foundation, a grant making
organization that ranks among the largest in the United States. We have a national mission to enroll and
graduate more students from college—especially the growing numbers of what we call “21st century
students”: adult learners without a college degree coming back to college, low income students,
students of color and students who are the first in their family to attend college (“first generation
students”).
What is unusual about the Lumina Foundation is that, unlike many foundations, we pursue our mission
in a very targeted way. We focus all of our energies and our resources on achieving one Big Goal, what
we call “Goal 2025.” That Big Goal is simple but audacious: By the year 2025, we want 60 per cent of
the U.S. population to hold high‐quality postsecondary degrees or credentials. This rationale for the
goal is grounded in the principle stated in the Preamble of the IAU 2008 Policy Statement on higher
education access and success: “A well‐educated citizenry is the foundation of social equity, cohesion and
successful participation in the global knowledge economy.” In addition, I would add that labor market
projections suggest almost two thirds of the jobs in the United States in 2018 will require some form of
postsecondary education.
The level of college attainment in the United States has been stagnant for decades, hovering around 40
per cent of the working age population, but other countries are making rapid gains. In fact, South Korea
increased its percentage of college graduates by five points in just the last year! South Korea is now the
most educated country in the world, with 63 per cent of its working age population college educated.
The province of Ontario, Canada is at 60 per cent and has launched a plan to reach 70 per cent in the
next decade. In other bad news for the United States, it is one of the few OECD countries whose younger
workforce (25‐34) is less educated than its older workforce. We are going in the wrong direction.
We also have a growing equity problem. In 2008, while 77 percent of 24 year olds in the top income
quartile in the U.S. had four year college degrees, only 10 percent of those in the lowest income quartile
did. We also have significant gaps in higher education attainment for our Latino, African American, and
1

2. Native American populations. Latinos, by far our fastest growing population (the U.S. Census projects 80
million additional Latinos in the U.S. by 2050) has the lowest college going and college success rate in
the U.S. So, Goal 2025 is an audacious goal for the U.S. The good news is that many others in the U.S.
have recognized and targeted this issue, including President Obama.
As everyone in this room knows, dramatically increasing participation in and completion of higher
education is a global challenge. In 2005, the economist Richard Florida, in a response to Thomas
Friedman’s “flat world” hypothesis, suggested rather that the world was becoming increasingly “spiky.”
[Atlantic Monthly (October 2005), pp. 48‐51]. He argues that the world’s “creative class” (a class highly
correlated with the educated class) is growing but also concentrating in urban regions. He provided data
showing that wherever the creative class congregates, there is a corresponding spike in wealth,
economic growth, and quality of life. The result is a growing divide, not simply between countries, but
between regions. The growing peaks and hills are attracting talent from the sinking valleys. China, for
example is seeing enormous concentrations of talent and innovation in centers such as Shanghai,
Shenzhen, and Beijing, while the vast impoverished areas in rural and western China stagnate. China
has doubled the number of higher education institutions in the last decade to try to address this
problem, but it stubbornly persists. Florida concludes by noting that across the globe the difficult
predicament we face is to help the economic “peak” areas strengthen in the interest of global growth
while raising the valleys without shearing off the peaks. Managing these disparities and the antagonism
they create between geographically clustered “tribes” of haves and have‐nots will be among the top
political challenges of the coming decades.
I would argue, and Lumina’s economic and education data would suggest, that to address this political
challenge will require a laser‐like focus on the goal of this conference: to increase equity in higher
education access and success across regions. To achieve that goal, we must move forward aggressively
with several strategies. These strategies will need to be designed differently and employed in various
combinations, depending on differences in the demography, governance structures, resources,
economy, and political culture between countries and regions. However, equitably raising education
attainment levels (and especially higher education attainment) is the constant that will drive the
economy and quality of life in all countries.
Strategy 1: Improve college preparation and participation for all students
If higher education access is to be equitable, quality primary and secondary education systems must be
developed that prepare students for higher education academically, financially (where costs are a
factor), and socially. This strategy is especially important, obviously, for countries with fast growing
young populations. This is an especially important challenge for Africa, with the youngest population in
the world. In the U.S. such growth is centered in the Latino and African American populations.
Alignment of standards and assessments between higher education and secondary education must be
achieved through partnerships between these sectors that ensure a seamless transition of students.
Misaligned systems threaten the higher education success of even those students thought to be well‐
prepared by secondary standards. For many countries an initial goal may be broader participation and
completion of secondary education where those numbers are low. Mandatory secondary education
2

3. should be a policy priority. Some research in Africa has suggested significant improvements in the well‐
being of families simply by dramatically improving high school completion for women. A 2011 report by
the World Bank on gender equality and development shows that progress is being made in providing
education and economic opportunity for women at all levels of education, even in the regions with the
largest remaining gaps, particularly sub‐Saharan African and West Africa. (“World development report
2012: Gender equality and development,” World Bank, 2011) Such improvements in women’s collective
agency, the ability to make choices, can be transformative for society, especially in developing countries.
Such evidence of the benefits of advancing the cause of equity in education opportunity should spur us
to address the significant divides that remain. In short, our education systems must be designed to truly
be a seamless system that equitably provides opportunity across socio‐economic, racial/ethnic groups
and gender.
Strategy 2: Focus on college completion
In the U.S. for many decades the primary focus was on college access. Most believed that if students
arrived on a college campus the job was done. We now know that we must pay equal attention to the
factors that affect college success. In too many places higher education carries a Teflon coating. If
students fail, the fault is always placed on them. Students are underprepared. They did not work hard
enough. They were not “college material.” A hard look at college completion data in the U.S. has
revealed systemic problems that result in more than 40 per cent of students not completing college. The
result is 35.8 million working age adults (or 22 per cent of the workforce) with some college and no
degree or credential of any kind. The college drop‐out problem is especially severe for low income
students, students of color, and first generation students: the 21st century students that now make up a
majority of higher education students. I do not have the time to outline all of the factors that can
contribute to college drop outs, but Lumina Foundation is focused on those factors and on scaling
effective practices that promote college success for these students. In many cases we know what works
but we need to build policies and public will to scale these effective practices across the entire system.
For the U.S. and many other OECD countries, educating only the elite at elite universities cannot provide
the intellectual capital necessary to succeed in a global information economy. We can no longer afford
to throw away the human capital that is lost when systemic failures essentially exclude vast numbers
oflow income students and students of color.
Demographics strongly suggest that for the U.S. and many other countries with lower birth rates a focus
on college success for returning adult learners is essential. For these countries, the workforce of the
future is the workforce of today for the most part. To the extent that a country’s adult workforce is
populated with college dropouts, high school graduates only, or high school dropouts that country will
find it exceedingly difficult to create and attract employers who can provide living wage jobs. Nor will
that country be able to adapt to the demands for innovation and economic growth in the 21st century. In
the U.S. Lumina has strongly focused on the returning adult (including military veterans) promoting new
ways of delivering education and supporting students that accommodate to the complicated and
sometimes fragile lives of adults (especially in low wealth families). These students typically cannot
come to a campus. College must come to them. Lumina Foundation is currently funding 19 multi‐year
3

4. projects around the United States to support programs that we hope will be replicated and provide
college degrees to hundreds of thousands of undereducated adults.
Lastly, let me be clear that when I say improve college completion, I am not limiting that focus to four
year or graduate education. In the U.S. our data suggest a large number of sub‐baccalaureate degrees
and certificates ‐‐ including associate degrees and industry recognized certificates ‐‐ provide graduates
with significant improvement in their lives through greater employment and higher wages. The bottom
line is that some form of postsecondary education is essential to a decent life in the U.S. By itself, a high
school diploma is, at best, a ticket to the ranks of the working poor.
Strategy 3: Increase higher education productivity
As countries struggle to recover from the most recent severe global recession, the challenge of
expanding capacity to equitably serve millions more students requires attention to higher education
productivity. Productivity, in higher education as in all fields, means increases in efficiency and
effectiveness. For higher education effectiveness is defined as graduating students with high quality
degrees that provide the learning necessary to succeed at their next stage of life: increased education or
employment. Efficiency requires a rigorous assessment of costs and return resulting in containment of
cost drivers and reallocation of resources to student success. Productivity at the scale needed also
requires reconsidering the entire business model and delivery model of higher education: exploring
opportunities for lower cost delivery models that are competency‐based, technology infused, open to
accelerated learning, and focused the quality of learning aligned with 21st century demands of
graduates.
In the United States, the Lumina Foundation is actively promoting increased productivity in the higher
education system. If you visit www.collegeproductivity.org you can review the “four steps” toward
greater productivity we advocate. We are also supporting new lower cost models for delivering learning
that are showing increased student success, at an accelerated pace, and at a lower cost. Western
Governor’s University and Carnegie Mellon’s “Open Learning Initiative” are two examples of this work.
The “course redesign” work of the National Center for Academic Transformation offers another
promising approach to increasing capacity to serve more students in ways that increase student success
and maintain or lower costs. The cost of higher education must be borne by either the public as a
common good or by the student. In either case given the economic climate and the types of students we
must serve, a strong focus on productivity, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of higher
education, is required to expand equitable opportunity for success in higher education.
So many higher education leaders are trapped within what has been called the “iron triangle” defining
unbreakable links between access, cost, and quality. If access is increased, then either costs must go up
or quality must go down. If resources are constrained, then either access must be limited or quality
sacrificed. If quality is to be increased, then either costs must go up or access must be reduced. The
models noted above and many more currently in development (such as the increasing interest
internationally in “badges” to credential acquisition of particular knowledge and skill sets) are showing
us the iron triangle can be shattered.
4

5. Any discussion of increasing productivity must pay special attention to the need to maintain or increase
quality while doing so. But what is quality in higher education? Is it defined by proxy measures like class
size, high cost, impressive facilities, seat time in classes, grades, or credits? Or will we finally focus on
the real definition of high quality: (a) degrees that clearly identify the learning outcomes that achieving
the degree should warrant (b) assessment of learning that ensures all students are learning what they
need to know and be able to do to succeed at the next stage of their lives and (c) data based assessment
of how students actually fare after completion (success at higher levels of education, employment in
degree related fields, attainment of a living wage).
If we focus on the learning rather than courses or seat time, not only will we better serve students but
we also can open our eyes to new ways of delivering learning that do not rely on seat time, semesters,
and campus‐based delivery models. One colleague noted that if you are focusing on seat time you are
focusing on the wrong end of the student! We also can develop multiple ways of delivering learning that
adapt to the different way students learn, increasing the likelihood of their success. We can also
imagine (and some are beyond just imagining) ways to reach millions more of those 21st century
students that the current campus based system is serving so poorly.
Strategy 4: Align higher education learning with the economic and social demands of a 21st century
global information society
Though this strategy is implied in what I’ve already said, I want to be explicit on this point. Countries and
regions must ensure that the research and academic programs and the innovation and learning they
produce in their higher education systems are clearly and continuously aligned with the current and
future needs of their economies and society. Close connections between those responsible for the
delivery of higher education and those charged with economic and social transformations are crucial.
In a recent visit to Singapore I was impressed with the tight strategic connections between higher
education planning and economic plans for Singapore’s continued transformation over the next decade.
It was not just plans on paper. The people working on these issues were closely connected. For example,
the head of Singapore’s Institute for Technical Education was himself, a former economic minister.
When higher education is only loosely connected to national development plans problems can occur.
For example, even in South Korea, the most educated nation in the world, stresses are appearing as
unemployment rates for four year college graduates rise and jobs requiring technical education go
unfilled. A recent case study of South Korea by the European Access Network argues these stresses are a
result of South Korea’s dramatically successful education attainment surge being only “loosely coupled”
with it projected workforce needs.
Let me be clear. Alignment does not mean simply training people for job openings that now exist. Given
the changing nature of our economies many of the jobs of even the near term future do not exist yet.
We do know that producing a more educated workforce not only fills jobs but increases the overall
productivity of the economy and organizations within it. Increased productivity allows for innovation
and the creation of jobs. Hence, much of the aligned, quality learning I am advocating is not job‐specific
or even sector‐specific. Rather, it produces graduates who can engage in analytical thinking and problem
5

6. solving, communicate in writing and orally with others (even those from different cultures), adapt to
changing circumstances applying historical knowledge of trends, and operate comfortably in a multi‐
cultural environment. These are the hallmarks of an educated populace that will increase economic
productivity, promote better political decisions, and prepare people, not merely for a job, but for a
career and global citizenship.
What will it take to implement these strategies and fulfill the promise of higher education equitably?
In some ways it is easy to say what must be done. Understanding how it must be done and acting
effectively on that knowledge is the more difficult part. I would offer three suggestions to those who
want to increase access to higher education for students who are prepared to succeed, increase success
for those who are in higher education, and increase the productivity of the system so it can serve more
students and serve them better.
First, we must integrate our work around equitable higher education access and success within a holistic
approach to the challenges students and families face in their lives. In my work in the United States prior
to coming to Lumina we were focused on raising education attainment levels in a particularly poor
region. Our plans for improving higher education access had to take into account a horrible problem
with drug addiction that was burning across the region. We also had to address the lack of economic
opportunity for college graduates in the region. All of these issues were outside the boundaries of a
“higher education” strategy. Whether it the scourge of drugs or AIDS, political turmoil, violence,
corruption, or ethnic and gender biases in the culture, our work must be cognizant of these headwinds.
You may not be able to solve them all, even in partnership with political, religious, community or
business leaders, but create your strategies with these challenges in mind so you can mitigate or
accommodate to the reality in which your students live.
Second, fully engage all of what we at Lumina call “catalytic approaches” to implementing change. These
three catalytic approaches include:
• Scaling effective practices. Seldom do we engage any area of work or any geographic region that
we do not find “a thousand random acts of excellence” addressing the changes we seek. These
programs and practices are, however, disconnected, small, often costly, and sometimes in
competition with one another. Given the size of our challenge our focus must be on developing
practices that are documented as effective, cost effective, and hence scalable.
• Policy advocacy. It is difficult to scale anything if those implementing the programs are
constantly swimming upstream against either bad policies or policies that provide counter
incentives to doing the right thing. For example, in the U.S. many states and institutions tie
financial support for students to simplistic definitions of “merit” that divert precious resources
away from qualified low income students to wealthier students whose privileged backgrounds
give them higher test scores (bad policy). Also in the U.S., public higher education’s funding is
largely dependent on enrolling more students rather than graduating them. This type of funding
incents a focus on recruiting more students rather than investing in programs that make sure
students, once enrolled, graduate.
6

7. • Building will. Often we know what policies need to be eliminated or created or we know what
practices need to be scaled to increase access and success, but those most crucial to making
these changes lack the will to make the change. Targeted strategies to appropriate audiences to
build political courage, focus energy and effort, or fund the right approaches are required. We
must meet each constituency where they are. For some, we must first build awareness and
concern and then drive for commitment and action. For others who are aware and concerned
we must focus on action steps. Implementation of strategies in any area to improve equitable
higher education access and success will all require some blend of these three catalytic
approaches.
The third and last implementation challenge I will suggest is creating partnerships. Progress at the
scale we need can seldom be achieved by any individual, organization, or sector alone. We must be
skilled at building partnerships that are focused on the outcomes we seek. A recent influential
article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review labeled this approach “collaboration for collective
impact.” I highly recommend the article and subsequent responses to it as a blueprint for effective
partnerships that achieve results. (Kania, J., and Kramer, M. “Collective impact.” Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Winter 2011)
Partnerships must be clear on goals, committed to shared data on progress, and willing to design
metrics that measure progress or the lack of progress so that the courageous conversations can
occur that allow for continuous improvement. Partners must also have a clear compact that defines
the roles and responsibilities of each partner in a way that serves each partner’s interests while also
serving the common goal. If partners are asked to sacrifice or risk their interests to be a partner, the
partnership will not last. Altruism is not a sustainability strategy. Normally these partnerships will
need to cut across the political, non‐profit, education, and employer sectors. They are not easy to
create or sustain. However, any one organization or sector going it alone is unlikely to effect the
change we need at the scale required.
In conclusion, let me say that as we continue our conversations over the next several days, I hope
we will do so with the urgency this equity in education challenge deserves and that we will help one
another understand how to develop that sense of urgency among our partners inside and outside
higher education in our home countries. I hope we will be willing to consider the kind of innovation,
perhaps the disruptive innovation to use Clay Christiansen’s term, which will be required in our
higher education systems to provide access and success to the hundreds of millions of 21st century
students whose lives depend on it. Because our countries’ futures also depend on it, as does
political stability globally. Finally, I hope our conversations will clearly demonstrate that we know
that this conversation is not about our higher education institutions or systems. It is not about our
faculty. It is not about our courses or curricula. We are a means to an end, and that end is ensuring
we deliver the learning that will enable the world’s economies to thrive and the world’s people to
live lives of quality and dignity.
One of my favorite poets is Adrienne Rich. In one of her poems she offers the following image that I
think captures our challenge here in Nairobi and in our home countries.
7

8. “The rules break like a thermometer,
Quicksilver spreads across the charted system….
Whatever we do together is pure invention
The maps they gave us were out of date by years.” (Adrienne Rich, 1978)
The maps we have been using to guide out thinking about higher education are out of date by
decades. Elite, highly ranked universities serving elite populations; academic programs driven by
political and faculty interests; students forced to accommodate to our schedules and our structures
carried forward from previous centuries. Research disengaged from the needs of society and the
economy. These are the old maps. Let us commit ourselves to drawing new maps that place
students, learning, and equitable access and success to higher education at the center: maps that
will guide us to a fairer and healthier global society. Thank you.
8