Sokhee P. JUNG, Ph.D., Professor, World's Top 2% Scientist Department of Environment and Energy Engineering, Chonnam National University-Gwangju

Beyond Individual Growth — Higher Education as the Structural Core of Korean Society
In South Korea, higher education is not merely a means of individual social advancement. It has become the final battleground of entrance exam competition, the gateway to class mobility, and the pillar of the private education industry. Yet this structure has reached its limit. The intense competition for university admission is intricately linked to shadow education and real estate issues, leading young people—exhausted by this system—to delay or forgo marriage and childbirth. The hierarchy of universities remains entrenched, private education expenditures have become a major household burden, and metropolitan concentration has driven many regional universities to the brink of collapse. While demographic decline is referred to in educational circles as a “drop in the school-age population,” for the nation, it is a question of survival.

We must now seek a new path for higher education.

Expanding National Flagship Universities: The “Ten Seoul National Universities” Proposal
One widely discussed reform proposal has been the idea of creating “Ten Seoul National Universities.” This initiative envisions elevating ten national flagship universities—including Seoul National University itself—to the same level of academic excellence and prestige. The policy seeks to decentralize competition for elite university admission, curb the expansion of shadow education, promote balanced regional development, and reduce metropolitan overconcentration to ensure more equitable national growth.

However, for this plan to be truly effective, sustained and strategic investment—both financial and human—must be directed to each of these regional universities over an extended period. There are also risks: it could deepen the stratification of local high schools, exacerbate regional rivalries, and, in the worst case, fail to meet its intended goals. Therefore, alternative strategies must be considered in parallel.

Opening the Higher Education Market: Strategic Value of Attracting Foreign Universities
It is time to expand our horizon beyond the Korean Peninsula. Rather than investing decades to build ten world-class universities from scratch, a faster and more proven approach is to attract prestigious foreign universities to establish campuses in South Korea. In other words, to open the higher education market.

Singapore has already adopted this strategy to pursue a larger national goal—enhancing global competitiveness and attracting international talent. Institutions such as Yale-NUS College and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), created in collaboration with MIT, were not just branches of foreign universities; they represented a structural transformation of Singapore’s higher education ecosystem.

Through proven policies—such as strategic partnerships with top-tier institutions, the establishment of international campuses, and the expansion of joint degree programs—South Korea can import successful elements of foreign education systems. This would not only enhance the competitiveness of Korean universities, but also offer alternatives to the entrenched hierarchy of domestic institutions and ease the intense admissions pressure. This is not merely about bringing in foreign universities—it is about diversifying options and increasing flexibility across the entire higher education system.

Narrow Admission Paths and the Shadow Education Dilemma
One of the root causes of Korea’s private education (shadow education) problem lies in the extremely narrow and uniform pathways to university admission. When SKY universities—Seoul National University, Korea University, and Yonsei University—are the sole pinnacle of aspiration, students and parents are left with no choice but to pour vast resources into preparation for entrance exams. However, if the education system were to offer a wider array of institutional choices, both domestically and internationally, the perceived burden of this high-stakes race would inevitably lessen.

Opening the higher education market is a direct strategy for broadening these options. By diversifying the academic pathways available, students can pursue higher education in line with their strengths and interests, rather than conforming to a single hierarchy. Reforming the higher education system in this way addresses the very mechanism that drives the explosive demand for private education.

Broader Impacts of Higher Education Reform: From Real Estate to Regional Equity
If the higher education system is restructured to provide more students with access to high-quality academic opportunities, the need for excessive competition and private tutoring will diminish. This would, in turn, reduce the overvaluation of properties in so-called “education zones” that have become synonymous with shadow education hubs. Consequently, we could see a moderation of housing costs, a slowdown in metropolitan overconcentration, and revitalization of regional communities.

In short, realigning social energy—currently fixated on university admission, private education, and real estate—toward deeper and more meaningful goals could transform the nation in a profound way.

The Hidden Cost of Globalization: Erosion of the Korean-Language Academic Ecosystem
However, one critical issue that must not be overlooked is the potential erosion of the Korean-language academic ecosystem. As higher education becomes more open to international partnerships, the number of programs and institutions delivering instruction in English is expected to grow. While this is advantageous for attracting international students and collaborating with global universities, is it necessarily beneficial for Korean students?

Human cognition is deeply tied to language. For advanced intellectual engagement, higher education in one's native language is indispensable.

In disciplines such as philosophy, literature, history, and law—fields that rely heavily on nuanced linguistic expression and logical depth—learning in the mother tongue fosters far richer understanding and critical thinking. The same holds true for science and engineering. Japan, for instance, has historically translated and indigenized Western knowledge into Japanese since the Meiji era. This tradition continues today, allowing the country to conduct the majority of scientific education and research in Japanese, while still maintaining its status as a global scientific powerhouse.

English may be the key that opens global doors, but it can also become a lock that shuts out the development of a robust academic culture in the native language.

Lessons from Europe
European countries have also grappled with this dilemma. France enacted the Toubon Law, which mandates the use of French in public educational institutions. Germany has institutionalized a bilingual model, maintaining both German- and English-medium tracks. In contrast, the Netherlands has experienced internal backlash, as the widespread adoption of English in academia has been blamed for the weakening of Dutch-language scholarship and cultural transmission.

A Bilingual Strategy: Proposing a Korean Model for Higher Education
If South Korea opens its higher education market, it must ensure that internationalization through English-medium instruction is pursued in tandem with the cultivation of a Korean-language academic ecosystem. This is not simply a linguistic concern—it is a matter of intellectual sovereignty and cultural continuity. The Korean-language academic tradition embodies the historical and discursive legacy of Korean society. It is the medium through which Korean modes of thought and expression have been refined and transmitted across generations. If this ecosystem is weakened, what is lost is not merely a language of instruction, but the very foundation of scholarly identity and independence.

To address this, I propose a “dual-track model for Korean higher education” that strategically balances Korean and English instruction based on the level and nature of study.

For example, undergraduate education—which primarily involves acquiring well-established knowledge—should include a balanced mix of Korean and English. Graduate-level programs, particularly in the natural sciences and engineering where global collaboration is essential, may adopt English as the dominant language of instruction. At the same time, policies must provide financial and institutional incentives for producing textbooks and academic publications in Korean, which are currently undervalued. This is critical to ensuring that the Korean academic ecosystem is not marginalized but sustained and strengthened.

Overcoming the Challenges of Educational Reform: Vision and Roadmap
Education in Korea remains a deeply sensitive and politically charged issue. Despite the ongoing public discourse and numerous reform attempts over the years, structural transformation in higher education has been slow and insufficient. There are several key reasons for this inertia.

First, South Korea's higher education market remains highly closed. Although the establishment of foreign university branches is legally permitted, in practice, they face significant regulatory hurdles—such as strict Ministry of Education approval processes, recognition of foreign degrees, and land acquisition issues. Furthermore, the policy culture surrounding higher education remains rigid and bureaucratic, treating education more as a subject of administrative control than as a domain of institutional autonomy.

Second, there is a lingering perception that attracting foreign universities may weaken domestic institutions. However, international collaboration—including joint degrees, foreign branch campuses, and research partnerships—can serve as a catalyst for innovation and mutual enhancement between local and international institutions.

Third, there is a lack of societal consensus and public discourse on higher education reform. Unlike short-term, results-driven policies, educational reform is long-term and complex. The diversity of stakeholders involved and the sensitivity of the topic make it politically difficult to act decisively.

For these reasons, it is essential that the Korean government articulate a clear and compelling vision for higher education reform, supported by a detailed roadmap. This is precisely why I am writing this article. Once the broad direction is set, a dedicated think tank—free from vested interests and singularly focused on national educational reform—should be tasked with developing and executing a long-term, strategic plan. Our goal must be to transform the current education system, which has produced numerous social distortions, into one of the world’s most exemplary higher education models. For a nation that has thrived by investing in human capital, the absence of a world-class education system is an unacceptable contradiction.

Education as National Strategy: Reform Is Not Optional—It Is Imperative
There is one final issue that must be emphasized in any discussion on higher education reform.

South Korea’s public investment in higher education as a percentage of GDP falls significantly below the OECD average and lags far behind global competitors. Combined with prolonged tuition freezes, this has placed enormous financial pressure on universities. Moreover, the lack of autonomy and underfunding have made it increasingly difficult for institutions to attract top talent or maintain competitive research infrastructures. Considering that higher education is the engine of national development, such underinvestment constitutes a form of structural self-harm.

Excessive government regulation further hampers institutional autonomy and innovation. From curriculum design to faculty hiring and budget execution, state control intrudes on areas that should be left to the discretion of universities. By contrast, advanced countries treat universities not as “subjects of management” but as “responsible autonomous institutions,” striking a balance between autonomy and accountability. In the U.S., U.K., and Germany, the government takes a principle-based approach to funding and evaluation while minimizing direct intervention. Korea, too, must transition toward this model.

Strategic openness and institutional autonomy are not optional—they are essential for enhancing the global competitiveness of Korean higher education and resolving the broader societal challenges that stem from its current dysfunctions. Korea has navigated numerous crises and risen to join the ranks of advanced nations. With few natural resources, it has built its success on the strength of its human capital.

For Korea, building a globally competitive higher education system is not a luxury—it is a strategic necessity.

 
출처 : Chonnam Tribune(http://tribune.cnumedia.jnu.ac.kr)