Changing Status of Korean Public Universities

Korea’s flagship public university, Seoul National University (SNU), has recently obtained what their managers saw as an important victory. Legal incorporation, and independence from the Korean civil service. This will come into effect in 2012, following the passage of a bill legalizing the incorporation on 9 December 2010,

Some English language sources:

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/12/117_77738.html

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/yhedit/2010/12/09/31/5100000000AEN20101209008700315F.HTML

The change is expected, according to some commentators, to fuel the academic competitiveness of SNU. The goal being to make it a ‘world-class’ university (SNU had reached as high as 49 on the Times Higher Educational global ranking, but it seems to have slipped out of the top 100 again). The university will be able to pay ‘World renowned’ professors more (what the value of this is in terms of academic competitiveness is uncertain). And to engage in for profit activities. In brief, SNU shall be free to treat parts of academia as business pursuits.

Note that this is not the utter privatization of the university. It will continue to be financed by the Korean taxpayers just as it is now.

Not everyone shares in the triumph. The bill has been passed over the objections of opposition law makers, the majority of SNU students, and the majority of national university academics in Korea (I was not polled).

Students object that tuition may rise. Professors also object, perhaps because of discomfort over a much more competitive academic world – and one where their pay is closely calibrated to their performance.

(It’s unclear on what grounds performance will be evaluated, but I’m guessing that publications in the Thompson-Reuters index journals will be crucial. Korean universities take this to be the gold standard for academic research. This is a very limited standard of academic excellence, and often a misleading one; however, Thompson-Reuters has been remarkably successful at lobbying for it. I’m unsure how important other publications, say books, or teaching excellence will turn out to be.)

But the objections are not limited to self-interest. The idea that the university can pursue profitable enterprises makes students and professors worried, I think legitimately, that arts and humanities subjects will be neglected. Even scientists will have to watch out, as colleagues in the UK can attest, since much science (theoretical physics for instance) has few short-term business pay offs. Some professors, students and administration officials have gone so far as to claim the research at SNU will be ‘poisoned’. While this language may be strong, I think it perfectly reasonable to imagine that some research will be distorted, and that teaching may cease to be a primary concern for many professors. Again, the course of events in the United Kingdom informs my speculation. To say the least, I am uncomfortable with the idea of universities as ‘for-profit’ enterprises.

I’m also concerned that Korean taxpayers will still be asked to foot the bill for SNU. This isn’t a problem if the university remains a largely public enterprise and continues to provide education as a public good. Now I support public universities, and think university education should be a public good. Access to high quality education for students who cannot afford private universities is a social goal to which I’m committed. This access may not be threatened by the incorporation of SNU, but students think it is (see below).

The situation changes if the university becomes an effectively private enterprise. The ramifications of this may be troublesome. Were tuition at SNU to rise anywhere near private university fees, and were the university pursuing private profits concurrently, then tax payers will be funding effectively private institutions. The logic of funding public goods will no longer apply, and, further, the tax payers will be providing SNU with a serious competitive advantage against Korea’s private universities. I don’t think Korean tax payers would remain oblivious to this situation. If these changes occur, I’d anticipate the kind of pressure seen in America and England for the reduction in public university funding. Why should I pay taxes for SNU when my kids are at a private school, or why should I pay taxes + expensive tuition for SNU?

Where SNU leads, other Korean public universities follow. Already, Kyungpook National University (KNU), my university, intends to pursue incorporation.

Naturally, I’m a little concerned about what this may entail for me. It will change considerably the nature of my position. There terms and conditions of my current job were quite important for me when I decided to take the leap and start working in Korea. One of the things that worries me is that private universities (and other public universities) tend to avoid giving foreign professors permanent posts. My current job is tenure track, so while it isn’t permanent yet, it is supposed to become so. I'm not sure if this will soon be up in the air.

At the same time, I see a lot of opportunity here. I’ve been trained up in an academic system where regular research is stressed. While I have serious reservations about some ways in which incentivizing research might be implemented, I see this as a good thing. And depending how the pay system works out, I could end up much better financially than I currently am.

Beyond these personal concerns, I’m also interested in what this will entail for teaching. If the promise of global standard universities is realized, it could mean a more diverse student body. But it could also mean a more hard-done student population. I could have the opportunity to teach innovative research led classes, or I may be constrained in teaching what is believed to sell. Time will tell.

But it is also imperative that I find out more about the specifics of the incorporation, the new form of university administration that will be instituted afterwards, and the scope of their independence from governmental oversight. Right now there is a lack of clear information and communication on these changes, and that needs to change.