[The Editors' Verdict] The Ministry of Education Tells Students to Settle for Substandard Meals

The list of development fund donors at a prestigious private university in Seoul includes Professor C as a contributor of over 5 million won. Last year, he donated 20% of the salary he received as an outside director of a large corporation to the development fund. It was not a voluntary donation. This university requires professors to agree to donate 20% of their external concurrent income, such as from outside directorships, in order to get approval stamps on their concurrent employment forms. It is said that many of the approximately 200 professors on the development fund list are in similar situations. Although it can be seen as a fee for the stamp, Professor C said he understands it because the school's finances are so poor due to frozen tuition fees.

It is not just this school. Many universities, including Seoul National University, collect a portion of professors' external concurrent income as donations. It is like companies taking operating funds from employees' side incomes because they lack money.

This spring, many universities participating in the "1000 won school meal" program, which politicians also used for show, sighed that they cannot expand the scale or sustain it for long. The reason is that they do not have the capacity to continue paying the school’s burden of about 1500 won per meal.

All of this has happened because university tuition fees have been frozen for 15 years. Since the tuition freeze began in 2009, every administration, whether progressive or conservative, has suppressed tuition fees. The revised Higher Education Act of 2010 even capped tuition increases at no more than 1.5 times the average inflation rate of the previous three years. Even if universities raise tuition according to the law, they face penalties. If they increase tuition even by a small amount, they are excluded from government financial support programs and national scholarships. This year, only 11% of all universities nationwide dared to raise tuition slightly. The remaining 89% chose to avoid the government's pressure.

The government also suppresses prices in the healthcare industry. Since the introduction of health insurance in 1977, the government has set medical fees for hospitals at a loss. Hospitals try to compensate for losses by finding loopholes in fee regulations. They increase sales by accepting as many customers (patients) as possible (low margin, high volume) and add expensive non-insurance items such as private single rooms (increasing average revenue per customer).

The regulation on university tuition is much stronger, leaving no room to escape. Unlike in healthcare, universities cannot dream of increasing income through low margin, high volume or raising average revenue per customer. The number of customers (admission quotas) is controlled by the Ministry of Education, and due to the nature of educational institutions, additional charges beyond tuition are impossible. As universities run out of investment capacity, students receive education in overcrowded labs with outdated equipment. Professors, short on time even for thorough lecture preparation, are deployed to profit-oriented courses such as executive education programs.

Price controls on some products can benefit the entire country. For example, supplying industrial electricity cheaply weakens Korea Electric Power Corporation but boosts national manufacturing competitiveness. University tuition control is not like that. Universities become insolvent and national talent competitiveness declines. It is because you get what you pay for. University education is not compulsory education, yet the government forces university students to eat substandard food for 15 years through tuition freezes.

Minister of Education Lee Ju-ho has firmly stated that there will be no tuition discussions at least until next year. Then the next year’s parliamentary elections will pass quietly. The victims are the students who must continue to eat substandard food. Minister Lee was also the Minister of Education when the tuition cap system was introduced in 2010. He knows better than anyone the introduction, legalization, current situation, and aftermath of this system. He is the best person to resolve the tuition populism brought about by politicians who only care about immediate votes.