[South Korea's Education, Lost Its Way]⑨ Professor Park Dosun, Designer of the CSAT: "Make the CSAT Absolute Evaluation, Leave Selection to Universities" [Interview]

"CSAT Was Originally Meant to Measure Thinking Skills
Only the First Year Followed Its Intended Purpose"
"CSAT Should Be a Qualification Test, Shift to Absolute Evaluation"
"Universities Should Select and Be Responsible for Their Own Students"

The motto of the 1993 College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) was "No more memorization contests" and "Breaking away from rote memorization questions." The previous academic achievement test, which covered up to 17 subjects, was criticized as the main culprit of entrance exam malpractices that involved injecting fragmented knowledge. There were continuous criticisms that education was being submerged in memorization competition, and that it was unreasonable for the fate of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of examinees to be decided by a difference of just one or two questions.

Park Do-sun, an emeritus professor at Korea University (83), who played a key role in launching the CSAT, said, "The CSAT was originally designed to measure broad thinking ability and only to assess whether students have the ability to attend university lectures." Society's expectations were also high. At the time, major newspapers featured headlines on the front page such as "Non-curricular integrated testing, informal education" and "Reforming abnormal educational climates" regarding the CSAT.

However, Professor Park said, "The CSAT has only been conducted according to its original purpose once, in its first year."

Professor Park introduced the current CSAT after seven experimental evaluations from 1990 to 1992 during the Roh Tae-woo administration. Although there have been 13 detailed changes since then, the CSAT has been administered 32 times. However, it is practically true that it has never been operated in line with its original intent.

We met Professor Park, the "designer of the CSAT," who became a critic of the test he created, earlier this month at his office in Bundang, Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province. He said, "The CSAT must return to its original purpose," and added, "It should be used only as a qualification test to see if students have the ability to attend university classes, and it should be changed from a relative evaluation that ranks students to an absolute evaluation." He emphasized that through reforming the CSAT, "universities should select the talents they want on their own, and government involvement should be minimized." "Leaving student selection to university autonomy is the global standard," he said.

Below is a Q&A.

- How does the current CSAT compare to the previous academic achievement test?

▲ There has been no change from the use of short-answer questions to the method of administration. On the contrary, the number of subjects has increased, and the method of calculating rankings has become more complicated. The CSAT was introduced when former President Roh Tae-woo proposed an "aptitude test" to replace the academic achievement test as an election pledge. At that time, Minister of Education Jeong Won-sik, Seoul National University Professor Lee Young-duk, and I agreed to conduct it as an "aptitude test." We judged that the essential skill for university education was the "ability to listen well to lectures," so we selected language subjects. Universities focused on education with the goal of "elite training," and since logical thinking was necessary for this, mathematics was included as a means to assess reasoning ability.

Also, reflecting the demand that reading comprehension was necessary to look at university textbooks written in foreign languages, a foreign language subject was introduced. Thus, the initial plan for the CSAT was to test three subjects: language, mathematics, and foreign language. This was a significant reduction compared to the academic achievement test. However, the CSAT, which was originally intended to be used only as a reference for university admissions, was distorted into an "absolute standard," resulting in the same malpractices as with the academic achievement test. Except for the first year, the CSAT has never been conducted according to its original purpose.

- Why did the number of subjects increase again?

▲ When it was announced that only language, mathematics, and foreign language would be tested, scientific organizations protested. They emphasized "science as a national priority" and argued that basic scientific abilities should be measured. Although the president explained that "this is not a test to select talents," they were not persuaded. As a result, "science inquiry" was added to the mathematics section. Then the social studies sector protested, saying, "Inquiry studies start from social subjects, so why were they excluded?" The current CSAT subjects' framework?language, mathematics and inquiry (science inquiry and social inquiry), and foreign language?was established this way. There were protests from various fields such as home economics afterward. Only after emphasizing that the CSAT is not an all-purpose evaluation did it take shape. We persuaded them by saying that just as some people fail the SAT in the U.S. despite perfect scores, the CSAT is a test of that nature. Subjects have been added due to subject-based selfishness thinking that exclusion from CSAT subjects would lead to loss of competitiveness, and political intervention for votes. This is why the CSAT has changed with each administration.

Subjects were added due to subject-based selfishness aiming to assess "ability to attend university lectures," and the CSAT has been distorted by changes with each administration

- Is the current CSAT not a fair test?

▲ The standard of fairness presupposes validity. It is possible only when everyone accepts that standard. Suppose selection is made by measuring height. If you measure down to 0.001 mm and rank people, is that fair? People would immediately ask, "Why rank by height?" The CSAT is the same. It was created on the premise that the results would not be used as the sole criterion determining admission. For example, if the test was designed to grant university admission qualification to anyone scoring above 60 out of 100, those who scored above 60 would never have to take the test again. But since the test is used to decide admission, students keep taking it repeatedly. This is a serious problem.

Professor Park Do-sun, Honorary Professor at Korea University and known as the creator of the CSAT, is being interviewed by Asia Economy. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo

- Isn't "discrimination" (differentiation) also a necessary element in tests?

▲ The CSAT was originally designed to present integrated curriculum questions that anyone who has normally completed high school education could answer correctly. Seven experimental evaluations were conducted before the CSAT was implemented, and examinees said it was "too easy." Too many people answered correctly. The difficulty level is considered appropriate when students' scores follow a normal distribution statistically. However, public interest always focuses only on the distribution within the top ranks. The bottom 30% includes scores of zero or in the tens, but this group is ignored. The concept of discrimination itself is wrong. Discrimination should be about whether a student has the ability to study at university or not. This can be assessed by absolute evaluation. It doesn't matter if 100 people all get the answers right or wrong. But discrimination is used as a concept to rank students. Because of this, the CSAT inevitably became distorted.

- There are many voices criticizing side effects such as increased private education due to the CSAT.

▲ Blaming only the CSAT without discussing the entire entrance exam system is useless. Can we say that the CSAT caused an increase in repeat test-takers? Not really. Even during the Chun Doo-hwan administration, when the CSAT did not exist, there was a "three-time penalty system" (applied since the 1979 university entrance preliminary exam, deducting 3 points for those taking the exam three or more times). To discuss the long-term improvement direction of the CSAT, we need to consider the development prospects of the university admission system and look at what role the CSAT will have in the future.

- Do you mean the university admission system should be changed?

▲ Before that, how we view universities must come first. From a teleological perspective, universities are places to nurture talent. The so-called elite training was a valid concept when university entrance rates were below 30%. Now, 90% of high school graduates go to university. In such a society, universities should not be elite training institutions but places for universal education. They are places to cultivate general knowledge. From a functional perspective, universities are places to obtain good jobs. Our society tends to view universities from these two perspectives. However, from another viewpoint, universities are spaces that pursue learning itself. The reason education is conducted is simple: because it is enjoyable. In such cases, entrance exams cannot be the goal. But we rank education. We make it so that only a select few can enter. The overheating of private education also stems from this ranking system.

We also need to consider the relationship between secondary and higher education. Each has different educational purposes and curricula, but we place universities as the upper structure and middle and high schools as the lower structure. As a result, when the CSAT changes, the middle and high school curricula change. For example, Korean history. During the Park Geun-hye administration, Korean history was emphasized, and it was included in the CSAT subjects before it was even fully covered in the curriculum. This phenomenon arises from fixing the university admission system with only entrance exams in mind.

Park Do-sun, a professor emeritus at Korea University known as the creator of the CSAT, is being interviewed by Asia Economy. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo

The CSAT should not be the sole criterion for university admission; it should be used only as a qualification requirement, allowing each university to select the talents they want, and reducing government roles in admissions

- How should the CSAT change?

▲ The current CSAT, which resembles the academic achievement test by subject, must change. This is because it evaluates content almost identical to the student record (student transcript). The nature of the CSAT should shift from a subject-based academic achievement test to a general aptitude test related to university admission, assessing universal abilities (or basic core abilities for creative education). This would also resolve the current unreasonable issue of EBS-linked questions. Furthermore, relative evaluation should be changed to absolute evaluation, and the results should be used only as data to see five levels or pass/fail, gradually increasing subjective questions. This means the CSAT results would be used only as qualification criteria.

- Are you suggesting giving universities autonomy in selection?

▲ There is no place with more autonomy than universities. The more the government intervenes in admissions, the more problems arise. Why keep interfering? Universities should select the talents they want on their own, and if problems arise, universities should bear responsibility. In the U.S., no one objects to universities not selecting perfect SAT scorers. It is university autonomy. More important than the "qualification exam" is how to use the CSAT, which has become a qualification test. If a university wants to select students through other methods besides the CSAT, it should request the Educational Evaluation Institute to evaluate the method, and the government should support such institutes to secure university autonomy. University autonomy is linked to finances, so government support is necessary. But this does not mean indiscriminate support. If universities request budgets related to talent selection, such as "budget for admission improvement," these should be reviewed and supported. Such planned budget spending is much more economical at the national level. Look at current private education expenses. Isn't that a national waste?

- What are the advantages if universities select autonomously?

▲ First, the annual controversy over "difficulty" would disappear. The current CSAT is a nationwide test, so complaints about discrimination and difficulty arise frequently. If university autonomy is strengthened, each school can create questions tailored to the talents they want, so there is no need to solve the most difficult problems from top to bottom. Second, the government's role in admissions can be reduced. Because universities are given the right to select talents and also bear responsibility, social costs can be reduced by avoiding the wasteful practice of changing education policies whenever side effects occur.

Of course, side effects from university autonomy may occur. But problems arise in any system. If some cases of abuse appear, they can be punished and prevented. There will be no need to overhaul education policies every year as now. Whether it is a written exam or enhanced interviews, universities should be given autonomy to select the talents they want, not just rank students.

- It seems inevitable that the current CSAT must change.

▲ The shift to absolute evaluation is an attempt to change the meaningless score discrimination of the CSAT into "ability discrimination." It is also necessary to maximize the use of student records. The current CSAT focuses all efforts on difficulty to maintain relative discrimination every year. If absolute evaluation is adopted, discussions about difficulty become meaningless. Continuing relative evaluation means emphasizing student ranking based on CSAT results, which means selecting students by ranking them in a line. However, it must be noted that CSAT scores do not necessarily distinguish students who should attend university. CSAT results only partially contribute to identifying basic academic abilities required for university admission.

- There is also much criticism of the multiple-choice guessing-style test.

▲ The biggest flaw of the CSAT is its multiple-choice format. To foster creative education, a shift to subjective tests should be considered. Adding subjective questions can compensate for the major weakness of the CSAT. Although scoring may be difficult, most countries implement this. It is also necessary to minimize errors by using a question bank for CSAT questions. If the CSAT changes to measure common basic abilities, even if the curriculum changes, it will be less sensitive. If the influence of the CSAT on admissions is minimized and competition decreases, question bank-based testing can gain momentum.

- Can entrance exam malpractices also be reduced?

▲ Although not the fundamental direction, if the CSAT is improved like this, private education expenses might decrease somewhat, and secondary education might be freer from entrance exam influences than now. I believe the unreasonable educational climate caused by excessive competition and ranking systems will also be partially improved.

About Professor Park Do-sun, Emeritus Professor at Korea University

Professor Park Do-sun (83) earned bachelor's and master's degrees in educational psychology from Korea University and a doctorate in educational methodology from the University of Pittsburgh in the U.S. In the late 1980s, during the Roh Tae-woo administration, he participated in the Education Policy Advisory Committee and worked on new entrance exam policies to supplement the problematic academic achievement test at the time. He played a leading role in introducing the current College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT), earning the nickname "designer of the CSAT."

The original form of the CSAT that Professor Park intended to introduce was an "aptitude test" measuring language ability and thinking skills. He initially envisioned the CSAT being used only as student evaluation data in university admissions, with selection autonomously conducted by each university through essays and interviews.

Professor Park served as the first president of the Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE), the CSAT's test administration body, from 1998 to 2000. He advised on education policies through the Roh Tae-woo, Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung, and Roh Moo-hyun administrations. He has served as the 36th president of the Korean Educational Society and the 8th president of the Educational Evaluation Society, making him a living legend in Korean education.