[Policy Pulse] Let’s Fix University Policies That Have Undermined Higher Education

In 2009, a cap was introduced limiting tuition increases to within 1.5% of the average inflation rate over the previous three years. This regulation was further tightened to 1.2% starting in 2025. The Ministry of Education excluded universities that raised tuition from being eligible for certain national scholarships. This is why, for nearly 16 years, most universities have been unable to increase tuition. Many universities have had to cut salaries, and improving the educational environment or investing in facilities has become nearly impossible. Meanwhile, consumer prices have risen by 1.7 times.

So, is tuition that has been stagnant for nearly 16 years still a burden? Let’s look at national scholarships. Up to the ninth income decile out of ten, households with a monthly income exceeding 8 million won can still receive them. There are also on-campus scholarships. Universities provide scholarships amounting to 10% of their tuition revenue. These on-campus scholarships are also tied to national scholarships, making it difficult to reduce them. One could argue that such a large amount of scholarship funding is only natural. But let’s be honest: In this structure, can genuine “higher” education truly take place? Can students receive a quality education, and can professors conduct meaningful research?

In any case, the government began to cover universities’ financial difficulties caused by tuition regulations with national funding. At the same time, university evaluations became more stringent. Starting with the Lee Myung-bak administration, the government designated universities as ineligible for financial support or student loans, with more than 50 universities selected in a single year at times. Under the Park Geun-hye administration, university evaluations, financial support, and enrollment reductions were directly linked. Of course, national funds should not be wasted. The issue is whether these measures are justified. Many well-known universities were included in these lists. Due to uniform evaluation standards, perfectly sound universities were stigmatized as failing institutions. The difficulties faced by already struggling universities only deepened.

The Ministry of Education’s regulations on universities have changed frequently. At one point, universities were told to strengthen general education, then to bolster industry-academia education. They were ordered to undergo comprehensive restructuring and disruptive innovation. Matters such as staff appointments, sabbaticals for professors, educational innovation organizations, and community service-which universities should manage themselves-were all included in accreditation evaluations. The number of government-funded projects increased, eventually leading to the creation of the Glocal Project, which provides 20 billion won annually. Even to the general public, some of the self-destructive and unrealistic plans submitted in the name of innovation seemed absurd or unfeasible. Many Glocal Projects, now in their third year, are facing significant difficulties in implementation.

So what has become of universities in the meantime? Even before, universities were quite similar, but as they began to align themselves with various evaluation criteria, they became even more alike. When artificial intelligence (AI) became popular, suddenly every university emphasized AI; when general education was highlighted, every university strengthened its general education programs. Industry-academia cooperation was also emphasized. Universities facing financial difficulties changed regulations and created new organizations to secure all these projects. It has been a long time since universities, which should focus on research and education, have been drained by such activities. Self-proclaimed experts have continued to label this as innovation.

This is my message to the Ministry of Education: If you truly want to save universities, start by reforming tuition and scholarship regulations. Boldly reduce special-purpose projects that have limited general financial support and university autonomy. No matter how much you want to implement other policies, take a break for now. In reality, the Ministry of Education does not need to tell universities to reduce enrollment, introduce interdisciplinary majors, promote industry-academia cooperation, or encourage regional university collaboration. These are matters universities can handle themselves. And let’s not forget: Over the years, the Ministry’s impatience for university reform has actually undermined the competitiveness of our universities.

Lee Hyukwoo, Professor at Paichai University (Chairman, Regulation Monitoring Committee, Good Regulation Citizens’ Forum)