Soongsil University, Jeonbuk National University, and nine other institutions have received "university accreditation" certifying the quality of their higher education. However, despite the program entering its fourth cycle, eight universities still failed to meet the accreditation standards, highlighting the ongoing need for quality management in higher education.
The Korean Council for University Education, which oversees the Korean University Evaluation Institute, announced the final results of the "2026 University Accreditation" evaluation on June 30.
Among the universities that applied for evaluation this year, a total of 11, including Catholic Kwandong University, National Gunsan University, Dongguk University, Jeonbuk National University, and Hongik University, received final "accreditation" status. In contrast, six universities received "conditional accreditation," while two were rated as unaccredited, the lowest classification.
The "university accreditation" system, based on the Higher Education Act, evaluates whether universities meet basic requirements as educational institutions and are continuously improving the quality of their education. The results of this accreditation are crucial as they serve as a basis for various government financial support programs.
The fourth cycle evaluation, which began this year and runs from 2026 to 2030, is based on four evaluation areas and 24 criteria. The four areas include: ▲ university management and social responsibility ▲ curriculum and teaching-learning ▲ faculty and staff ▲ student support and facilities.
To achieve final "accreditation," universities must meet the standards in all four evaluation areas. Accredited universities maintain their status for five years. If a university meets the criteria in three areas but receives conditional approval in one, it is granted "conditional accreditation," which is valid for two years. After one year, the university must undergo a supplementary evaluation based on its improvement efforts. Universities that do not meet any criteria are classified as unaccredited and must reapply for evaluation in the next cycle.
To enhance the objectivity and reliability of this evaluation, the institute appointed seven evaluation teams and 35 evaluators to conduct thorough procedures, including written assessments, on-site evaluations, result verifications, and handling of appeals from universities.
Since the first cycle of evaluations began in 2011, the emergence of universities receiving conditional or unaccredited status even after 15 years into the fourth cycle has raised concerns among evaluators.
A representative from the Korean University Evaluation Institute expressed disappointment in a conversation with Aju Economy, stating, "Despite the criteria and indicators not being significantly raised, it is regrettable that universities are still receiving conditional or unaccredited statuses." The representative pointed out persistent issues, noting that some universities have struggled to maintain the required ratio of full-time faculty due to a surge in international students, which has negatively impacted their evaluation results.
Additionally, the lack of expertise at the university administration level was identified as a major cause. The representative remarked, "Universities need to enhance their expertise for continuous management. However, when evaluation personnel are transferred to other departments, new staff must start from scratch to understand their roles, leading to a disruption in the accumulation of expertise. It is unfortunate that the management of quantitative indicators collapses with personnel changes."
The Korean Council for University Education, which oversees the Korean University Evaluation Institute, announced the final results of the "2026 University Accreditation" evaluation on June 30.
Among the universities that applied for evaluation this year, a total of 11, including Catholic Kwandong University, National Gunsan University, Dongguk University, Jeonbuk National University, and Hongik University, received final "accreditation" status. In contrast, six universities received "conditional accreditation," while two were rated as unaccredited, the lowest classification.
The "university accreditation" system, based on the Higher Education Act, evaluates whether universities meet basic requirements as educational institutions and are continuously improving the quality of their education. The results of this accreditation are crucial as they serve as a basis for various government financial support programs.
The fourth cycle evaluation, which began this year and runs from 2026 to 2030, is based on four evaluation areas and 24 criteria. The four areas include: ▲ university management and social responsibility ▲ curriculum and teaching-learning ▲ faculty and staff ▲ student support and facilities.
To achieve final "accreditation," universities must meet the standards in all four evaluation areas. Accredited universities maintain their status for five years. If a university meets the criteria in three areas but receives conditional approval in one, it is granted "conditional accreditation," which is valid for two years. After one year, the university must undergo a supplementary evaluation based on its improvement efforts. Universities that do not meet any criteria are classified as unaccredited and must reapply for evaluation in the next cycle.
To enhance the objectivity and reliability of this evaluation, the institute appointed seven evaluation teams and 35 evaluators to conduct thorough procedures, including written assessments, on-site evaluations, result verifications, and handling of appeals from universities.
Since the first cycle of evaluations began in 2011, the emergence of universities receiving conditional or unaccredited status even after 15 years into the fourth cycle has raised concerns among evaluators.
A representative from the Korean University Evaluation Institute expressed disappointment in a conversation with Aju Economy, stating, "Despite the criteria and indicators not being significantly raised, it is regrettable that universities are still receiving conditional or unaccredited statuses." The representative pointed out persistent issues, noting that some universities have struggled to maintain the required ratio of full-time faculty due to a surge in international students, which has negatively impacted their evaluation results.
Additionally, the lack of expertise at the university administration level was identified as a major cause. The representative remarked, "Universities need to enhance their expertise for continuous management. However, when evaluation personnel are transferred to other departments, new staff must start from scratch to understand their roles, leading to a disruption in the accumulation of expertise. It is unfortunate that the management of quantitative indicators collapses with personnel changes."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.