The Lee Jae-myung administration's national project, known as the 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative, has selected three universities—Pusan National University, Chonnam National University, and Chungnam National University—as the first recipients of substantial government support. This large-scale project will allocate approximately 70 billion won (about $60 million) annually to each university over the next five years, drawing significant attention from the academic community.
However, as the government intensifies its focus on developing regional national universities, concerns and criticisms have emerged from both inside and outside the education sector. Critics argue that the original goal of educational reform—transforming regional national universities into world-class research and education hubs—has been overshadowed by the overarching political and administrative logic of the '5 Extremes 3 Specialties' national balanced development initiative.
The decisive factors for the selection of Pusan National University, Chonnam National University, and Chungnam National University in this first evaluation were their strong regional collaboration structures and strategic specialization. Pusan National University solidified its status as a leading regional university by leveraging the robust industrial infrastructure of the southeastern region, particularly in marine, shipbuilding, and aerospace sectors. Chonnam National University combined its plans for administrative integration in Gwangju and Jeonnam with the attraction of the SK semiconductor ecosystem, while Chungnam National University secured policy credibility by presenting a clear roadmap through collaboration with KAIST and local governments. Their bold academic restructuring, including the establishment of a dedicated AI college, also caught the attention of evaluators.
In contrast, the six other national universities that were not selected are experiencing significant shock and repercussions. Analysts suggest that a common misstep among these institutions was their tendency to follow others and present lackluster proposals. For instance, Jeonbuk National University highlighted future mobility and AI development through a partnership with Hyundai Motor, but its efforts remained limited to a non-binding memorandum of understanding. It failed to differentiate itself in the semiconductor and AI sectors, which were already dominated by other universities. Similarly, Gangwon National University reportedly relied on existing administrative achievements of 'one national university per province' and produced a plan that lacked distinctiveness. Kyungpook National University, despite early claims in the semiconductor field, lost its competitive edge in the regional competition for large-scale corporate investments in Gwangju and Jeonnam.
As the remaining national universities prepare for the second and third rounds of evaluations, they must seek differentiated strategies that go beyond merely aligning with local industries. They need to ensure that their unique research capabilities and rigorous academic restructuring are at the forefront of their specialization efforts. The six universities that did not succeed must confront their realities and engage in thorough self-reflection. They should abandon already saturated fields, such as marine and aerospace at Pusan National University or semiconductors at Chonnam and Chungnam National Universities, and instead focus on developing unique advantages, such as Jeonbuk National University's potential in agricultural biotechnology by leveraging the region's top agricultural research infrastructure.
However, beyond the self-reflection of the unsuccessful universities, a more fundamental and serious issue lies in the government's evaluation practices and policy direction. Each selected university will receive up to 400 billion won (approximately $340 million) in public funding over five years. Yet, a closer examination of these institutions raises questions about whether this truly constitutes educational reform. Chonnam National University has faced police investigations over allegations of misappropriating funds from the RIS project and received institutional warnings for improper budget usage in a recent comprehensive audit. Chungnam National University received a failing D grade in the evaluation of its Glocal University 30 implementation.
Without strict punitive verification of past project failures and misconduct, simply handing over large sums of money based on 'paper blueprints' and regional administrative frameworks could lead to bureaucratic moral hazard controversies.
Moreover, the deep-rooted self-preservation mentality among national university faculty, who seek to secure government funding without making necessary structural changes, combined with bureaucratic practices that politically allocate universities within the '5 Extremes 3 Specialties' framework, raises significant concerns. The original intent of the 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative was to break the hierarchy of universities in the metropolitan area and elevate the academic standards of regional institutions to match those of Seoul National University.
However, the reality is quite the opposite. A true 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative should not reduce universities to mere subcontractors for short-term workforce supply for local growth engines. Without enhancing academic excellence across humanities and basic sciences and implementing rigorous structural reforms, the financial redistribution based on the '5 Extremes 3 Specialties' framework is likely to end in a history of budgetary waste.
Additionally, the concentration of billions of won in funding to just three universities has led to a new hierarchy among national universities and poses a risk of neglecting the potential collapse of regional private universities under the guise of regional balanced development. If the current policy framework, which has devolved into a mere tool of industrial policy, is not fundamentally overhauled, the outcome will not be 10 Seoul National Universities, but rather 10 symbols of financial waste.
However, as the government intensifies its focus on developing regional national universities, concerns and criticisms have emerged from both inside and outside the education sector. Critics argue that the original goal of educational reform—transforming regional national universities into world-class research and education hubs—has been overshadowed by the overarching political and administrative logic of the '5 Extremes 3 Specialties' national balanced development initiative.
The decisive factors for the selection of Pusan National University, Chonnam National University, and Chungnam National University in this first evaluation were their strong regional collaboration structures and strategic specialization. Pusan National University solidified its status as a leading regional university by leveraging the robust industrial infrastructure of the southeastern region, particularly in marine, shipbuilding, and aerospace sectors. Chonnam National University combined its plans for administrative integration in Gwangju and Jeonnam with the attraction of the SK semiconductor ecosystem, while Chungnam National University secured policy credibility by presenting a clear roadmap through collaboration with KAIST and local governments. Their bold academic restructuring, including the establishment of a dedicated AI college, also caught the attention of evaluators.
In contrast, the six other national universities that were not selected are experiencing significant shock and repercussions. Analysts suggest that a common misstep among these institutions was their tendency to follow others and present lackluster proposals. For instance, Jeonbuk National University highlighted future mobility and AI development through a partnership with Hyundai Motor, but its efforts remained limited to a non-binding memorandum of understanding. It failed to differentiate itself in the semiconductor and AI sectors, which were already dominated by other universities. Similarly, Gangwon National University reportedly relied on existing administrative achievements of 'one national university per province' and produced a plan that lacked distinctiveness. Kyungpook National University, despite early claims in the semiconductor field, lost its competitive edge in the regional competition for large-scale corporate investments in Gwangju and Jeonnam.
As the remaining national universities prepare for the second and third rounds of evaluations, they must seek differentiated strategies that go beyond merely aligning with local industries. They need to ensure that their unique research capabilities and rigorous academic restructuring are at the forefront of their specialization efforts. The six universities that did not succeed must confront their realities and engage in thorough self-reflection. They should abandon already saturated fields, such as marine and aerospace at Pusan National University or semiconductors at Chonnam and Chungnam National Universities, and instead focus on developing unique advantages, such as Jeonbuk National University's potential in agricultural biotechnology by leveraging the region's top agricultural research infrastructure.
However, beyond the self-reflection of the unsuccessful universities, a more fundamental and serious issue lies in the government's evaluation practices and policy direction. Each selected university will receive up to 400 billion won (approximately $340 million) in public funding over five years. Yet, a closer examination of these institutions raises questions about whether this truly constitutes educational reform. Chonnam National University has faced police investigations over allegations of misappropriating funds from the RIS project and received institutional warnings for improper budget usage in a recent comprehensive audit. Chungnam National University received a failing D grade in the evaluation of its Glocal University 30 implementation.
Without strict punitive verification of past project failures and misconduct, simply handing over large sums of money based on 'paper blueprints' and regional administrative frameworks could lead to bureaucratic moral hazard controversies.
Moreover, the deep-rooted self-preservation mentality among national university faculty, who seek to secure government funding without making necessary structural changes, combined with bureaucratic practices that politically allocate universities within the '5 Extremes 3 Specialties' framework, raises significant concerns. The original intent of the 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative was to break the hierarchy of universities in the metropolitan area and elevate the academic standards of regional institutions to match those of Seoul National University.
However, the reality is quite the opposite. A true 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative should not reduce universities to mere subcontractors for short-term workforce supply for local growth engines. Without enhancing academic excellence across humanities and basic sciences and implementing rigorous structural reforms, the financial redistribution based on the '5 Extremes 3 Specialties' framework is likely to end in a history of budgetary waste.
Additionally, the concentration of billions of won in funding to just three universities has led to a new hierarchy among national universities and poses a risk of neglecting the potential collapse of regional private universities under the guise of regional balanced development. If the current policy framework, which has devolved into a mere tool of industrial policy, is not fundamentally overhauled, the outcome will not be 10 Seoul National Universities, but rather 10 symbols of financial waste.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.