The initiative to create '10 Seoul National Universities,' a key educational policy of the Lee Jae-myung administration, has gained traction, but a critical warning has emerged from its original architect. Professor Kim Jong-young of Kyung Hee University, who first introduced the concept and has been a leading voice in its public discourse, recently highlighted the structural limitations of the current government's approach in an interview with Aju Economy.
Professor Kim criticized the Education Ministry's current strategy, stating it deviates from the original intent of promoting balanced national development and alleviating admission bottlenecks. Instead, he argues, it fosters new hierarchies among regional national universities and exacerbates regional conflicts due to bureaucratic and political compromises. He emphasized the need for immediate legislative action to establish a 'Special Law for 10 Seoul National Universities' that guarantees substantial financial investment and governance innovation, moving away from short-term budgetary projects that could be discarded with a change in administration.
Controversy Over Selecting Three Universities for Support: 'Roadmap Must Be Presented This Year'
South Korea's higher education ecosystem is currently experiencing a severe bottleneck in power dynamics and creative authority. By 2025, all top 20 universities based on evaluation criteria will be concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area, where 86% of the country's top 1,000 companies and 80.7% of semiconductor production are located.
The decline in global competitiveness is also alarming. In the 2025 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), China placed 15 universities in the top 100 and 30 in the top 200, while South Korea managed only one university (Seoul National University) in the top 100 and three (Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and Sungkyunkwan University) in the top 200.
The initiative to create '10 Seoul National Universities' faced backlash after the Education Ministry announced on September 1 that it would prioritize support for three regional national universities: Pusan National University, Chonnam National University, and Chungnam National University. This decision led to significant criticism as these three universities would receive a total of 350 billion won (approximately $350 million) over five years, while the remaining six regional national universities were excluded. The exclusion of Kyungpook National University and Jeonbuk National University, which had received the highest academic excellence ratings, intensified local community backlash.
Professor Kim remarked, "Selecting only three out of nine regional national universities for concentrated support results in further stratification within these institutions. Ultimately, this policy has devolved from creating '10 Seoul National Universities' to merely establishing '4 Seoul National Universities'—Seoul National University and the three selected universities."
Although the Education Ministry has proposed a '3-6-9 strategy' to select three additional universities in 2027 and 2028, the lack of clarity regarding additional funding has failed to instill confidence in the market.
Professor Kim stated, "As policies are pursued without a clear roadmap, the feelings of discrimination and neglect in regions like Daegu, Gyeongbuk, Gyeongnam, Jeonbuk, Chungbuk, Gangwon, and Jeju are deepening. The Education Ministry must present a comprehensive roadmap by the end of 2026 and swiftly designate the six excluded regional national universities to restore public trust in the policy."
He also criticized the insufficient budget and the lack of expertise in policy oversight. According to the 2024 budget, the average educational expenditure per student at regional national universities is 25.4 million won, only 40% of Seoul National University's 63 million won. To raise this to 70% of Seoul National University's level, an additional annual budget of approximately 3.9 trillion won is needed, but the Education Ministry's budget increase for 2026 is only 477.8 billion won, or 15% of the original target.
Professor Kim noted, "The absence of experts who understand university policy within the Blue House and the Education Ministry has led to a lack of accurate advice to the president, exacerbating policy confusion. It is essential to recruit a group of university experts to enhance the expertise of the control tower and to develop a refined execution plan."
National Universities Limited by 'Public Institutions': Special Law Needed for 'Institutionalization'
Professor Kim identified the lack of a legal foundation as the most critical weakness of the current government policy. Seoul National University has been granted independent legal status through the 'Seoul National University Special Law' enacted in 2012, which provides broad autonomy in organization, personnel, and finances, along with stable financial support through a total grant system. In contrast, regional national universities lack legally defined status and are classified as general administrative institutions under the Education Ministry, subjecting them to bureaucratic control over everything from faculty allocation to budget execution.
The financial disparities are starkly evident in the accounts of industry-academia cooperation and development funds. For the 2024 budget, Seoul National University's operating revenue from industry-academia cooperation reached 996.1 billion won, while the average for regional national universities was only 205.2 billion won.
In terms of development fund revenue, Seoul National University recorded 415.1 billion won, while the average for regional national universities was approximately one-twentieth of that at 20.46 billion won. Notably, while Seoul National University reinvested 50.2 billion won from its development fund into research support, regional national universities spent an average of only 490 million won, widening the gap in research infrastructure.
To address this structural imbalance, Professor Kim emphasized the need to abandon short-term financial support projects from the Education Ministry and move towards 'institutionalization' through legislation. He stated, "Past initiatives like the CK Project, PRIME Project, and LINC Project disappeared as soon as administrations changed. The current initiative to create '10 Seoul National Universities' is also at risk of vanishing with the end of this administration due to its lack of legal grounding. Therefore, a two-track strategy to transition from 'project-based' to 'institutionalization' must be implemented within the next two years."
He drew a clear distinction from the proposed 'National University Law,' stating, "The National University Law encompasses all 39 national universities, including regional national universities, national universities of education, and others, which cannot guarantee equal legal status and concentrated financial investment for regional national universities like Seoul National University. To achieve specific national strategies such as dismantling the education hell, promoting balanced national development, and alleviating the real estate republic, a separate 'Special Law for 10 Seoul National Universities' must be enacted."
Proposal for Unified Corporation and Joint Admissions System Based on the UC Model: 'Break the Monopoly of Symbolic Capital'
The core model of Professor Kim's proposed 'Special Law for 10 Seoul National Universities' is inspired by the University of California (UC) system, a successful example of public higher education in the United States. Established through the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education and the Donahoe Act, the UC system has nurtured ten campuses, including Berkeley, UCLA, and San Diego, into world-class research universities, producing a total of 70 Nobel laureates and driving regional innovation ecosystems like Silicon Valley.
Professor Kim suggested that South Korea should establish a 'unified corporation (university integration network)' system encompassing Seoul National University and nine regional national universities through special legislation. While respecting the existing election process for individual campus presidents and university autonomy, he proposed creating a 'consolidated board of directors' comprising 20 to 25 members, including deputy-level officials from central ministries and internal and external experts, to oversee national resource allocation and regional specialization adjustments.
To enhance the research capabilities of the ten regional national universities, which currently have only half the number of faculty compared to the UC system (26,100), he called for a significant increase of 10,000 full-time faculty members, with each university adding 1,000.
As a bold alternative to break the entrenched hierarchy and admission bottlenecks, he proposed the introduction of 'unified university names' and a 'joint admissions management system.' Professor Kim noted, "Currently, only 0.5% of the school-age population in South Korea obtains a Seoul National University degree, leading to extreme competition for status. Just as the UC system awards degrees to 18.5% of the school-age population to alleviate monopolies, regional national universities should share branding in the format of 'Seoul National University-Region Name' (e.g., Seoul National University-Busan, Seoul National University-Jeonnam) to distribute the scarcity of symbolic capital."
If immediate consensus on sharing the Seoul National University name is challenging, he suggested considering a fallback option of assigning a unified name of 'Korea University-Region Name' to the nine regional national universities.
Additionally, he emphasized the need to amend Article 34 of the current Higher Education Act or include special provisions in the special law to implement a 'joint admissions system' for the ten universities, utilizing a delayed acceptance algorithm.
Finally, Professor Kim concluded, "By establishing a unified corporation, we can grant regional national universities the same level of autonomy and budget as Seoul National University. However, we must also implement strict performance evaluations and transparent internal and external control mechanisms, similar to the UC model, to balance autonomy in higher education with public accountability."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.