1

Higher Education Issues in Korea

Based on HE as Public Goods and Private Commodities

12 Sep 2007

2

ContentsContents

I.I. Overview Overview

II.II. Status of Higher EducationStatus of Higher Education

III.III. Major IssuesMajor Issues

IV.IV. Government’s EffortsGovernment’s Efforts

3

I.I. Overview Overview about Koreaabout Korea

4

5

Economic developmentEconomic development

197

0

198

0

199

0

199

7

199

8

200

0

200

4Population (Millions) 32 38 43 46 46 47 48

GNI per capita (US$)

650 2,324

7,751

10,363

6,843

9,675

12,646

Unemployment rate (%) 4.4 5.2 2.4 2.6 6.8 4.1 3.5

Labor force (Millions) 10 14 19 21 21 22

23(200

3)

Labor force Participation

rate (%)47.6 59.0 60.0 62.2 60.5 60.7

61.4(200

3)

6

II. Status of II. Status of HEHE

7

8

School leavers choice 2002 School leavers choice 2002 (1990)(1990)

Graduation Graduation from Year from Year

12 12 Secondary Secondary

SchoolSchool

Graduation Graduation from Year from Year

12 12 Secondary Secondary

SchoolSchool

4 year Universities4 year Universities4 year Universities4 year Universities

2 year Jr. Colleges 2 year Jr. Colleges 2 year Jr. Colleges 2 year Jr. Colleges

18.1%(33.7%)

Post Grad StudyPost Grad StudyPost Grad StudyPost Grad Study

8.6% (7.7%) of

Graduates

56.4% (52.3%) of Graduates

Non-economic activity Non-economic activity populationpopulation

Non-economic activity Non-economic activity populationpopulation

WorkWorkWorkWork

9.7%(37.8%)

23.9%(11.7%)

54.3%(20.0%)

37.7% (48.2%) of Graduates

12.4% (7.4%) of

Graduates

25.0% (22.4%) of Graduates

31.1% (37.0%) of Graduates

9

Rapid Reduce of HS Rapid Reduce of HS GraduatesGraduates

From 2003, total number of high school graduates is smaller than college admission quota.

-> Survival game begins from small private universities located far from Seoul and less customized curricula institutions

10

yearAdmission

openings(A)High school

graduates(B)Difference

(B-A)Ratio(A/B)

1965 38,560 115,776 77,212 33.30%

1970 54,550 145,062 90,512 37.60%

1975 94,325 263,369 169,044 35.80%

1980 223,845 467,388 243,543 47.90%

1985 305,450 642,354 336,904 47.60%

1990 388,510 761,922 373,412 51.00%

1995 565,750 671,614 105,864 84.20%

1998 689,320 736,889 49,481 93.50%

2000 712,775 788,801 76,026 90.40%

2002 712,775 726,707 13,932 98.10%

2003 715,041 642,888 -72,153 111.20%

2005 715,041 611,713 -103,328 116.90%

2010 715,041 697,897 -17,714 102.40%

11

Public educational expenditures (% GDP)Public educational expenditures (% GDP)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

K-12 Higher Ed

KoreaOECD

 (Source : Education at a Glance, 2004)

12

Higher education sector is Higher education sector is divided intodivided into

the following segments:the following segments:Universities 174 universities (1.8 million enrolments each year) -> 37 public(including 11 teachers’ col., 137 private)

Polytechnics 18 Industrial Universities (200,000 enrolments) -> 7 public, 11 private 1 technical college (196 enrolments): public

Junior Colleges 158 junior colleges (900,000 enrolments) -> 16 public, 143 private

Others 1 Air & corr. University (300,000 enrolments): Public 17 Cyber Colleges & Universities (40,000 enrolments): all private

13

Governance of HEGovernance of HEMinistry of Education & Human Resources Development Responsible for policies related to human resources development

including school education, higher education, and lifelong learning

Headed by Deputy Prime Minister: Super-Ministry status, the national coordinating authority for human resources development (HRD)

National & Public Universities Strongly regulated by Central Government Almost Presidents were elected by Professors, but restricted

autonomy University finance under MOE account system

Educational Policy Advisory Councils Regulated by by Central Government based on Various Policies

such as BK21, NURI, evaluating and other financial supports Board of Trustees is the Legal Ruling Body of PU University Council was enacted by Revised Private School Law

Since 2006

14

Financial and human resources Financial and human resources invested in HEinvested in HE

• Source : Education at a Glance (OECD Indicators, 2004) (PPP $)

KoreaKorea OECDOECD USUS JapanJapan

GDP per capita(’01)GDP per capita(’01) $ $ 15,91615,916

$ $ 26,68526,685 $ 35,179$ 35,179 $ 26,636$ 26,636

Expenditure per Expenditure per student(’01)student(’01) $ 6,618 $ 6,618 $ $

12,31912,319 $ 22,234$ 22,234 $11,164 $11,164

Public expenditure on Public expenditure on HE as a percentage of HE as a percentage of GDPGDP

0.50.5 1.31.3 1.51.5 0.50.5

Ratio of students to Ratio of students to teaching staffteaching staff - - 15.415.4 17.117.1 11.211.2

Survival rates Survival rates in tertiary in tertiary educationeducation

Type A Type A **

7979 7070 6666 9494

Type Type B**B** 7474 7373 6262 8686

15

Earnings differentialsEarnings differentials

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998year

perc

ent below middle

junior collegeabove university

16

III. Major IssuesIII. Major Issues

17

MOE at Risk!!!MOE at Risk!!!Presidential Candidates equivocally say “MOE should be reformed” A. “Central power of MOE in primary and

secondary education should be handed over local education authorities”

B. “Universities should be autonomous from the control of MOE”

C. “Policy-making function in education should be transferred to newly established National Commission on Educational Policy”

D. Then, MOE for what?

18

College admission system College admission system dominates K-12 educationdominates K-12 education

Dominance of prestigious institutions Ministers graduated from ‘SKY University’: 68.4%, 288/421(1980~2002) Chief public prosecutors graduated from ‘SNU’ : 72.5%(2002) CEO graduated from ‘SKY University’ : 39.8%, 1,703/4,281(2002) Congressmen graduated from ‘SKY University’ : 57.1%, 156/273(2002)

Severe competition to get into prestigious colleges : “exam hell”

Teachers: Pressure to focus on test-taking skills rather than life skills Students: Learning burden, lack of motivation to learn Parents : Private costs of education (2% of GDP on private tutoring)

Policies to subdue excess competition Ban on private tutoring by Law(1980-2002) High School Leveling Policy for last 30 years Debate between egalitarianism and elitism

19

Relative performance of HE is not as good as E&SERelative performance of HE is not as good as E&SE

PISA 2003 2nd in total

rank, 1st in problem solving

abilities, 2nd in reading, 3rd in math, 4th in science 6,341

9,744

13,669

16,638

23,366

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Science Citation Index

20

Extent of specialization is too lowExtent of specialization is too lowNo differences among universities monotonous system the Number of programs per university : 38 (’90) 57 (’04)

Excess supply in graduate students Unemployment rate (engineering) : 9.8%(’97) 16.6%(’03) 139 of 200 4-year universities offer doctoral degree

53%53% 19%19% 20%20% 8%8%

44%44% 4%4% 13%13% 39%39%

AssociateAssociate Bachelor Bachelor Master Master DoctorateDoctorate

KoreaKorea

U SU S

21

Stakeholders are disconnectedStakeholders are disconnected

Limited university-industry partnership Low mobility between academia and business University portion of industry's R&D investment: 2.4%(’00) → 1.7% (’03) (MOST, ‘04)

Low commercialization of university-based researchs Patent share (90~’01) : universities 0.5%, companies 78.8%,

research institutes 2.9%, individuals 17.8%

Un-coordinated financial support to universities Duplication of funding for the same purpose by several line m

inistries

22

HE is not prepared for an aging populationHE is not prepared for an aging population

18%

37%

18% 19%

30%

36%32%

25%

50%48%46%

25%

1995 2000 2010 2020

15-29 30-54 Over 55

23

Nor is it matched up to a structural Nor is it matched up to a structural change in the economychange in the economy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1970 1980 1990 1995 1998 2000 2003year

%

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing

Mining & Manufacturing

Service and Others

24

IV. Government’s IV. Government’s EffortsEfforts

25

1.1. Corporatizing National UnivsCorporatizing National Univs

26

2. Quality Assurance and 2. Quality Assurance and External PressureExternal Pressure

Introduction of a new HE quality assurance system External review of institutional performance Overhaul the quality assurance system including the accreditation a

nd certification process Financial provisions aligned with institutional evaluations Create a buffer body(New Quality Assurance Agency) between gover

nment and universityDisclosure of information Data on key inputs: PT ratio, unit expenditure, occupancy/ enrollment rate, etc. Outcome measures: persistence/graduation rate, employment rate,

reputation of graduates, customer satisfaction, researchs, etc.

Financial incentives for reform and restructuring Subsidies linked to M&A among institutions

27

Policy background - Monotonous system: increasing number of

programs per university from 38 in 1990 to 57 in 2004

- Excess supply in graduate students: 139 of 200 4-year universities offer doctoral degree

- Serious mismatch between jobs and majors: university (39.4%), Junior college(49.1%) Policies for promoting specialization by each university

3. Differentiation(specialization) of 3. Differentiation(specialization) of HEHE

28

Decision of Specialization Index by the National Committee of HRD in 2006. Applying the Specialization Index in selecting universities for the project supporting “Specialization of HE in the Metropolitan Area” in 2007Applying the Specialization Index in allocating HE budgets from more than 6 Ministries from 2008

3. Differentiation(specialization) of 3. Differentiation(specialization) of HEHE

29

Policy background - Need for strengthening

international competitiveness in a knowledge economy

- Promoting cross border HE as a response to globalization

Policies for promoting Internationalization of HE

4. Internalization of HE4. Internalization of HE

30

Decision of National strategic plan for Internationalization of HE by the National Committee of HRD in 2006.

- Selection of 6 areas (in 2007, changing into 7 areas) such as Student exchange, academics and researcher exchange; attracting overseas HE institutions and program; recruiting overseas students; exporting HE service; promoting the environment of internationalization; constructing infrastructure for the support of internationalization  

5 year national plan(’07~’11) for Internationalization

4. Internalization of HE4. Internalization of HE

31

5. Reform of univ admission system5. Reform of univ admission system

NOWNOW 20082008

SAT (Scholastic SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test)Aptitude Test)

Test scoresTest scores

Annual Annual preparation of preparation of

test itemstest items

Ranking (1-9th Ranking (1-9th grade)grade) Item poolsItem pools

GPA (HS grade GPA (HS grade point average)point average)

Letter Grade Letter Grade (A,B,C..)(A,B,C..)

Raw Scores Raw Scores

with Mean and SDwith Mean and SD

InterviewInterview Less ImportantLess Important More important

Admission Admission based on based on residence, SES..residence, SES..

Small portionSmall portion More portionMore portion

32

““Three Don’t” Policy Three Don’t” Policy

Three hot issues among government, universities, and the publicThere have been kind of controversial issues challenging each stake-holders for university education“Three Don’t”: MOE prohibit univs’ own entrance exam, ranking high school for selecting students, and entrance by donation.

33

1. Universitys’ own entrance examination: It has been long time history for the government to control university entrance examination by managing SAT with some guide lines of what portion should be counted on for selecting students. However SNU and major private universities have been looking for alternative ways of selecting their students based upon their own criteria, mainly because they are looking for good candidates.

34

2. Ranking High school for using GPA: The government has wanted to recover the high school education, which has been strongly influenced by university entrance examination run by the government. From the government's stand point, it would be a big risk to hand over the authority of issuing the guide line to private universities, because the Korean government believes that introducing the high school record for the university entrance examination would be the best way to return deterioated high school education to normal. However, major private universities are strongly against the policy because they just distrust the student record, simple because they distrust the record and they don't think it is hard to make them to difference among applicants. So simply stated, they just give them non-credits.

35

3. Personal endowment(donation) for entrance: Major private universities are among the  strong advocators for the issue because they think they are good enough to attract more endowment and they argue the money will be used for improving the quality of university education by recruiting distinguished faculties and reinvesting the money for improving physical condition for teaching and learning.

36

1st Phase Brain Korea 21 (1999-2005) Goals: 1) to develop a world class R&D Manpower;

2) to reform university education and R&D Funding based on “performance contracts”: Invest

$1.3billions for 7 years(1999-2005) Major outputs:

• No of BK21 science & tech SCI-level papers: 3,765(1998) → 7,281(2005)

• SCI national ranking : 16th(1998) → 12th (2005) • No of doctors in science & tech(1999~2005): 6,602• Quality improvement as indicated by the average

Impact Factor per article : 1.9(1999) → 2.43(2005)

6. Funding for Quality: 6. Funding for Quality: Brain Korea 21 (BK21) Brain Korea 21 (BK21)

ProjectProject

37

2nd Phase of BK21 (2006-2012) Building on the successful features of BK21 and

scaling up “Selection and Concentration” on a few key areas Strengthen industry-university partnerships Goal(2012) : - Nurture 10 top research-oriented

universities in key fields - Join the world’s top ten rank in terms of SCI-paper

publication - Become one of the world’s top ten advanced

countries in terms of technology transfer from university to industry (10% in 2004→20% by 2012)

Budget : US$ 290 million per year, $2.3 billion in total

6. Funding for Quality: 6. Funding for Quality: Brain Korea 21 (BK21) Brain Korea 21 (BK21)

ProjectProject

38

NURI Project (2004-2008) Goal: Capacity building of regional universities to promote

innovation and HRD at regional level Target: Universities located outside the Seoul metropolitan

area Budget: US$ 260M per year, $1.3B in total Achievements

Rate of faculty provision: 65.1%(‘04) →77.5%(’05) → 82.5%(‘06) Rate of freshman enrollment : 96.6%(‘04) →100%(’05) → 100%(‘06) Rate of graduate employment : 60.2%(‘04) →66.5%(’05) → 68.1%(‘06) On-site training at major companies : 20,000 trainees Local university restructuring : reduced 12,026 student quotas 

7. Funding for Equity: 7. Funding for Equity: NURINURI

((New Universities for Regional New Universities for Regional Innovation)Innovation)

39

 Issues Government’s

policy Universities

1. Corporatization Laws was enactedPublic Univs: Pro & Con Private: Pro

2. Quality Assurance

New QAA is pending at National Assembly

Pro & Con

3. DifferentiationImplementing with funding

Competing for funding

4. InternationalizationImplementing with funding

Different stages by universities

5. Entrance examLooking for diverse criteria: SAT, GPA, Special talent

More autonomy by major private univsRespect govt's policy by public univs except major univs

5-1. GPA(HS)expanding more portion of GPA

Distrusted by private universities

5-2. Donation for entrance

prohibiting from introducing

Strong support by major private univs

6. Funding for the quality

 BK 21(1st and 2nd) Competing for funding

7. Funding for equity(RD and RI)

NURI Competing for fuding

40

감사합니다 .

Thank You !