Before building 10 Seoul Nationals, reform the national universities first
Published: 21 May. 2025, 00:03
Updated: 21 May. 2025, 14:15
Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI
Chun In-sung
The author is social policy editor at the JoongAng Ilbo.
On May 12, the official kickoff day of the presidential campaign, Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung released a set of 10 key pledges. One in particular stood out: his proposal to “create 10 Seoul National Universities.” The initiative, designed to ease the capital-centered hierarchy of higher education in Korea, seeks to elevate nine regional flagship national universities — Gangwon, Gyeongbuk, Gyeongsang, Busan, Jeonnam, Jeonbuk, Jeju, Chungnam and Chungbuk — to the level of Seoul National University (SNU) through concentrated state investment.
![The main gate to Seoul National University in Gwanak District, southern Seoul is seen on May 21, 2024. [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/05/21/51b5c085-1f64-49d9-9dc1-4eaf8cda52ca.jpg)
This policy did not originate from within the Democratic Party. It is the latest iteration of a longstanding academic proposal known as the “National University Integration Network,” which has been championed for over two decades by scholars, superintendents and education activists committed to dismantling Korea’s rigid academic elitism. The party first adopted this initiative during the previous general election and now presents it again as a central plank in its education platform.
On May 15, People Power Party candidate Kim Moon-soo introduced a similar policy — promoting joint degree programs between SNU and regional flagship universities. This idea, too, was rooted in the integration movement and has recently been advanced by SNU’s faculty council. That both major parties now embrace variations of the same concept marks a watershed moment in Korean education discourse.
Having covered education policy in the early 2010s, I remember hearing early versions of this idea at civic forums and meetings among progressive education superintendents. But few expected the proposal to be accepted by both political camps. The integration network has evolved into more than a policy — it is a collaborative movement shaped through years of debate and experimentation. Inspired by a now-defunct proposal to abolish SNU during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, the idea gained traction in the early 2000s as civic groups and academics added layers of detail and refinement.
Lee’s current “10 SNUs” proposal is the most moderate version yet. According to Kim Jong-young, a Kyung Hee University professor and one of the original proponents, the initiative no longer advocates for the abolition of SNU’s undergraduate program or immediate joint admissions. Those elements remain possibilities but are not central to the current plan. The policy, outlined in Kim’s 2021 book "10 Seoul National Universities," instead emphasizes cooperation over dismantling.
It draws inspiration from the University of California (UC) system, which includes public universities such as UC Berkeley and UCLA. The goal is mutual growth and upward equalization among Korea’s national universities, not leveling down the prestige of SNU. The Democratic Party frames the pledge as a tool for regional development, placing it alongside initiatives like the completion of Sejong as Korea’s administrative capital.
![Oh Seok-hwan, Vice Minister of Education Ministry, address a tuition issue during a virtual meeting with the heads of Chungbuk and Chonnam National Universities on January 10. [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/05/21/77f536bf-35e8-4843-b653-d7ccc0101d47.jpg)
Advocates stress that the proposal offers a double solution: reducing educational inequality and preventing regional depopulation. If these regional universities are elevated in stature and resources, the argument goes, students will have less reason to flock to Seoul, and local economies will benefit from academic revitalization.
Still, questions about feasibility remain. Supporters often reduce the issue to a simple equation: disparities in academic performance are the result of unequal financial investment. Therefore, if the state channels SNU-level funding into nine regional universities, their research and teaching standards will rise to match. They point to examples such as KAIST, Postech, Unist and DGIST — science and engineering universities that rose rapidly on the back of heavy early-stage investment — as evidence.
But funding alone does not guarantee transformation. Unlike the regional universities, KAIST and its peers benefited from being new institutions with blank slates. They recruited driven and capable faculty, built distinctive research cultures and prioritized innovation. By contrast, the nine regional universities proposed for elevation have struggled to keep pace with Seoul’s private institutions in both research volume and quality. Many have stagnated for decades, becoming what some critics describe as “ownerless universities” where reforms are slow, curriculum updates rare and student engagement lacking.
Their claim of serving regional needs is also questionable. Many follow a department-store model — offering a wide range of majors with little specialization or depth. In that regard, they are nothing like the highly diversified and regionally embedded UC campuses they hope to emulate. As Kim Jong-young acknowledges in his book, unless these universities commit to radical change, the public is likely to ask: “Why pour trillions of won into underperforming institutions?”
![KAIST campus in Daejeon [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/05/21/050ae558-1150-4bc0-80a7-faf961335d1b.jpg)
Funding itself is a significant hurdle. During the previous general election, the Democratic Party estimated the project would require 2.7 trillion won. At a recent National Assembly forum, national university presidents raised the figure to 3 trillion. Yet, neither party has provided a clear road map for how to secure these funds. If the existing university budget is simply reallocated, private institutions — already suffering from declining enrollment and frozen tuition — will see reduced support. Many of them are already voicing concerns that the policy amounts to a biased restructuring, handing victory to “lazy national universities” while penalizing struggling private schools.
There is no question that Korean higher education is stagnating, perhaps even regressing. Bold investment is needed. But before that, universities must first commit to internal reform. They must confront decades of inertia, outdated teaching models and a lack of accountability.
If regional flagship universities truly wish to become the foundation of a new academic ecosystem, they must lead by example. That means declaring a commitment to reform and backing it with action. Only then will the dream of 10 Seoul Nationals be more than a slogan.
Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
The author is social policy editor at the JoongAng Ilbo.
On May 12, the official kickoff day of the presidential campaign, Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung released a set of 10 key pledges. One in particular stood out: his proposal to “create 10 Seoul National Universities.” The initiative, designed to ease the capital-centered hierarchy of higher education in Korea, seeks to elevate nine regional flagship national universities — Gangwon, Gyeongbuk, Gyeongsang, Busan, Jeonnam, Jeonbuk, Jeju, Chungnam and Chungbuk — to the level of Seoul National University (SNU) through concentrated state investment.
The main gate to Seoul National University in Gwanak District, southern Seoul is seen on May 21, 2024. [NEWS1]
This policy did not originate from within the Democratic Party. It is the latest iteration of a longstanding academic proposal known as the “National University Integration Network,” which has been championed for over two decades by scholars, superintendents and education activists committed to dismantling Korea’s rigid academic elitism. The party first adopted this initiative during the previous general election and now presents it again as a central plank in its education platform.
On May 15, People Power Party candidate Kim Moon-soo introduced a similar policy — promoting joint degree programs between SNU and regional flagship universities. This idea, too, was rooted in the integration movement and has recently been advanced by SNU’s faculty council. That both major parties now embrace variations of the same concept marks a watershed moment in Korean education discourse.
Having covered education policy in the early 2010s, I remember hearing early versions of this idea at civic forums and meetings among progressive education superintendents. But few expected the proposal to be accepted by both political camps. The integration network has evolved into more than a policy — it is a collaborative movement shaped through years of debate and experimentation. Inspired by a now-defunct proposal to abolish SNU during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, the idea gained traction in the early 2000s as civic groups and academics added layers of detail and refinement.
Lee’s current “10 SNUs” proposal is the most moderate version yet. According to Kim Jong-young, a Kyung Hee University professor and one of the original proponents, the initiative no longer advocates for the abolition of SNU’s undergraduate program or immediate joint admissions. Those elements remain possibilities but are not central to the current plan. The policy, outlined in Kim’s 2021 book "10 Seoul National Universities," instead emphasizes cooperation over dismantling.
It draws inspiration from the University of California (UC) system, which includes public universities such as UC Berkeley and UCLA. The goal is mutual growth and upward equalization among Korea’s national universities, not leveling down the prestige of SNU. The Democratic Party frames the pledge as a tool for regional development, placing it alongside initiatives like the completion of Sejong as Korea’s administrative capital.
Oh Seok-hwan, Vice Minister of Education Ministry, address a tuition issue during a virtual meeting with the heads of Chungbuk and Chonnam National Universities on January 10. [NEWS1]
Advocates stress that the proposal offers a double solution: reducing educational inequality and preventing regional depopulation. If these regional universities are elevated in stature and resources, the argument goes, students will have less reason to flock to Seoul, and local economies will benefit from academic revitalization.
Still, questions about feasibility remain. Supporters often reduce the issue to a simple equation: disparities in academic performance are the result of unequal financial investment. Therefore, if the state channels SNU-level funding into nine regional universities, their research and teaching standards will rise to match. They point to examples such as KAIST, Postech, Unist and DGIST — science and engineering universities that rose rapidly on the back of heavy early-stage investment — as evidence.
But funding alone does not guarantee transformation. Unlike the regional universities, KAIST and its peers benefited from being new institutions with blank slates. They recruited driven and capable faculty, built distinctive research cultures and prioritized innovation. By contrast, the nine regional universities proposed for elevation have struggled to keep pace with Seoul’s private institutions in both research volume and quality. Many have stagnated for decades, becoming what some critics describe as “ownerless universities” where reforms are slow, curriculum updates rare and student engagement lacking.
Their claim of serving regional needs is also questionable. Many follow a department-store model — offering a wide range of majors with little specialization or depth. In that regard, they are nothing like the highly diversified and regionally embedded UC campuses they hope to emulate. As Kim Jong-young acknowledges in his book, unless these universities commit to radical change, the public is likely to ask: “Why pour trillions of won into underperforming institutions?”
KAIST campus in Daejeon [NEWS1]
Funding itself is a significant hurdle. During the previous general election, the Democratic Party estimated the project would require 2.7 trillion won. At a recent National Assembly forum, national university presidents raised the figure to 3 trillion. Yet, neither party has provided a clear road map for how to secure these funds. If the existing university budget is simply reallocated, private institutions — already suffering from declining enrollment and frozen tuition — will see reduced support. Many of them are already voicing concerns that the policy amounts to a biased restructuring, handing victory to “lazy national universities” while penalizing struggling private schools.
There is no question that Korean higher education is stagnating, perhaps even regressing. Bold investment is needed. But before that, universities must first commit to internal reform. They must confront decades of inertia, outdated teaching models and a lack of accountability.
If regional flagship universities truly wish to become the foundation of a new academic ecosystem, they must lead by example. That means declaring a commitment to reform and backing it with action. Only then will the dream of 10 Seoul Nationals be more than a slogan.
Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)