Home > Opinion > Columns

What it will take to build 10 more Seoul National Universities

Published: 19 Jun. 2025, 00:03

Kim Hyun-cheol

The author is a professor at Yonsei University College of Medicine and the director of the Institute for Population and Talent Research.

Over the past 12 years, I served as a faculty member at Cornell University and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Those years offered firsthand insight into how top global universities operate. Drawing on that experience, I would like to offer some thoughts on what must be done if President Lee Jae Myung’s campaign pledge to create “10 universities on par with Seoul National University” is to succeed.

Democratic Party Rep. Kim Young-bae, center, proposes the creation of 10 Seoul National Universities along with current and former university presidents and education superintendents during a press conference at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on May 20. [YONHAP]

The proposal draws inspiration from Prof. Kim Jong-young of Kyung Hee University and his book “Creating 10 Seoul National Universities.” The government’s current plan includes two primary strategies. First, it aims to raise per-student funding at nine regional national universities to 70 percent of Seoul National University’s (SNU) level. Second, it plans to rename these universities “Korea No. 1,” “Korea No. 2” and so on. At present, Seoul National receives about 60.59 million won ($44,200) in funding per student annually, while regional national universities receive an average of 24.5 million won. The government plans to invest over 3 trillion won annually to close that gap.

The initiative’s goals — countering regional decline and reducing hierarchical disparities in higher education — are commendable. But building elite research universities requires more than budget increases. World-class research is impossible without world-class talent. Both the book and the policy fail to address how to recruit scholars at the level of SNU. The low global rankings of regional national universities reflect, in large part, a lack of research capacity among faculty. Simply increasing funding will not produce globally competitive results.

Universities like KAIST, Pohang University of Science and Technology (Postech) and Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology advanced rapidly because they began with entirely new frameworks: fresh visions, flexible organizations and strong financial backing that attracted top talent. To build a “second SNU,” structural reform is essential. Expanding the budget without overhauling the system will not deliver change.

A nighttime view of the main gate of Seoul National University in Sillim-dong, Gwanak District, Seoul. [JOONGANG ILBO]

The architects of this initiative likely looked to California’s model, where public universities like the University of California, Berkeley and UCLA coexist with private institutions like Stanford and Caltech. This competitive structure helped make California a hub for global innovation. But there are cautionary examples as well. The State University of New York system expanded widely, yet none of its schools, such as Buffalo, Albany or Binghamton, have entered the top tier of global research universities. Without new systems for recruiting talent, major investment is at risk of going to waste.

To build universities of global caliber, bold reforms in faculty compensation and academic freedom are necessary. The traditional step-based pay system will not work. The solution is to create new units — much like innovation teams in corporations — with performance-based cultures and administrative autonomy.

Peking University offers an instructive example. Its economics department, rooted in Marxist tradition, had low research output. Recognizing that adding a few new faculty members wouldn’t fix structural issues, the university launched a separate National School of Development in 2008. With competitive salaries, research freedom and performance-based compensation, it quickly gained global standing.

Tsinghua University adopted a similar approach with its School of Information Science and Technology. It recruited Stanford’s Andrew Yao, introduced an elite undergraduate “Yao Class” taught in English and implemented autonomous, results-oriented governance. Graduates from this program now lead China’s AI innovation. For Korea’s regional national universities to grow into research-centered institutions, they too must establish “mini-SNUs” with their own internal regulations.

Another limitation of the “10 SNUs” plan is that it sidelines private universities. Challenging SNU's dominance requires more than enhancing public universities. Private institutions like Yonsei, Korea, and Postech must also be empowered to compete at the highest level.

Even if regional national universities receive funding equivalent to 70 percent of SNU's, entrenched hierarchies in higher education will be hard to overturn. Real change will come from helping elite private universities reach new heights.

Hong Kong provides a useful reference. Its academic ecosystem thrives on competition among the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A similar multipolar system could benefit Korea.

To this end, I propose introducing “contract colleges” within private universities, supported by public funding. Cornell, for example, operates four such colleges — agriculture, human ecology, labor relations and veterinary medicine — that are legally part of the state of New York but maintain Cornell’s private governance model. This hybrid structure ensures both public accountability and institutional flexibility.

Adopting a similar model in Korea would allow the government to invest strategically in key disciplines within private institutions. It would be faster and more cost-effective than building up national universities from scratch, while enhancing the international competitiveness of private universities.

In 2011, Cornell expanded this concept through Cornell Tech, a graduate campus co-developed with New York. With $100 million in funding and city-donated land, it now operates as a hub for data science, entrepreneurship and urban innovation. In just over a decade, it has become a leading global tech education platform.

This model — combining private agility with public investment — could serve as a foundation for higher education reform in Korea. True transformation will require a distributed, competitive ecosystem involving both national and private institutions.

The current proposal also includes a plan to name the new universities numerically, mirroring the French system. But that model has limitations. Except for the grandes écoles, French universities are largely standardized, and only four rank in the global top 100. In Korea, only SNU, KAIST, Yonsei, and Korea University make that cut. Anglo-American institutions dominate, comprising over 70 of the top 100.

Disruptive innovations in AI, semiconductors, and algorithms overwhelmingly originate from such institutions. OpenAI’s GPT model was developed by alumni of Berkeley and Stanford. DeepMind’s breakthroughs, including AlphaGo, owe much to Oxford’s talent pool.

These universities share three traits: autonomy, strategic focus, and strong financial foundations. They define their own missions, recruit strategically, and concentrate resources where it matters.

In short, strong universities make strong nations. The government’s role is straightforward — provide ample funding and step aside. Autonomy, particularly for top-tier institutions, is essential. Let them compete, perform and be evaluated on outcomes.

A Harvard sign is seen at the Harvard University campus in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 27. [AFP/YONHAP]

Korea lags far behind. Tuition has been frozen for 15 years. Government support is insufficient. Reasonable proposals — like raising tuition while increasing scholarships for low-income students — are routinely ignored. The government controls everything from enrollment quotas to financial management. There is no real autonomy, only its shell.

Top universities around the world operate differently. Harvard, for instance, funds 40 percent of its $6.4 billion budget through endowment income, with only 25 percent from the government. SNU depends on government funding for 40 percent of its budget. Private institutions like Yonsei and Korea University derive over half their budgets from tuition, yet have no control over tuition rates. Donations remain minimal. Without financial independence, policy autonomy is impossible.

When the Donald Trump administration threatened to cut research funding, Harvard Provost Alan Garber responded, “No government should decide what a university teaches, who it hires or what it researches.” He could speak with confidence because his university had both financial and institutional independence.

Universities are also the last line of defense for democracy. In times of crisis, state-dependent institutions may fall silent. During the Trump era, only Harvard openly stood up to the administration. Others remained quiet — dependent on federal funding and lacking institutional resilience.

It is time for Korea to change course. The state must fund universities, but without micromanaging them. Replace regulation with trust, and control with autonomy and responsibility. Only then can universities lead the future — and defend democracy itself.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.