Creating 10 Seoul National Universities and 10 Religious Studies Departments [Han Seung-hoon Column]

The policy initiative 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' was adopted as a national project by the Lee Jae-myung administration, aiming to address higher education disparities. The initial concept proposed providing budgets equivalent to Seoul National University (SNU) to key national universities to achieve upward equalization and mitigate regional imbalances and talent drain. This approach was seen as a more straightforward and practical solution compared to past radical ideas like abolishing SNU or integrating all national universities into a single network.

The policy's implementation, however, has faced disappointment. Instead of supporting all 9 key national universities, the concrete execution plan announced in April narrows the selection to just three universities chosen through public competition. The funding is also earmarked for specific purposes, primarily focusing on regional industrial development and cultivating AI talent. This strategy of "selection and concentration" in both recipients and fields has drawn criticism for echoing past government-led university restructuring policies, which prioritized institutions aligning with government initiatives and industry demands.

“

The problem of imbalance between universities and regions often arises not because the upper echelons are too warm, but because there isn't enough resource supply to sufficiently warm the lower echelons.

Furthermore, the policy excludes the majority of national universities from this funding opportunity. Even the selected key national universities must undergo a competitive application process, requiring their staff to undertake additional work by preparing proposals instead of focusing on their research and education. Critics argue that demanding identical conditions from universities, rather than leveraging their unique strengths and characteristics, disregards institutional autonomy and diversity. While other universities might consider such an opportunity a luxury, the exclusion itself is a point of contention.

“

SNU is SNU not because it keenly responds to the demands of the government, region, or corporations, but because it is relatively free from them.

The core of the confusion stems from a divergence in perspectives between the government, which views university support as a tool for regional balanced development, and academia, which advocates for investment in the autonomous development of higher education. SNU's standing, the argument goes, is partly due to its relative freedom from immediate government or corporate demands, allowing it to focus on academic research and education. Policies that excessively emphasize university rankings, enrollment rates, or graduate employment can sideline these core functions. Institutions like SNU and national science and technology institutes often perform better because they can secure stable public funding and attract top talent without resorting to drastic restructuring or intense performance competition.

Therefore, the author proposes that the success of the 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' policy should be measured by its ability to foster the creation of, for example, 10 religious studies departments. Religious studies, a niche field within the humanities, is taught in a limited number of universities globally, and even more so in South Korea. Following university restructuring after the 1997 economic crisis, most private institutions discontinued these programs. Consequently, the output of researchers and lecturers in this field is severely insufficient compared to academic and social demand. The author suggests that if humanities and social science departments across all key national universities were equipped at a level comparable to SNU, the academic ecosystem could be sustained. This could involve establishing diverse specializations in graduate schools for training researchers and maintaining flexible undergraduate admission units adaptable to societal changes. The argument is not for preferential treatment of the humanities but highlights that investment in higher education, particularly during periods of significant societal shifts like the Industrial Revolution or the Sputnik shock, has historically led to the advancement of humanities alongside other fields. The true measure of successful university policy, the author concludes, lies in how effectively allocated funds extend to disciplines with less immediate industrial utility.

“

The success of the 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' policy can be measured by whether it can create 10 religious studies departments.