Beyond the ‘10 Seoul National Universities’ debate

Home > Opinion > Columns

Beyond the ‘10 Seoul National Universities’ debate

Published: 12 Aug. 2025, 00:05

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Lee Shi‑chul

The author is vice president for academic affairs, Kyungpook National University

A July poll by Jongro Academy found that half of the respondents said they would choose to attend a provincial university if the government’s “10 Seoul National Universities” initiative were implemented. The result contrasts with the prevailing “In-Seoul” trend, where students concentrate in the capital area. Despite Korea’s polarized political climate, public opinion is largely favorable toward elevating regional universities together and fostering balanced development.

The iconic entrance of Seoul National University [SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY]

Among the various arguments for and against the plan, the most compelling are the prospects for balanced national development, fostering local talent and easing entrance-exam competition. If flagship national universities — representing 10 percent of the student population and with strong research capacity — took the lead, it could raise standards across broader regions and ease rigid academic hierarchies.

Opponents, however, warn that bolstering 10 national universities could damage 100 private ones. Others note that there are 40 national and public universities, not 10. Some fear that matching Seoul National University’s level of investment could consume the entire higher education budget. Skeptics question its efficacy, pointing to the nationwide frenzy over medical school admissions and criticizing the self-governance and will to reform among many national universities.

A view of Daechi-dong’s private academy district around 10 p.m. in June 2024. After official classes at cram schools and other test-prep institutes ended, crowds of students, parents, and vehicles filled the streets near the Eunma Apartment Intersection in Gangnam District, Seoul. [KIM KYUNG-ROK]

Calls for balanced development and nurturing regional talent are not mere political rhetoric — they are urgent appeals to prevent the disappearance of local communities. Policies such as mandatory hiring quotas for regional graduates have had some effect, but even with efforts like the creation of Sejong City and innovation cities, much remains to be done.

The Constitutional Court recently upheld a regulation requiring 40 percent of admissions at traditional medicine schools in the Chungcheong, Honam, and Gyeongbuk regions to go to graduates of local high schools. The unanimous ruling held that the public interest in balanced development outweighed the rights of petitioners from the capital area. In this, the constitution and the public speak with one voice.

Korea’s per capita investment in higher education is just 66 percent of the OECD average. This year, higher education accounts for only 2.3 percent — 15 trillion won ($10.7 billion) — of the national budget of 673 trillion won. Without a substantial increase in funding, it will be difficult for promising private universities and regional science and technology schools such as UNIST, DGIST and GIST to grow.

Meritocracy, in theory, rewards ability, effort and performance. Yet scholars and the media are increasingly questioning this dominant norm, particularly the way a super-elite in advanced capitalism inherits educational and cultural capital.

Added to this is “spatial meritocracy,” in which the attributes and abilities of a group become tied to physical spaces — cities or regions — in ways that reproduce inequality. British sociologist Michael Young, who helped shape modern meritocracy debates, warned that “the soil grows castes.” Recent discussions have expanded to criticize spatial inheritance, regional exclusivity, declining moral standards and unhappiness across both privileged and disadvantaged areas.

Notable academics have proposed alternatives to the excesses of meritocracy. Harvard professor Michael Sandel suggested in 2020 that elite universities consider a lottery among applicants who meet basic standards. In 2019, Yale’s Daniel Markovits advocated expanding enrollment at top schools and fostering middle-class professions. Both aim to reduce extreme competition while increasing opportunities for essential high-skill workers — ideas that could be applied in the context of balanced regional development.

Regional universities are facing mounting challenges. On the morning of March 2, 2023, the first day of the spring semester, a student walks up a staircase at a university in the Gyeongsang region. In regular admissions, eight departments at this university received no applicants. [YONHAP]

The Lee Jae Myung administration also speaks of balance. The realities of clogged national arteries, rigid spatial hierarchies and winner-takes-all academic privilege are issues even an AI program could acknowledge. Supporting every university equally is an appealing but irresponsible populism, while focusing only on a handful of elite schools is elitist arrogance.

If not 10, why not another model? Phased clusters of three or four, regional specializations or functional alliances between flagship national universities and science and technology institutions could all be considered. This must be paired with measures such as extending the special account for higher and lifelong education and legislating a higher education finance grant system. A “benevolent” spatial meritocracy and rational populism could end Korea’s educational “Squid Game.”

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom staff.