The Lee Jae-myung administration's national project and a key higher education promise, the 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative, has selected three universities—Pusan National University, Chonnam National University, and Chungnam National University—as the first recipients of support. This large-scale project will see approximately 70 billion won allocated annually to each university over five years, drawing significant attention from the academic community.
However, as the government intensifies its focus on fostering regional national universities, concerns and criticisms have emerged from both inside and outside the education sector. Critics argue that the original goal of educational reform—to break the dominance of the Seoul-centric system and develop regional national universities into world-class research and education hubs—has become obscured. There are fears that the initiative is becoming entangled in the larger political and administrative narrative of '5 regions 3 specialties' and losing its intended purpose.
The decisive factors that led to the selection of Pusan National University, Chonnam National University, and Chungnam National University in this first evaluation were their robust regional collaboration structures and strategic 'specialization preemption.' Pusan National University has solidified its status as a leading regional university based on the strong industrial infrastructure of the southeastern region, particularly in marine, shipbuilding, and aerospace sectors. Chonnam National University has combined its plans for administrative integration in Gwangju and Jeonnam with the attraction of the SK semiconductor ecosystem, while Chungnam National University secured policy credibility by presenting a clear roadmap through collaboration with KAIST and local governments. Their bold academic restructuring, including the establishment of a dedicated AI college, also captured the attention of evaluators.
In contrast, the six other national universities that were not selected are experiencing significant shock and aftereffects. Analysts suggest that a common misstep among these institutions was their tendency to 'follow the crowd' and present 'lackluster proposals.' For instance, Jeonbuk National University touted its partnership with Hyundai Motor Company to promote future mobility and AI development, but its efforts remained limited to a non-binding memorandum of understanding. It struggled to differentiate itself in the already competitive semiconductor and AI sectors. Similarly, Gangwon National University reportedly relied on existing administrative achievements of 'one national university per province' and produced a proposal that lacked distinctiveness. Kyungpook National University also faced challenges, having previously focused on semiconductors but losing ground in the competition for large-scale corporate investments in Gwangju and Jeonnam.
What strategies should the trailing national universities adopt for their upcoming second and third challenges? They must not only seek differentiated strategic industry cards but also go beyond merely aligning with local industries. They need to ensure that their unique research capabilities and rigorous academic restructuring are integral to their specialization. The remaining six universities should confront their realities and engage in thorough 'back-to-basics' assessments. They should eliminate already claimed areas, such as marine and aerospace at Pusan National University or semiconductors at Chonnam and Chungnam National Universities, from their proposals. For example, if Jeonbuk National University prepares for another attempt, it should focus on its local strengths, such as the top-tier agricultural and life sciences infrastructure provided by the Rural Development Administration, and aim to establish an 'irreplaceable agricultural bio' college that combines AI and data.
However, alongside the self-reflection of the non-selected universities, a more fundamental and serious issue lies in the government's evaluation practices and policy direction. Each selected university will receive up to 400 billion won in state funding over five years. Yet, a closer look at the selected institutions raises questions about whether this truly constitutes educational reform. Chonnam National University has faced police investigations over allegations of misappropriating funds from the RIS project and received institutional warnings for improper budget usage in a recent comprehensive audit. Chungnam National University received a failing D grade in the evaluation of its Glocal University 30 implementation. Providing substantial funding without strict punitive verification of past project failures and misconduct, based solely on 'paper blueprints' and regional administrative frameworks, could lead to concerns about bureaucratic moral hazard.
Moreover, the deep-rooted self-preservation mentality among national university faculty, who seek to secure state funding without undertaking necessary structural reforms like department consolidations, combined with bureaucratic practices that politically allocate universities within the '5 regions 3 specialties' framework, has heightened concerns. The original intent of the 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative was to dismantle the hierarchy among universities in the Seoul area and elevate the academic standards of institutions in the regions to match those of Seoul National University.
However, the reality is quite the opposite. A true 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative should not reduce universities to mere subcontractors for short-term workforce supply for local growth engines. Without enhancing academic excellence across humanities and basic sciences and undertaking rigorous structural reforms, the financial redistribution based on the '5 regions 3 specialties' framework is likely to end in a history of 'budget waste.'
Additionally, the concentration of billions of won in funding on just three universities has led to a new hierarchy among national universities and poses a risk of neglecting the crisis of regional private universities, which could distort the higher education ecosystem in a broader context. If the current policy direction, which has devolved into a mere tool of industrial policy, is not fundamentally overhauled, the outcome will not be 10 Seoul National Universities but rather 10 symbols of financial waste.
However, as the government intensifies its focus on fostering regional national universities, concerns and criticisms have emerged from both inside and outside the education sector. Critics argue that the original goal of educational reform—to break the dominance of the Seoul-centric system and develop regional national universities into world-class research and education hubs—has become obscured. There are fears that the initiative is becoming entangled in the larger political and administrative narrative of '5 regions 3 specialties' and losing its intended purpose.
The decisive factors that led to the selection of Pusan National University, Chonnam National University, and Chungnam National University in this first evaluation were their robust regional collaboration structures and strategic 'specialization preemption.' Pusan National University has solidified its status as a leading regional university based on the strong industrial infrastructure of the southeastern region, particularly in marine, shipbuilding, and aerospace sectors. Chonnam National University has combined its plans for administrative integration in Gwangju and Jeonnam with the attraction of the SK semiconductor ecosystem, while Chungnam National University secured policy credibility by presenting a clear roadmap through collaboration with KAIST and local governments. Their bold academic restructuring, including the establishment of a dedicated AI college, also captured the attention of evaluators.
In contrast, the six other national universities that were not selected are experiencing significant shock and aftereffects. Analysts suggest that a common misstep among these institutions was their tendency to 'follow the crowd' and present 'lackluster proposals.' For instance, Jeonbuk National University touted its partnership with Hyundai Motor Company to promote future mobility and AI development, but its efforts remained limited to a non-binding memorandum of understanding. It struggled to differentiate itself in the already competitive semiconductor and AI sectors. Similarly, Gangwon National University reportedly relied on existing administrative achievements of 'one national university per province' and produced a proposal that lacked distinctiveness. Kyungpook National University also faced challenges, having previously focused on semiconductors but losing ground in the competition for large-scale corporate investments in Gwangju and Jeonnam.
What strategies should the trailing national universities adopt for their upcoming second and third challenges? They must not only seek differentiated strategic industry cards but also go beyond merely aligning with local industries. They need to ensure that their unique research capabilities and rigorous academic restructuring are integral to their specialization. The remaining six universities should confront their realities and engage in thorough 'back-to-basics' assessments. They should eliminate already claimed areas, such as marine and aerospace at Pusan National University or semiconductors at Chonnam and Chungnam National Universities, from their proposals. For example, if Jeonbuk National University prepares for another attempt, it should focus on its local strengths, such as the top-tier agricultural and life sciences infrastructure provided by the Rural Development Administration, and aim to establish an 'irreplaceable agricultural bio' college that combines AI and data.
However, alongside the self-reflection of the non-selected universities, a more fundamental and serious issue lies in the government's evaluation practices and policy direction. Each selected university will receive up to 400 billion won in state funding over five years. Yet, a closer look at the selected institutions raises questions about whether this truly constitutes educational reform. Chonnam National University has faced police investigations over allegations of misappropriating funds from the RIS project and received institutional warnings for improper budget usage in a recent comprehensive audit. Chungnam National University received a failing D grade in the evaluation of its Glocal University 30 implementation. Providing substantial funding without strict punitive verification of past project failures and misconduct, based solely on 'paper blueprints' and regional administrative frameworks, could lead to concerns about bureaucratic moral hazard.
Moreover, the deep-rooted self-preservation mentality among national university faculty, who seek to secure state funding without undertaking necessary structural reforms like department consolidations, combined with bureaucratic practices that politically allocate universities within the '5 regions 3 specialties' framework, has heightened concerns. The original intent of the 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative was to dismantle the hierarchy among universities in the Seoul area and elevate the academic standards of institutions in the regions to match those of Seoul National University.
However, the reality is quite the opposite. A true 'Creating 10 Seoul National Universities' initiative should not reduce universities to mere subcontractors for short-term workforce supply for local growth engines. Without enhancing academic excellence across humanities and basic sciences and undertaking rigorous structural reforms, the financial redistribution based on the '5 regions 3 specialties' framework is likely to end in a history of 'budget waste.'
Additionally, the concentration of billions of won in funding on just three universities has led to a new hierarchy among national universities and poses a risk of neglecting the crisis of regional private universities, which could distort the higher education ecosystem in a broader context. If the current policy direction, which has devolved into a mere tool of industrial policy, is not fundamentally overhauled, the outcome will not be 10 Seoul National Universities but rather 10 symbols of financial waste.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.