2011 English Essay Contest 대학부 대상 수상작
<2011EEC_Winner’s Essay: University Division>
Will Economics Work for Education?
By Lee Kyung-won, Sophomore, Dept. of Sport Science, Chosun University
Recently, in Seoul National University, students have been busy not just studying, but also demonstrating against the privatization of their university – in fact, they are protesting by studying in the presidential office. As a result, this event has brought the “corporatization” of National Universities into focus because this issue is not only about Seoul National University but also about other national universities too. Supporters for the privatization of universities argue that it will give national universities more freedom. In my opinion, enhancing the freedom of universities is really important to strengthen their competitiveness but corporatization does not seem the best option for it. In the following writing, I will talk about the changes that the privatization of national universities will bring about and support my idea by analyzing the special law on the corporatization of national universities which triggered the demonstration at Seoul National University.
According to the special law on the corporatization of national universities, it will cause internal and external changes: operational changes in the national universities and relations between the government and national universities. When it comes to internal changes, the president of the university will become in charge of the operation of the university and will be the representative himself. And national universities will be independent from the Ministry of Education and will have their own board of directors which will take final decisions. Furthermore, national universities will be able to jump into investing in profitable businesses and the government will provide financial support according to their fruitions. In terms of external changes, the privatization will change the financial relations between the universities and the government. After corporatization, the universities will continue to attain financial assistance from the government but obtain financial autonomy by being incorporated and operating its own accounting independently.
Although the purpose of the special law is understandable, I cannot help pointing out the adverse effects of the corporatization of national universities. First of all, the link between the government’s evaluation and its financial aid can aggravate the gap and rank among national universities. To date, the government has covered the finance of national universities with responsibility. However, after the privatization of the universities, the government will no longer ‘cover’ the finance but ‘assist’ it. This aid will be linked with state-run evaluation on the universities and be adjusted with rank according to their performance. Although the evaluation standard is unclear, regarding the current standards applied to the business to enhance educational capability, it is more likely that major national universities in the metropolitan area will have superiority over local ones and even outside the metropolitan region, key universities over national universities in outdated areas. It means that this system would widen the gap and rank among national universities which are already serious enough.
Second of all, against this backdrop, education in universities is also likely to be standardized according to the government. Under this system, for universities, a high evaluation is translated into much financial support, thus they will try to fulfill only the government’s standard, forgetting the original goals of education. In addition to that, since the government’s assistance is allocated according to universities’ performance, the universities are motivated to invest the academic areas which can easily yield academic achievements. For instance, in Japan which introduced this system in 2004, people are witnessing this phenomenon: after corporatization, now that universities have the burden to produce short-term fruitions, they result in negligently investing in basic and humane studies.
Lastly, in the process of pushing for the privatization of universities, the enhanced authority of the presidents and the board of directors who mostly consist of outsiders from the universities will lead to bureaucratization. According to the special law on the corporatization of national universities, in the modified operational structure of universities, they have to organize a committee to recommend presidential candidates, then the president would be elected by the board of directors. In this case, it is dubious that outsiders could elect the very right person with sincere capability and insight to be president. Rather, it strengthens the possibility of electing a power hungry president and he or she is likely to blindly perform in accordance with the government’s policy code and standard. As a result, it will bring about the bureaucratization of the national universities. In addition, it even causes a lack of procedural democracy in the universities: the members working in the universities cannot participate in the election even though they are the ones who are mostly affected by the result of the election.
Then, what are the arguments of the supporters for this system? Their main argument is that the corporatization of national universities can guarantee the autonomy of universities. The purpose of this special law is to promote the improvement of education and research abilities, to enhance the autonomy and responsibility in management in universities and to aim at designing the development of national universities by meeting the demands of the national and the society toward educational research activities and social volunteering service of national universities (Article I). In other words, by introducing competitive principles in national and state-funded universities and providing freedom, the government intends to make them sharpen their competitive edge. As the universities are separated from any government bodies, there is no cause for government intervention; meanwhile the financial assistance from the government is continued ‘selectively’. As a result, it leads to the flexibility and the elasticity of the autonomy of the universities and it will ameliorate the competitiveness of the universities.
It is certain that the purpose of the law is good but under this system the board of directors has to be approved by the Ministry of Education. In other words, under this system, the Ministry of Education can hold sway over the board of directors. Therefore, the liberalization through corporatization results in the broad authority of the president and the board of directors and the shrunken authority of the faculty meeting. Furthermore, the transition from direct election system of the president to designation of one will intensify government control. In addition, as I mentioned above, in terms of financial aspects, the universities will be more dependent on the government’s evaluation and it will undermine the autonomy of the universities. In the worst possible situation, the board of directors could consist of government-friendly people or people who worked in autonomous bodies in order to ultimately secure the finance and it could seriously violate crucial decisions for the universities.
In conclusion, the corporatization of national universities seems to expand their formal freedom but actually reduces the neutrality and autonomy by holding universities’ financial lines. Hence, in order to support true freedom in national universities, it is better to organize a faculty meeting or steering a committee so staff and professors can participate in the election through the promotion of democracy in universities.
Chonnam Tribune
tribune@cnumedia.com