This blog post examines whether expanding regular admissions in Korean university admissions is a fair reform plan and analyzes its impact on university autonomy and educational diversity.

University Admissions Policy That Disregards Universities: Expanding Regular Admissions Quotas

In Korea, over 500,000 students annually analyze university admissions procedures to gain admission to their desired institutions, selecting the most advantageous process for themselves. Each university offers various admission tracks, such as regular admissions, early admissions, and equal opportunity admissions, each requiring different qualifications and verification methods. While universities design admissions processes reflecting their ideal student profiles, they cannot escape the constraints of government-led education policies.
The Korean government has revised its university admissions policy 16 times over the past 60 years. Recently, the Park Geun-hye administration announced a plan to simplify admissions procedures by expanding the regular admissions process, which focuses on the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT), while reducing the early admissions process, which emphasizes school records, and other diverse methods like essay writing and oral interviews. In response, Seoul National University increased the proportion of regular admissions by about 7%, a figure that had been declining annually, and other universities are showing a similar trend.
I believe this government admissions policy is inappropriate. Universities should hold the initiative in higher education, and expanding regular admissions not only undermines university autonomy but can also cause various adverse effects. In particular, expanding regular admissions risks failing to respect university individuality and deepening university ranking hierarchies.

University Individuality and the Limitations of Regular Admissions

First, expanding regular admissions centered on CSAT scores fails to respect university individuality. Universities are core institutions providing higher education at the final stage of primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Each university delivers specialized education based on its own educational philosophy and ideal student profile. To achieve this, universities select students through distinct admission methods. Since universities’ educational goals and ideologies inevitably differ, departments like arts and physical education select students through practical skill assessments, while research-focused departments evaluate foundational knowledge equivalent to secondary education.
Furthermore, even within the same major, the qualities universities demand from students vary greatly depending on the institution’s characteristics. For instance, Hongik University’s College of Design conducts non-portfolio admissions, selecting students primarily based on high school grades and interviews, while Chung-Ang University prioritizes evaluating students’ practical skills through portfolio exams. In this way, each university selects suitable talent through distinct evaluation methods, a process crucial for realizing the university’s individuality and educational goals.
However, expanding regular admissions ignores this university individuality, forcing the selection of students based on the uniform standard of CSAT scores. Evaluating solely by CSAT scores fails to adequately assess the qualities universities seek and can hinder the achievement of their educational goals. Ultimately, universities will incur greater costs to realize their educational objectives, and student satisfaction will inevitably decline.

Expansion of Regular Admissions and Intensified University Hierarchy

Second, expanding regular admissions could further intensify university hierarchy. Korean universities already operate within a hierarchical structure, evident in terms like ‘SKY’ and ‘In-Seoul’ that distinguish top-tier from lower-tier institutions. This hierarchy stems primarily from evaluation methods centered on CSAT scores. CSAT scores quantify students’ academic achievement, making it relatively easy to rank universities.
As the weight of regular admissions increases, the phenomenon of universities being ranked in a linear order based on CSAT scores intensifies. Evaluating students solely by CSAT scores ignores the diverse evaluation criteria suited to each university’s characteristics and needs, making it easy to compare and rank universities. This ultimately solidifies university rankings and accentuates hierarchical structures among students.

The Relationship Between Early Admissions and Private Education

Regarding the expansion of regular admissions, some argue that early admissions will expand the private education market and deepen the wealth gap. However, research indicates that the expansion of early admissions has actually led to a reduction in private education expenses. In 2010, when private education expenses decreased by 3.5% compared to the previous year, the proportion of early admissions centered around admissions officers significantly increased, negatively impacting the private education market. Furthermore, research showing that students preparing for early admissions do not spend more on private education than those not preparing supports this argument.
Conversely, the regular admissions process centered on the CSAT is identified as one factor driving up private education costs. The expansion of CSAT-focused regular admissions due to the EBS CSAT linkage policy has led to more students studying EBS materials through private tutoring and utilizing additional learning content provided by private institutions. This outcome contradicts the government’s claim that EBS CSAT broadcasts reduce private education costs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, policies forcing universities to increase the weight of regular admissions undermine institutional autonomy and may exacerbate university ranking systems. By insisting on a uniform evaluation method centered on CSAT scores, regular admissions disregard universities’ right to select desired talent and can lead to a decline in educational quality. Furthermore, CSAT-centered admissions policies have the adverse effect of expanding the private education market and forcing rote learning on students.
Therefore, I believe a more desirable policy direction is to maintain diverse evaluation methods through rolling admissions and allow universities to autonomously select talent. University admissions policies should evolve beyond merely evaluating students’ grades, moving toward a diverse assessment system that considers students’ varied abilities and potential. This will contribute to enhancing the quality of education and providing students with broader opportunities.