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

The “Make 10 Seoul National Universities” initiative is an higher education policy that has been adopted as a national task by the Lee Jae-myung administration. The original plan was to alleviate university hierarchy and the resulting regional talent outflow and imbalance by providing budgetary support at the level of Seoul National University to key national universities to elevate them to a similar level.

Compared to similar policies discussed in the past, such as the abolition of Seoul National University, integration of national universities into a network, and joint degree programs for national and public universities, this plan is simple and intuitive. It aims to enhance the capabilities of universities by significantly increasing the budget while maintaining the existing system, rather than implementing radical but potentially ineffective reforms such as abolishing Seoul National University, changing its name, or merging all national and public universities into one.

The author may not be an expert in education policy, but from the perspective of an industry insider, this approach seems quite realistic and efficient. The imbalance between universities and regions usually arises not because the upper class is too comfortable but because resources are not supplied sufficiently to warm the lower class.

During the actual implementation of the policy, issues arose regarding how to allocate and manage the “Seoul National University-level budget.” The specific implementation plan announced in April was disappointing in many ways. First, the number of universities eligible for support was reduced significantly from all 9 key national universities to 3 universities selected through open competition. The plan is to pilot the program at a few universities and then spread the successful model to other universities.

The use of the budget is also restricted to regional industry development and artificial intelligence (AI) human resource training. The idea is to “select and focus” on both the target universities and fields. This approach resembles the university restructuring policies of past administrations rather than the original plan of the current policy. The logic is repeated that limited finances should be allocated to universities that have restructured according to government policies and industry demands.

Furthermore, this policy excludes universities other than a few key national universities. Even key national universities must compete with each other.

Members of the universities had to work excessively hard to prepare application documents that met the support conditions by the end of July, which is the application deadline, delaying their own research and education. There is criticism that requiring the same conditions for each key national university and making them compete ignores university autonomy and diversity.

Of course, for the universities that do not even get this opportunity, such complaints may seem arrogant.

The core cause of this confusion is the difference in perspective between the government, which views support for universities as part of regional balanced development policies, and the academic community, which demands investment for the autonomous development of higher education.

Seoul National University is Seoul National University because it is relatively free from government, regional, and corporate demands. The more universities focus on indicators such as university evaluation rankings, student enrollment rates, and graduate employment rates, the more their core functions of academic research and education become secondary issues.

If Seoul National University or national science and technology institutes perform these functions better than other universities, it is because they can secure public support and excellent personnel stably and exclusively without having to undergo excessive restructuring or fiercely competing for performance to win government projects.

Therefore, the author would like to argue, with a bit of exaggeration and a lot of sincerity, that the success of the “Make 10 Seoul National Universities” policy can be measured by whether it can create 10 religious studies departments.

The author’s major, religious studies, is a minority field even within the humanities. There are about 200 universities in the US, dozens in the UK, Germany, and Japan that teach religious studies, so the scale is not very large internationally, but the situation in Korea is particularly serious.

Among public education institutions, only Seoul National University and the Korean Academy of Social Science have departments dedicated to this field, and most private universities abolished their departments during the university restructuring process following the 1997 economic crisis.

As a result, today, the supply of researchers and lecturers is severely insufficient compared to the academic and social demand for this field.

If humanities and social science departments in similar crises are established at all key national universities to the same level as Seoul National University, the academic ecosystem can be maintained.

Universities can consider installing as many departments as possible in graduate schools that train specialized researchers and operating undergraduate programs flexibly according to social changes.

This is not a call for preferential treatment for the humanities.

In the history of universities, the humanities have developed along with increased investment in higher education, such as during the Industrial Revolution or the Sputnik shock.

Whether a university policy is going well can be measured by how far the generously provided budget extends to fields with little industrial utility.