[Opinion] Reflecting on the Demand for Tuition Refunds

During the era when the so-called 'Gaenari Struggle' was repeated every year to stop university tuition hikes, tuition fees were a serious social issue. Although policies such as the income-contingent student loan repayment system after employment, increased national scholarships and university scholarships, and half-price tuition policies that lowered or froze tuition fees were implemented, tuition fees remained problematic.

Accordingly, various systems were introduced not only regarding the scale of tuition but also the process of tuition calculation and payment. These include the tuition increase rate cap system, the establishment of tuition review committees, the disclosure system for tuition calculation basis, tuition payment by credit card, the minimum quota for university scholarship funds as tuition resources, the tuition notification system, and tuition per credit system. From 2023, the admission fee is also set to be abolished. However, tuition fees are still an issue.

Recently, another problem arose amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As face-to-face classes were replaced by online lectures, issues such as poor-quality lectures and unstable systems led students to demand tuition refunds. There were also demands for refunds of unexecuted tuition fees due to event cancellations, non-use of university facilities, and unperformed experiments and practical training.

Last week, the Ministry of Education and the Korean Council for University Education leadership reportedly met to discuss tuition refunds. The recent demands for tuition refunds and the Ministry of Education’s response seem somewhat hasty. Tuition refund demands can be seen as a kind of tuition settlement system, but they overlook several points: the relatively low proportion of lecture costs in tuition, the fact that educational expenses exceed tuition revenue, that university budgets are planned and executed annually rather than by semester, that the COVID-19 related unexecuted expenses were actually postponed expenditures, and that additional spending was made to expand online lecture systems.

A tuition settlement system may not be favorable to students. If tuition must be refunded due to poor online lectures, the criteria for judging poor lectures become problematic, and if poor lectures are canceled midway, students may suffer damages. If unexecuted tuition fees must be refunded, there could be claims that tuition should be settled based on factors such as the number of credits taken at the end of the semester, the number of students per course, participation in programs, and usage of libraries and laboratories.

If a tuition settlement system is introduced, all educational activities and support services at universities will be converted into monetary terms. Expensive lectures might be avoided due to cost, and students will have to consider money even when using facilities. Universities will focus on offering costly courses, and disparities in educational activities based on income levels will be inevitable. The relationship between students and professors will also deteriorate into an economic relationship. Of course, this might be an excessive imagination.

Although various systems and policies have been introduced to solve the tuition problem, it remains ongoing. While some unreasonable elements of tuition have been improved, the quality of university education has actually declined. This is the result of ignoring the overall decrease in university finances while focusing on improving unreasonable systems. The demand for a tuition settlement system also disregards the financial situation of universities that have frozen tuition for 12 years and will be a factor lowering the quality of university education.

Tuition is a means, not an end. Focusing on improving the means can cause the loss of the purpose. If policies that reduce the tuition burden lead to a decline in educational quality, they are not successful policies. It is problematic that tuition policies have reduced the total amount of university finances, but even more problematic is that they have dampened the motivation of universities and professors. When professors hear students who have become sensitive to tuition say things like "How much tuition did I pay?" or "You get paid with the tuition I paid," they feel a sense of self-doubt. Education requires money, but education is not accomplished by money alone. Treating professors as merchants makes it impossible to expect voluntary dedication and high-quality education.

Song Ki-chang, Professor, Department of Education, Sookmyung Women’s University

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.