Massive Backlash from Universities Failing the University Competency Assessment... Controversy over Fairness of 'Qualitative Evaluation'

52 out of 285 Schools Fail... 36% of Metropolitan Universities Fail Impact
Sungshin Women's University, Inha University Students Also Raise Issues with Evaluation Method
Failed Universities Demand Disclosure of 'Qualitative Evaluation' Process and Results

[Asia Economy Reporter Han Jinju] Universities that failed the university competency diagnosis evaluation, along with their students, have criticized the government, saying it is difficult to accept the evaluation criteria. There are calls to disclose the evaluation criteria and explain the reasons for the point deductions in the qualitative evaluation.

The Ministry of Education notified each university of the preliminary results of the university basic competency diagnosis on the 17th. Among 285 universities, 233 were selected, but 52 universities failed. Among the universities that failed, 19 (36.5%) were metropolitan area universities, including Sungkonghoe University, Sungshin Women’s University, Suwon University, Inha University, Yongin University, Pyeongtaek University, and Hansei University.

This year, with many prestigious metropolitan universities failing, controversy arose over regional discrimination against metropolitan universities and the fairness of the evaluation criteria. The Ministry of Education stated that when establishing the basic plan for this year’s diagnosis, the total number of selected universities was set, then 90% were selected by region first, and the remaining 10% were selected nationwide based on the highest scores regardless of region.

The Ministry of Education evaluated educational conditions and outcomes using quantitative indicators in this competency diagnosis evaluation and applied point deductions based on checks for fraud and corruption, and compliance with enrollment reduction. A total of 20 universities (12 general universities and 8 vocational colleges) received point deductions for various issues. Selected general universities will receive an average of 4.83 billion KRW per school, and vocational colleges will receive 3.75 billion KRW.

Universities have requested minimizing the failure rate, arguing that not receiving financial support will worsen their financial difficulties and that the evaluation results stigmatize them as substandard universities. However, with nearly 30% of schools failing, the impact has been significant.

The Emergency Committee of the Student Council at Sungshin Women’s University criticized on the Blue House petition board, saying, "The regional evaluation method inevitably causes failures for the sake of failures, and after setting the number of universities not selected per region, the unselected universities were announced accordingly."

They added, "Our school had no point deductions for fraud or corruption sanctions or failure to reduce enrollment, but we confirmed about a 7-point deduction in the qualitative evaluation indicator ‘Operation and Improvement of Curriculum.’ The qualitative evaluation assigns one evaluator per university, but the indicator score, which was 10 points in the last evaluation, rose to 20 points this year. We doubt whether it is a fair diagnosis for one person to evaluate the overall system of a university simply because it is a qualitative evaluation."

A student who identified as an Inha University student explained on the Blue House petition board, "It is not reasonable that a perfect score in quantitative evaluation but a slight slip in one part of the qualitative evaluation caused such a shocking result. Students did not rate the classes poorly, and the score allocated to that part was only 2 points. Moreover, most students are very satisfied with the current faculty."

There were also calls to demand the basis for the qualitative evaluation and the final result scores. The Incheon Peace and Welfare Solidarity, a civic group in Incheon, stated, "Inha University received a perfect score in quantitative evaluation such as graduate employment rate, but scored 67 out of 100 in ‘Operation and Improvement of Curriculum’ and 72.3 in ‘Participation and Communication of Members.’ If the Ministry of Education conducted an objective and fair evaluation, it should transparently disclose the evaluation process and results."

Gunsan National University, the only national university not selected, also raised issues, saying it is difficult to accept the evaluation results.

Gunsan National University said, "In the quantitative evaluation, we scored 44.273 out of 45 points, corresponding to a 98% score rate in the top group, but in the qualitative evaluation, we scored 39.855 out of 51 points, corresponding to 78%. It is hard to accept that we received below-average low scores in qualitative evaluation areas without objective indicators, such as curriculum operation, career psychological counseling support, and employment and startup support."

Gwak Byung-seon, president of Gunsan National University, said, "We achieved above-average results in quantitative evaluation, and we have made every effort to expand infrastructure related to curriculum, student employment and startup support, and career and psychological counseling in preparation for the third cycle evaluation, producing corresponding results. We will file an objection as soon as the university’s position is finalized."

An official from the Korean Council for University Education said, "It is shocking that even prestigious metropolitan universities without serious corruption have failed. If a university is a marginal institution with no chance of recovery, it is understandable to impose disadvantages through objective evaluation, but it is hard to accept cutting universities by ratio, including those that are not."

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