The headlines were shocking. A professor at a Korean university repeatedly beat a student and forced him to eat his feces. When questioned by prosecutors, the professor that it was for the student’s benefit.

The student, meanwhile, said that he endured such inhumane treatment in the hope that the professor would help him become a professor. The incident is no doubt isolated, but it sheds light on the rigid authoritarian structure that plagues Korean universities.

Universities, by their nature, are hierarchical. There is a series of levels in degrees and among the teaching staff. Moving to the next level involves meeting a set of standards that, in theory, require academic work to achieve. At its best, the process of determining whether the standards have been met is rigorous and open, ensuring that those involved in the process accept the results. University systems vary by nation and by type of administration, but all have a hierarchy of requirements and degrees.

The Korean university system developed from three traditions: Joseon-period Confucian education, prewar Japanese education, and postwar U.S. education.

Like monastic education in Europe, Joseon-period Confucian education followed a tutorial model based on the mastery of a canon of classical texts. The tutorial model meant close contact between teacher and students.

Though influenced by the same Confucian tradition as Korea, prewar Japanese education was derived from 19th-century European models. In the colonial context, the system was designed to turn Koreans into loyal citizens of the Japanese empire.

Since liberation in 1945, the influence of U.S. education has grown, particularly in higher education. Today, a large percentage of Korean professors are holders of Ph.D. degrees from U.S. universities.

There is a fourth tradition at work, of course, and that is the long years of military dictatorship from the early 1960s to the late 1980s. Like the prewar Japanese tradition, this tradition also restricted academic freedom, but it also focused on creating a talented elite to lead the newly industrializing nation. 

These four traditions mix, often creating tension that leads to different expectations. The Confucian tradition emphasizes respect for teachers, but it also requires that teachers spend time with their students. This conflicts with the recent emphasis on research output that comes from the influence of the U.S. system. The Japanese system emphasized group solidarity and rigid hierarchy among students, but this conflicts with more individualistic attitudes of today’s youth.

Increasingly, professors and students do not know how to relate to each other. Professors want respect from students, but may not want to give attention to students because it does not help their careers. Students, in turn, view professors as distant grade-giving authority figures and expect little from the relationship.

What has emerged, then, is a shadow system that focuses on moving up the academic ladder by game playing instead of accomplishment. Various forms of give and take develop that players use to achieve their goals. Students, for example, often reward professors who give easy grades by giving them good evaluations, which pleases university authorities. The pressure to publish tempts professors to bend the rules of academic ethics to crank out research. Authoritarianism develops because those in power try to play the game to their advantage.

What, if anything, can be done? An important first step is to recognize the need for diversity in the university system. Universities need to specialize by developing different areas of excellence. Excellence goes beyond research, but also includes stimulating teaching and opportunities for internships and experiential learning. Universities need to focus on offering students a rewarding “university experience” that encourages lifelong learning and social engagement.

Since the economic crisis of 1997, educational authorities and media discourse have focused on increasing the “global competitiveness” of Korean universities. To do so, they have encouraged universities to increase the number of foreign students and professors and to promote research. Instead of encouraging diversity, this has encouraged conformity and the development of game playing.

The Ministry of Education regulates universities, which gives it the power to initiate reform. Most universities around the world are not, and do not need to be, globally competitive because they focus on local needs.

Instead of promoting pointless globalization, the Ministry of Education should promote the development of a diverse university system by encouraging universities to develop areas of excellence. Over time, this should shift the focus of activity away from game playing toward meeting standards of excellence. Most important of all, students will benefit from a more rewarding university experience.

By Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Ann Arbor, Michigan. -- Ed.