[Editorial] College restructuring

The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology has disclosed the list of 43 underperforming colleges ― 23 four-year schools and 20 junior colleges ― that will be deprived of financial support from the government next academic year.

The selected schools ranked in the bottom 15 percent in the ministry’s annual assessment of the nation’s 337 tertiary educational institutions ― 198 four-year colleges and 139 junior colleges.

Of the 43 on the list, 13 face another disadvantage: Some of their students to be admitted next year will be denied access to income-contingent loans offered by banks.

This restriction is painful as it will discourage students from applying for the schools. It reflects the ministry’s intention to weed out poorly managed schools.

The ministry plans to scrutinize management of the 13 institutions in October and November to select “mismanaged schools.” Those singled out for poor management will face closure unless they manage to improve their conditions drastically.

The ministry launched a university restructuring scheme last year, using state-provided financial aid as a weapon. It was a move in the right direction. University reform is inevitable for many reasons, not least the nation’s demographic change.

The number of high school graduates is bound to fall. Next February, a total of 670,000 students will leave high school. The figure is forecast to drop to 579,000 in 2018, below this year’s aggregate college entrance quota of 580,000. In 2024, high school leavers will be a mere 410,000.

While the ministry’s reform efforts are fully justified, the question is whether it can assess colleges in a fair and objective manner. The evaluation criteria it uses include student enrollment, graduates’ rate of employment, scholarships, cost of tuition, academic curriculum and student-faculty ratio.

If the ministry uses these criteria without taking into account the characteristics of each school, it can face criticism for using a one-size-fits-all approach.

As with last year, some of the schools included in this year’s list of underperformers questioned the legitimacy of the ministry’s evaluation.

For instance, Kookmin University said it was unfair for the ministry to include it on the grounds that it lowered tuition fees by a mere 2 percent this year. The university made the case that it cut tuition by a smaller margin than other schools because its tuition level was lower than others in the first place.

Art colleges rightly note that it is unfair to assess them in terms of the graduates’ employment rate. The ministry needs to address these and other complaints to enhance the legitimacy of its evaluations.