Restoring University Autonomy: Better Education and More Choices for Students

University tuition has remained frozen since 2008, limiting faculty expansion and improvements to research infrastructure

In the past four years, 56 Seoul National University professors have moved abroad, and Korean universities lag behind those in China and Japan by as much as 20–30 points

Tuition frozen in place for 17 years; universities should decide for themselves

Suppose the government forced a restaurant to charge the same prices for 17 years. The ways that restaurant could survive would be obvious: cut staff, use cheaper ingredients, and give up on investment and improvements to its facilities. The simple principle that fixing prices lowers quality has no exception anywhere in the market.

That is exactly the situation universities now face. Since 2008, university tuition has effectively been frozen in place. From 2015 to 2022, tuition increases at both public and private universities remained at 0% or were frozen altogether, and as a result universities’ financial capacity has been structurally weakened. With funding constrained, investment in the educational environment was pushed to the back burner, and clear limits emerged on expanding faculty and improving research infrastructure. Students increasingly found themselves taking classes in deteriorating conditions, and declining educational quality became a structural reality.

This situation did not arise naturally. For a long time, the government controlled university tuition through two mechanisms. One was a tuition cap that allowed increases only up to 1.5 times the consumer price inflation rate over the previous three years. The other was the Type II National Scholarship program, under which financial support was provided only to universities that froze or lowered tuition. Formally, tuition hikes were possible, but in practice a structure became entrenched in which choosing to raise tuition was extremely difficult.

The damage tuition regulation has inflicted on university finances is also evident in the numbers. According to one study, if universities had reflected even 70% of the legally permitted tuition increase rate from 2012 to 2022, private universities could have secured an additional average of about 1.5 trillion won per year, and public universities about 280 billion won per year. Freezing tuition may have earned the justification of “easing the burden,” but at the cost of sacrificing university investment in education and research for an extended period.

These financial constraints are leading directly to a decline in university competitiveness. In the past four years, 56 Seoul National University professors have moved to overseas universities, and in the Times Higher Education Asia university rankings, Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and KAIST all fell in rank. In particular, in research and teaching environment categories, Korean universities showed score gaps of as much as 20–30 points compared with universities in China and Japan. This is the cumulative result of disadvantages in key indicators such as research reputation, research funding investment, and faculty-to-student ratios.

The government’s recent abolition of the Type II National Scholarship program has changed the system by one step. As a result, universities are now able to raise tuition within 1.5 times the average consumer price inflation rate over the previous three years. However, it is difficult to regard this as genuine liberalization. To resolve the accumulated financial pressure and investment shortfalls built up over 17 years, the remaining tuition cap is still far too low.

Tuition autonomy is not simply an argument for raising tuition. Long-term tuition regulation has prevented universities from making even basic investments in a timely manner, such as expanding research funding or improving laboratory and research infrastructure, and as a result has created a structure in which declines in educational quality are repeated. Unless decision-making authority over finances is returned to universities, the decline in university competitiveness will inevitably continue.

Of course, there are concerns that even if universities raise tuition, they may not invest in education. But a restaurant that is expensive and tastes bad will not be chosen by consumers. The same is true of universities. If tuition is high but the quality of education is low, students will turn away; universities that provide an education worthy of the price will be chosen. In the end, the decision about which university to attend rests with the student.

University tuition, frozen in place for 17 years, should now be for universities themselves to decide. The government should not stop at abolishing the Type II National Scholarship program; it should also boldly reconsider the tuition increase cap itself. Restoring university autonomy is the path to improving educational quality and offering students better choices. That is the right choice for both universities and students.

[Ho-jun Wang, Researcher, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)]

---

Original title: 대학 자율성 회복--교육의 질 높이고, 학생에게 더 나은 선택지 제공

Author: Ho-jun Wang

Date: 2026-01-06

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=press&idx=28466