2008-E-22
The Making of a World-class Research University and Renewal of Asian Values ofHigher Learning in Korea: The Case of Seoul National University
Ki-Seok Kim
Professor, Seoul National University &Chief Field Officer, Educators without Borders
January 2009

Preface

Asian Regional Integration and Education

Set against the backdrop of increasing economic interdependence in the Asia region, the idea of‗regional integration‘ is most often articulated as a policy instrument and political ideal. Arguably,
this objective is being pursued to further promote regional competitiveness in the world economy
and to bring about a new stable political order. Nevertheless, any move in this direction has been
repeatedly challenged from perspectives that emphasize socio-cultural diversity in the region andshared histories. It is in this context that Waseda University received the Global COE research
grant from the Ministry of Education of Japan. Waseda University was tasked with establishing the
Graduate Institute for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI) to investigate problems and prospects
relating to Asian regional integration. Issues of education are central to any dialogue that seeks tofurther integrate political, social, and economic systems in the region. Taking European
integration as a precursor, it is clear that education plays a critical role in the integration process. It
is certainly, therefore, within the purview and moreover, a responsibility of Waseda‘s Global
COE—sponsored research to examine the role education will continue to play in a morecomprehensive integration of the Asia region.
There is not a single nexus of research where the study of Asian regional integration andeducation meet; rather, there exist a diversity of approaches that form a matrix of research. A first
feature of regional integration studies is the empirical study of ‗de facto‘ integration of the region‘s
education systems. From this approach, we conclude that education systems, economic systems
and societal values are already intertwined and integrated to a certain degree. This first approachendeavors to take stock of the extent of actual integration. A second approach emphasizes the
purpose(s) and governing principles which inform the integration process. It may then be possible
to derive ordered conceptual frameworks that reveal future pathways of regional cooperation andintegration. This approach asks why we need to integrate and the answers come mainly from
historical and philosophical investigations of policy arguments. The third type of regional
integration studies attempt to analyze existing frameworks and institutions for regional cooperationand integration of education systems. It is a political analysis that reveals practical andorganizational implications for future regional cooperation and integration processes. The fourth
approach focuses on the study of the actors involved in the regional integration process. Countries
and governments are probably the most important actors in these processes, but educational
institutions are also important. The fifth approach is best described as the comparative study ofregional integration drawing on experiences from different regions; education regionalization in
Europe, for example.
In doing these researches, we must share a vision concerning Asian regional integration andeducation that can foster mutual trust and a concept of people‘s Asia, and strengthening thecompetitiveness of Asian human resources in the world. By comprehensively discussing andinternalizing diverse views, rather than relying on a single model or ideal, it will be possible tobuild a regional framework for education in Asia that can be expected to contribute greatly to theformation of an Asian Community, and thus, to peace and prosperity in the region.
Kazuo KURODA, Ph.D.
Leader, Education and Asian Regional Integration
Research Group, GIARI

1

I.

Introduction

There have been notable achievements in building competitive, first class universities
in many developing nations, particularly in Asian countries. Singapore‘s recent attempt toestablish itself as the ―Boston of the East‖ (Altbach, 2000) and South Korea‘s ―Brain Korea
21‖ program, since 1999, are cases in point. China launched its ―211 Project‖ in 1994 with anstambitious plan to build 100 universities by the early 21 century. In 1998, China initiated the―985 Project,‖ with an impressive budget of 3.4 billion U.S. dollars invested in 33 key
universities with the intention of developing them into world-class institutions. Japan‘s recent
initiative, the Centers Of Excellence (COEs) is an expression of renewed academic aspirations
to sustain top-class research universities. This paper will examine the process by which aperipheral Asian university like Seoul National University (hereafter SNU) can betransforming itself into a world-class university. In doing this, I will show a fascinating story
in which the Korean traditional cultural pattern played a critical role as a cultural resource inthe globalization of its modern higher learning institutes: research universities.
This analysis focus on the internal initiatives implemented at SNU over the last 10
years and the effectiveness of these policies. The main strategy undertaken to bring aperipheral university like SNU up to a ―world-class‖ level was to emphatically pursue
excellence in research. Long before governmental funds were allocated for this purpose
through BK21 from 1999 onwards, SNU had already vigorously pursued excellence inresearch and teaching. The experiences of SNU in these endeavors represent an important casestudy that bears vital theoretical and practical implications for other Korean universities, aswell as for universities in other Asian countries aiming at building research universities, best
exemplified by the American research university since World War II.
II.

Self-Strengthening Initiatives of SNU in Response to Globalization

An expert of international higher education, Altback (2003), points out several
important conditions that are necessary to achieve world-class university status:
excellence in research by top-quality scholars, institutional autonomy, academic
freedom, adequate facilities for academic work, and long-term public funding (Altbach,2003). The main strategy to bring SNU up to the world-class level was to emphaticallypursue excellence in research, the first among the five critical conditions identified.
Governmental support came at an opportune time, and SNU was able to take full2

advantage of the funding and other forms of assistance, as the university endeavored toscale-up its doctoral programs. As a major beneficiary of the 7-year-long, large publicfunding effort, SNU was provided with an extraordinary opportunity and resources topursue its long-cherished goal, chosen and supported by the faculty, to become aworld-class university. SNU focused on improving graduate programs and bolsteredthem by providing graduate students with generous stipends and research
assistantships. Also, the postdoctoral program was expanded in order to support young
scholars. However, it is important to note that the self- strengthening efforts towardbuilding a world-class university began long before the launching of the first
BK21(1999-2006).
The current system of doctoral programs at SNU was implemented in 1975, part of auniversity upgrade after it moved to a new campus, which encompassed all its scatteredcolleges, except the medical college. Obsolete was the ―old form‖ of doctoral programs, inwhich a degree could be earned based solely on a thesis. That was the common practice takenfrom the colonial Japanese university system, and thus the term ―old form‖ is used. Replacing
it was the ―new form,‖ which prescribed graduate course-work and a qualifying examination
to be passed before writing a doctoral thesis, in accordance with the standards of American
research universities. Even though SNU had a historical legacy from Japanese colonial
universities at its inception, its structure and operation since liberation in 1945 have beenmodeled after American universities. However, there remained the cultural residuals of
indigenous academic heritage working at the relations between teachers and pupils.
In order to promote quality research among the faculty, newly hired faculty wererequired to have established publication records in internationally renowned science journals
and to participate in a tenure review process, which was recently deferred to the stage ofpromotion from associate professor to full professor. The research records of the top-ranking
U.S. schools have served as a benchmark in evaluating the progress of yearly academic
accomplishment and productivity at SNU since 1994. Various internal evaluations of progress
have been conducted at the university, college, departmental, and research group levels (Kimet al., 2005). A self-evaluation appears to be the only reasonable way to assess academic
achievement and progress, for there is no ―right‖ formula for a flagship university in the
periphery to become world class.
Global connections and cooperation are also critical for creating a world-classuniversity. SNU has promoted global connections by regularly inviting internationally3accomplished scholars in various fields for both short-term and long-term residencies.
International cooperation was pursued by implementing a joint-degree program with foreign
universities and other scholarly exchange programs. SNU‘s outreach efforts now include
academic exchange programs with about 90 universities in 27 countries around the world.
There were only 100 foreign students at SNU in 1995, however by 2005, there were more than700. Over the last five years the number of foreign professors has doubled to 58. SNU
supports graduate students for studies pursued overseas and participation in international
conferences. These overseas experiences are particularly important in that they give juniorscholars a strong sense of self-confidence in their competitive status within the international
arena. Additionally, there is considerable infrastructure support, including an electronic librarywith easy access to various academic databases, high-tech computer labs, and a housing
facility for international scholars and students.
These series of changes and reform policies have produced impressive results. Senior
officers at SNU began to pay particular attention to the number of science papers published in
America and other advanced countries. It is well known among scientists that the Institute of
Scientific Information (ISI) in the U.S. maintains an annual database of published scientificarticles in the Science Citation Index (SCI). Reform-minded school officers and government
bureaucrats as well, believe that the number of published articles listed in SCI could serve as aquantitative indicator of productivity for a university. According to a tally of the number ofarticles by SNU faculty listed in the SCI, SNU‘s world ranking was 75th in 1999, and has
increased dramatically every year since then, reaching 34th and 33rd place in 2003 and 2004
respectively (Kim et al., 2005). Even though this quantitative index is a controversial one, thetrend of a consistent increase in ranking gives senior officers a sense of the direction of SNU‘sself-strengthening efforts. The latest ranking is far higher than their early estimations and has
indeed been a surprise to all interested observers.
The measurement of productivity levels by the number of published scientific articles
provides insufficient information, however, for it only captures the gross productivity, not thereal net productivity. The real productivity actually depends on the level of financial
investment devoted to the school under consideration. Harvard University, the University ofTokyo, and the University of California at Los Angeles are the top three universities withregard to the number of published articles in 2004. In fact, Harvard University produces threetimes as many articles as SNU (9,421 vs. 3,116). However, taking into consideration thefinancial resources invested in each institution, we arrive at a somewhat different ranking
order. Table 1 compares productivity levels indexed by the number of papers of top ranking
4universities in 2004 with those of SNU, adjusted for each school‘s annual budget and researchfunds (Office of Research Affairs, 2006)1. SNU‘s budget is only about one-quarter that ofHarvard University. The amount of funds spent on research at Harvard University is more than
twice as high as that at SNU.
<Table 1> Productivity among Top Schools adjusted for expenditures, 2004
(Money unit: 1B KW)
Research
Funds

Running
Costs(Incl. RF)

SCI #

SCI

SCI #

SCI #

Papers

Ranks

/RF

/RC

SNU

2,701

6,466

3,116

31

1.15

0.48

KAIST

977

2,600

1,136

187

1.16

0.44

Postech

810

1,834

823

272

1.02

0.45

Harvard Univ.

6,481

28,574

9,421

1

1.45

0.33

Tokyo Univ.

4,257

17,327

6,631

2

1.56

0.38

UC Los Angels

6,107

36,510

5,232

3

0.86

0.14

Stanford Univ.

8,602

26,024

4,633

8

0.54

0.18

UC Berkeley

4,395

16,910

4,049

12

0.92

0.24

Source: Office of Research Affairs 2006. Research activities at Seoul National University:
2005-2006. Seoul, Korea: Office of Research Affairs, Seoul National University, p10.

1

For data on Harvard, see the school‘s 2004 Analysis of Financial Results. For data on the University of Tokyo,

see the school‘s statement of 2003 (http://www.u-tokyo. ac.jp/fin 01/06_01j.html); its total research funds included
a research subsidiary from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, in
addition to external funds from private groups, enterprises, and other sources. For data on UCLA, see the Campus
Facts in Brief 2004–2005 (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/annualreport /2005/)

5

As shown in Table 1, considering the relative lack of financial resources available at
SNU, the adjusted productivity level according to the level of investment at SNU is not very
far behind that of the other top-tier universities. For 1 billion Korean Won (about 1 million
U.S. dollars) of the school operating budget, SNU, Todai and Harvard produced about 0.5, 0.4
and 0.4 articles, respectively. Every 1 billion Won in school-wide research funds yielded 1.2
articles at SNU, 1.6 at Todai and 1.5 at Harvard. This comparison reveals that SNU is fairly
competitive internationally. When we move from gross to adjusted productivity, we can see
some potential for international competitiveness in research at SNU, with doctoral programs
that were established a mere 30 years ago.
Creating a world-class university surely requires qualitative rather than just thequantitative advancement shown in Table 1. Principal investigators of the BK21 groups began
searching for a qualitative index able to reveal the level of research competence at SNU. Kim
and his colleagues (2005) produced an internal evaluation of SNU‘s international
competitiveness in terms of the level of research competence in the field of science andtechnology. They rigorously analyzed both the quantity and quality of research articles
published in SCI-indexed journals within six different fields: mathematics, physics, biologicalscience, chemical engineering, mechanics and aerospace engineering, and pharmacy. As
indicators of the quality of research papers, investigators counted the number of times eachpublished paper was cited, based on the ISI Web of Science Database. Tallying the citations
for each scholarly contributor is a time-consuming and tedious, as well as error-laden, job. Not
surprisingly, the estimated margin of error is said to be about 10 percent (ibid). To make aspecific comparison with US counterparts, two groups of US universities were identified basedon the annual rankings for selected fields reported by the U.S. News and World Report. In
Figure 1, the ―top university‖ referred to an American university that ranked among the top
three in a particular field, and ―high-ranking‖ referred to the top 20 to 30 US universities. In
Figure 1, the first bar reveals citation percentages averaged for the six fields at SNU,

taking the top American university as 100% in the second bar. From 2000 onward,
SNU started to excel beyond most of the high-ranking schools, which turned out to be
many of land-grant public research universities. SNU seems to be located somewhere
between very strong private and public research universities. As will be shown later,
the results of this self-evaluation are consistent with those of external ranking surveys.
< Figure 1> Comparison of Averaged Quality Index between American Research Universities
with SNU, 1994-2003.

6

120
100

%

80
60

SNU

40

The Top Univ.

20

High reanking
Univ.

0

1994-5

1996-7

1998-99 2000-01 2002-03

Sources: Kim Kuy-won et. al. (2005), An Assessment of Research Competence in Science andEngineering, Research Bulletin, Seoul National University

The major findings of the analysis are as follows:1.

According to the measure of the quantity of articles published in the six

fields, SNU achieved only 75% of the Top University category in the U.S. in 1994, butachieved 151% in 2004.
2.

According to the quality index of the number times a paper was cited, during

1994–1995, SNU jumped to 35% of the Top University category and 53% of the HighRanking Universities category. Since then, there has been a significant and steady
improvement, and by 2002-2003, using the same index, SNU reached 74% of the Top
University category. In comparison with the group of High-Ranking Universities, SNU‘squality was in fact higher than the former by 37% for 2002-2003.
3.

Judging by the quality of published journal articles, SNU‘s graduate

program in science and engineering is ranked at approximately 20th amongst High-Ranking
American Universities.

This internal review, however, provoked many hot debates and controversies,
with much skepticism surrounding the evaluation, simply because it ranked SNU in the20th place among American research universities. However, this soon was seen to be a7reasonable estimation. An examination of SNU‘s internal review data and The Time‘sinternational comparisons of the world‘s top 100 science universities yields consistent resultswith regard to SNU‘s ranking. 2 Its over-all rankings according to The Time during the three
years of 2005, 2006, 2007 have risen from 93rd to 63rd and to 51st in 2007. SNU achieved aremarkable leap forward toward excellence in research during the last 10 years or so, an
accomplishment attributed to a myriad of factors. Although the American model may have
served as a benchmark, it should be noted that a great number of professors at SNU have madedeliberate efforts to develop an academic model that is globally competitive and, at the sametime, maintains culturally relevant mentor-student relations in the graduate programs.

III.

The Potential Power of Asian Values in Making Modern Research
Universities

In riposte to pressures of globalization, Asian countries have committed themselves toameliorating their higher education systems to produce internationally competitive humanresources.

As mentioned earlier, one of the most central strategies in moving toward thisgoal has been to enhance graduate programs, with a specific focus on excellence in research,building them up to a world-class level. However, the truth of the matter is that the very term
―world-class‖ is not by any means an analytic one and therefore, is not a very clear term ofreference for scholarly discussions. As shown clearly in refectory remarks by an American
historian (Lucas, 1994), since no attempt has been made to construct a true ―global‖ history ofhigher education, in the use of this term an unabashedly ―Eurocentric‖ discourse prevails.
Lucas has reintroduced some long-excluded traditions of higher learning: Chinese, Vedantist
oral tradition, ancient India teachings, Nestorian, Muslim scriptoria, and those that flourishedin West African cities like Jene, Gao and Timbuktu. (ibid, xx) The Korean heritage was not,however, mentioned in his list of omitted academic traditions.

A European higher education institution, like the ―universitas‖ (Durkheim,
1938), served as the sole institutional bastion of intellectual life and scholarly activities
in Western countries. That was not the case in Korea and other Asian countries. In
traditional Korean society, a good number of academic networks, or what Korean
2

According to The Times, SNU with a score of 38.3 is located between Johns Hopkins University with 39 and UCSan Diego with 36.7. If we only count American research universities, leaving out European, Japanese and Chinese
institutions, among the 100 universities, Johns Hopkins University is 16th and UC-San Diego is 17th. If theserankings are valid, we can hardly reject SNU‘s self-evaluation, placing it among its benchmark counterparts in
America.

8

scholars may call ―Gates,‖ were loosely formed, with a prominent scholar of
Confucianism acting as a central figure. (Kim, 2007b) The term gate originated fromand was widely used in the Buddhist academic traditions and practices from thousandsof years ago. The Buddha himself is, for example, the gate to the Buddhist Way for his
many thousands of disciples and a greater number of faithful followers. Likewise,
Confucius (551-479 B.C.) is also the gate to the Confucius Way for the cultivation of
the personality in its highest from. For Korean intellectuals, a gate signifies the highest
degree of intellectual excellence combined with the same degree of moral integrity
found in a prominent mentor. Entering a certain gate means positioning oneself as thementor‘s disciple for a lifetime. A Korean scholar will often acknowledge himself as―a scholar under a certain gate,‖ revealing his identity and his serious commitment toan academic lineage from a particular, prominent scholar. Here ―under‖ means
referring to himself as a humble disciple. Heated debates among competing gates
reinforce their own intellectual standings among scholars with and without civil
service jobs. Sometimes a group evolves into a political party, especially whennational security is in danger. These schools of Confucius thought constitute nonformal and less-institutionalized (NFLI) scholarly networks between mentors anddisciples.(ibid) The relations have neither a formal institutional base, as in European
universities, or an organizational base, as in medieval guilds among artisans.
During the Chosun Dynasty (1392-1910), intellectuals participated in academic
activities through informal channels of communication between mentors and their disciples.
Indigenous scholastic traditions were cultivated and maintained through academic discussions
and the extended exchange of manuscripts, correspondence and letters. They, however, hadbeen the center of excellence in research in keeping with the Confucian way and training of
the power elites of the Kingdom.

If the University of Paris was where Western Scholasticism

blossomed in the medieval period, then it is the gate, through which a distinctive academic
lineage was formed, where the renaissance of Korean Confucianism has taken place in theearly 16 century (ibid). The gates and their associated academic lineages which passed
through them were Korea‘s equivalent to the medieval universities, and not a formal institution
set by either the central or local government. Interestingly, these traditions and practices arefound even in today‘s modern westernized universalities in Korea, and serve as a powerful andeffective driving force for successful academic achievement (Kim, 2007a) and for asimultaneous transition from elite to mass and universal education at both the secondary andhigher education level, a progress which eventually led to a reality of ―tertiary education forall.‖ (Kim, 2007b; Grubb et al, 2006) Moreover, it was against this cultural heritage that the9

Western ideas of the university were introduced, clashed, and were then implemented; firstly,
by American protestant missionaries (Lee, 2004), and later by Japanese colonizers later (Oh,2004; Tsurumi, 1984).
It was long a common practice among historians of Korean higher education to argue
that the first public college, Taehak (Great Learning), founded in 372 A.D. and its heir institute,
Sungkyunkwan, established by the government in 1398, as the centers of indigenous higher
education, were the Asian counterparts to the Western medieval University. However, thisargument has served to obscure rather than illuminate our knowledge of one of the mostdistinguishing characteristics of traditional higher education. Unlike the University of Paris in
the 12 Century, Sungkyunkwan was not the center of excellence of Neo-Confucian studies, but
a governmental institute for lesser degree holders to reside for a certain period of time in orderto prepare for their final national examination to be selected as civil officers.

It was also thecenter of memorial ceremonies for the Great Saint Confucius and his twelve Sages. As time
went by, the ceremonial function prevailed over the educational function. It was, however, at avariety of NFLI organizations that most of the training of the Korean literati was carried out,
ranging from a family school, to Letter Hall, and to the private seminary known as Sowon, themost institutionalized private school with governmental authorization. Min (2004) is right in

his assertion that indigenous higher learning of Asia had ―a long tradition going backthree thousand years, compassing both the public and private sectors‖ (p.56). However,Min‘s definition was not absolutely clear in pinpointing the fact that it was the latter,rather than the former, which was the center of academic excellence. This is quite theopposite from the medieval University. In other words, it refers not to a state run
institute of tai-xue (which literally means ―higher learning‖), but to a gate ofConfucian disciples, which was the center of excellence in higher learning.
The origin of such higher learning in Asia can be traced back to the Confucius legend
and his practices of teaching around 500 BC.

He made himself a teacher at the age of 29 andhis house became a site of pilgrimage and a centre of learning for his followers.

Accordingto the text Confucius Analeptics (Legge, 1892), an early form of his teaching began as follows:
The Master (Confucius) said. ―From the men bringing his bundles of dried
flesh for my teaching, I have never refused instruction to anyone.‖ VII. 7
Dr. Legge, the highest authority on Chinese Classics in the English speaking world,interpreted this phrase as follows, ―However small the fee his pupils were able to afford, he10never refused instruction.

All that he required was an ardent desire for improvement, andsome degree of capacity.‖ (Legge, 1892, p.61) His teaching was not carried out in any formal
school or teaching institute established by the government. It was an archetype of private
education for a great scholar to offer lessons at his house. This form of NFLI private higher
education continued to persist as a long standing practice in the Eastern civilizations (Lee,1984, p.220).
While making the teaching available to almost anyone who had a desire to learn andcould pay a nominal fee for tuition, Confucius rigorously selected a small number of disciples
amongst his followers. According to the original legend, there were at least 3,000 followers.
He formally handpicked only 77, it being recorded thus: ―The Disciples who received myinstructions, and could comprehend them, were seventy-seven individuals.

They were allscholars of extraordinary ability.‖ (ibid, p.62) Among those selected, only twelve sages
progressed further. These 12 disciples were placed, only one level below Confucius, at the
Shrine of Confucius the Saint, where a ritual memorializing him had been observed. Thanks totheir continuing scholastic efforts, Confucius‘s teachings survived various historicalvicissitudes and ordeals and maintain their place amongst the greatest classics of higher
learning in Asia, right up until the present day (Kim, 2007b).
Korean Confucianism was in fact Chu His‘s (1128-1200) Neo-Confucianism, which
was revived during the Song Dynasty.

The Korean literati found it most appealing, for itsought to establish an ethical base for an enlightened political world with fully fledged
speculative and theoretical studies (Lee, p. 217). The Korean scholar, T‘oegye (Yi Hwang,
1501-1570), developed a full explication of i (li in Chinese) philosophy3, which accounts forwhat things are and how they behave. As a result of his philosophical endeavors, he wasrevered as a Korean Chu His, a Confucius, or sometimes as both.

He presented aphilosophical doctrine emphasizing moral self-cultivation as the essence of learning. He was
the greatest figure in the history of philosophy in Korea and exerted a huge influence on theshaping of Japanese Confucian doctrine as well (Lee, 1984).
Under T‘oegye, a group of the brilliant Neo-Confucian literati living in the Southernarea gathered, who devoted their energy to pursuits mainly at the private academies or Sowon.
They remained in the South for a very long period, in order to avoid being involved in the3

The other contrasting but inseparable component of Confucius philosophy is ki (Ch’i in Chinese) whichemphasizes the energizing component. See ―The Culture of the Neo-Confucian Literati,‖ (Lee, 1984, pp.217-220),
for the detailed discussion of Korean Confucian tradition.

11

vortex of court politics. The succession of the utmost level of scholarship was made by thedevelopment of an academic lineage. Among the Southerners, Sungho (Yi Ik, 1681-1763) was
the exemplar Confucius literati who was flexible enough to embrace Western Scholasticism
and made a great contribution to the renaissance of Korean Confucianism in its later days.
When he passed away, one of his disciples and the statesman of the time, Prime Minster Chae,
wrote the following memorial words on his tombstone.
Our scholarship had always grown from an academic lineage. The Korean
Confucius, T‘oegye, taught his Way to Hangang who taught it in turn to
Misu.

As a disciple of Misu, Sungho inherited the legitimate academic

lineage of T‘oegye.
Academic lineage had nothing to do with Sungkyunkwan or Four Schools establishedand run by the center and local government, respectively. This lineage was made throughprivate gates. The academic linage was transferred to the next generation of scholars. The
East & West cultural collision in the early 18th century lead to the birth of various new schoolsof thought ranging form voluntary conversion to Catholicism, to the birth of a movement
rejecting heterodoxy, and to the rise of practical learning (Kim, 2007b).
A group of early converts led by Yi Pyok (1754-1785) and Sung-hun Yi (1756-1801)
started to emerge, not through the works of Catholic mission abroad, but rather on their own
through reading, discussions and their critiques of works brought back from Churches in
Beijing, such as the True Principles of Catholicism (written by a Jesuit monk called Mateo
Ricci) or the First Steps in Catholic Doctrine (Lee, op. cit, p. 239). All the scholastic activities
and serious pursuits which sought a new way took place at the private letter hall run by Yi
Pyok (or Byok). There even followed an establishment of what came to be called the St.
Joseph Seminary, to train Korean priests in 1864. As an aftermath of the French Revolution,
Jesuit priests working at Beijing Churches were expelled and replaced by priests from theSociety of Foreign Missionary of Paris. It was the letter group who gave specific instructions
to the Korean church not to observe traditional rites. It was only after early converters of
Chosun faithfully followed the instructions and started to challenge the political order throughthe Rites Controversy that the chain of events which led to the Catholic Persecution of 1801
actually began. The Letter Hall established by Yi at a secluded place near the Buddhist templeof Chonjin Am in the deep mountains is regarded now as the birthplace of Korean

12

Catholicism. 4
The second fraction of Sungho‘s disciples went on to firmly preserve the values of
Neo-Confucian doctrine. The historical records indicate that this group read a vast amount ofbooks on scholasticism. Leading literati of this group wrote to his mentor, Sungho, lettersseverely criticizing the drawbacks of the European University system, especially the order ofknowledge. For him, feeding technical and professional knowledge to pupils without a soundbase of character-building was not education at all. After this group proposed a political
position rejecting heterodoxy -- which in fact meant a rejection of the values and thoughts of
the West, including that of later westernized Japan -- this fraction advanced their position tovehemently oppose the opening of the doors to the West, by raging a righteous war against theregime and the Japanese invaders.
The Sirak (Practical Leaning) scholars led by Dasan (Chong Yag-yong, 1762-1836) put
a specific focus, not on theoretical discourse, but on natural and social sciences with apragmatic method of inquiry into the real conditions of society. Along with him, like-mindedscholars, and disciples all sought a government free of corruption, national wealth, andutilitarian land reforms. There were no records showing his having entered Sungkyunkwan, but
he was remembered to be the best of the best literati, who built a springboard for the modern
political and social reforms in later days. Led by Dasan and succeeded by his academic linage,
the Sirak scholars ―impelled Yi Dynasty scholarship rapidly ahead in new directions.‖(ibid, pp.
232-243)
In short, some major characteristics of higher learning in the Kingdom of Chosun canbe specified as follows. Unlike the European model, it did not take the form of formal or
institutionalized higher education.

Letter Hall was possible any time and in any place, if

there was a scholarly teacher and a group of students with a minimal level of financial burden,
but the desire and capacity to learn. The Hall was open to virtually all men, with a few
exceptions. Co-existing with a network of public education institutes, private education
institutions functioned as the center of excellence in research and higher learning.
was, not government, a major actor in increasing educational opportunities.

FamilyThis archetypeof the NFLI form of higher education repeatedly appeared to meet peoples‘ demands for higher
education under the Japanese occupation, which tried systematically to destroy indigenous
private higher education. The current structures and operational environment of Korean
4

For historical records on the birth place of Korean Catholic Church and Yi Byok‘s pioneering
activities and advanced scholarship, make a visit to a website at http://www.chonjinam.or.kr/english/
13

universities reflect various conflicting systems and models. They included a traditional
mentor-disciple relationship, the German research university model adopted and transplanted
to Korea by Japan, and an American system of tertiary education progressively introduced
after 1948 (Kim, 2007b).

VI. Some Reflections
The great leap forward to excellence in research shows that SNU appears tohave reached a world-class level. It shows that any flagship university in peripheral
Asian countries has the potential to become a world-class university. There are many
forces that may have led to these impressive achievements. The first factor is thefundamental strength of the Korean secondary education system. Students who enter SNU do
so after having undergone a tremendous amount of high-quality preparation. According to aninternational survey published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, Korean students in secondary education ranked among the top three countries interms of problem-solving and mathematical skills (OECD, 2004a, 2004b). Thus, it is not
surprising that SNU, which admits only the most able students from a wider pool of students
who already exhibit high level problem solving and mathematical skills, has the potential of
becoming a world-class university.
The second factor is the quality of undergraduate education received by the students
while at SNU. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, it was reported that SNU was second
only to the University of California, Berkeley in producing more undergraduate students wholater earned doctorates from American universities between 1999 and 2003 (Gravois, 2005).
The undergraduate programs of SNU seem to serve as the second-best ―university college,‖ anoutstanding source of undergraduates who went on to pursue advanced study in the UnitedStates (Jenks & Riesman, 1968, p. 20–27). SNU has in fact functioned as a good preparatory
institute for doctoral programs of American research universities.

The third force supporting the creation of world-class universities in Korea,
involves the Korean intellectual tradition of a strong and committed relationshipbetween a mentor and disciple that serves as a potent academic ingredient in graduate
14

programs. It is fascinating to see the Korean traditional cultural pattern playing apractical role as a crucial resource in the globalization of its modern educational
institutes. Scientific knowledge is not immune to political and ideological forces. A challengethat will require ongoing attention is the task of enabling a university in a middle-income
country to find a niche in the global intellectual community while maintaining a commitment
to the country‘s unique traditional heritage without compromising the institution‘sinternational competitive edge. Participation in the global community of world-classuniversities as a competitive partner requires enormous reserves of determination, tremendous
effort, and a plethora of resources. Even while taking as a benchmark the models developed
and refined in the core industrial countries, Asian countries should not abandon their own
intellectual traditions. These countries need to be relevant in the global intellectual community
while being mindful so as not to become victims of any emergent tendency towards
intellectual neocolonialism in the 21st century.

15

REFERENCES
Altbach, P. G. (2003). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. International Higher
Education, 33, 5–8.
Altbach, P. G. 2002, ―The Private Sector in Asian Higher Education,‖ International Higher
Education, Fall.
Durkheim, E. (1938). The birth of the university. Trans. P. Collins (Ed.), In The evolution of
educational thoughts, (pp. 75–87). London: RKP.
Gravois, J. (2005). Number of doctorates edges up slightly. Chronicle of Higher Education 51,
no. 18: A34.

Grubb, W. N., R. Sweet, M. Gallagher, & O. Tuomi. 2006. Thematic Review ofTertiary Education: A Country Report of Korea, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Paris, France
Jenks, C. S., and D. Riesman. (1968). The academic revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Kim, Ki-Seok. (2007a) ―A Great Leap Forward to Excellence in Research at Seoul National
University, 1994-2006,‖ Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol.8, No.1, 1-11
Kim, Ki-Seok. (2007b). ―Isn‘t it a Pyrrhic Victory?: A Historical Sociology of Tertiary
Education for All in Korea ‖, The 8th International Conference on Education Research:
New Challenges in Higher Education, October 23-25, 2007, Seoul National University,
Seoul, Korea, 159-188.
Kim Kuy-won et. al. (2005). An Assessment of Research Competence in Science andEngineering, Research Bulletin, Seoul National University
Lee. Ki-Baik. (1984). A New History of Korea, E. W. Wager & E. J. Shultz (tr.), Seoul:IlchogakLee. S. H. (2004). Korean higher education: History and future challenges. In Asianuniversities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges, ed. P. G. Altbach
and T. Umakoshi, 145–74. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Legge, James (1892). The Chinese Classics, London: Oxford University Press
Lucas, C. J. (1994). American higher education: A history, NY: St. Martin‘s Griffin
Min, W. (2004). Chinese higher education: The legacy of the past and the context of the future.
In Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges, ed. P. G.
Altbach and T. Umakoshi, 53–84. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Office of Research Affairs (2006). Research activities at Seoul National University: 20052006. Seoul, Korea: Office of Research Affairs, Seoul National University
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004a). Learning for tomorrow’s
world. Paris: OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004b). Problem solving for16

tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD.

Oh, Seong-Cheol (2004). The shaping of colonial elementary education in Korea,
Seoul: Educational Science Press.
The Times Higher Education Supplement. (2005, 2006 & 2007). World university rankings
http://www.thes.co.uk/statistics/international_comparisons/2007/top_100_science.aspx.

Tsurumi, E. P (1984). Colonial education in Korea & Taiwan. in Myers R. H & M. P.
Peatti (eds). The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895-1945. Princeton N.J.:
Princeton University Press: 240-274

17GIARI Working Paper Vol. 2008-E-22,
January 31 2009
Published by Waseda University Global COE Program
Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI),
Waseda University, Nishiwaseda Bldg. 5F#507 1-21-1
Nishi-waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan
E-mail: affairs@waseda-giari.jp
Webpage: http://www.waseda-giari.jp
Printed in Japan by International Academic Printing Co.Ltd

18