Who Rules? The Ongoing Controversy Over World University Rankings in South Korea

At the end of last June, reports surfaced that 52 major universities across South Korea, including Seoul National University, Yonsei University, Korea University, and KAIST, had decided to abstain from participating in the QS World University Rankings. This news sent ripples through the academic community. In 2023, marking its 20th anniversary, QS announced a revamp of its evaluation system. The modifications were criticized by South Korean universities for seemingly favoring Western institutions, leading to a collective backlash.

On June 25th, the essence of the "ultimatum" delivered to QS was as follows: the newly introduced evaluation system by QS has flaws, thus the release of the world university rankings should be delayed; if the rankings are released as planned, they should be deemed invalid; henceforth, South Korean universities will not provide data to QS, and will permanently withdraw from QS World University Rankings.

Regardless of the representation and influence that this ad hoc body, formed not by the presidents but by the deans (or vice-presidents) of planning of the 52 Korean universities, holds, the issue at hand is whether the demand to halt the announcement until their claims are addressed by QS, a private UK organization, is effective, and who would agree with their interpretation that the announced results are invalid. Seemingly aware of this, key representatives from QS have shown confidence, reassuring South Korean universities on one hand, while asserting that evaluations can be conducted even without data provided by the universities.

Realistically speaking, the essence of the argument conveyed by the joint statement sent by the 52 universities to QS is less a refusal of the QS university evaluation, and more an appeal stating, “The methodology is unfavorable to us, please change it.” This incident has, paradoxically, highlighted the significant influence of QS.

From the perspective of South Korean universities, there are numerous grievances. They have been unwittingly swept into a situation where a foreign company, arising in the wave of market liberalization and globalization of higher education, has imposed its own standards, declaring, "We will evaluate you from now on!" without prior request.

Although a few domestic universities are now gaining recognition on the global stage, many Korean South universities, especially those considered prestigious, were left with no choice but to relinquish control in the face of these unavoidable trends, living in a comfort zone with booming domestic demand for higher education until the early to mid-2000s.

The turmoil in academia related to global university rankings is not a recent phenomenon. A notable example is the ranking manipulation incident at University C in 2017, which faced intense criticism from professor associations and alumni groups. While the incident concluded somewhat inconclusively as “the improper result of excessive ambition of the responsible staff”, it did showcase the reality of South Korean universities being dominated by the influence of global rankings.

In 2012, there were unpleasant rumors that a certain evaluation agency demanded a whopping KRW 300 million in consulting fees from University P, whose ranking had dropped. Prestigious University S, representing our country, also made efforts to efficiently promote its name on the global stage by utilizing the attractive tool of rankings, with top leadership flying directly to the headquarters of world university ranking organizations. The history of the past approximately 20 years, during which domestic universities have strived in this manner, reveals a bitter-sweet reality.

While organizations such as the OECD, IMF, and World Bank exert direct and indirect influence on domestic universities as supranational entities in the public domain, several companies, represented by QS and THE, lead the global higher education order using mechanisms they created in the private sector. Major newspapers in this country, inspired by the success of the U.S. News & World Report rankings, have also collaborated with these entities or independently developed university evaluation systems, enjoying the “pleasurable excitement” for a while.

The transformation of rankings is endless. Evolving from a simple type that surveys perceptions of university competitiveness based on reputation and brand, it also diversifies criteria to research capacity, graduate reputation, and industry perspectives, differentiates rankings by region such as Asia, North America, and Latin America, and even assigns separate rankings depending on whether the university has been established for 50 years.

A ranking claiming to measure “Real Impact” was also introduced in 2020. Times Higher Education adopted the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to create the ‘Impact Ranking’. Occasionally, the spectacle of the government or the National Assembly citing QS, THE, IMD, etc., to discuss the competitiveness of South Korean universities appears to be joint operations by both domestic and international public and private sectors, whether intended or not.

In 2022, Harvard, Yale, and UC Berkeley Law School's refusal to participate in the U.S. News & World Report’s evaluation marked a spread of movements resisting the long-dominating rankings. Earlier this year, several American medical schools also showed similar movements. Following the announcement last May by Lanzhou, Nanjing, and Renmin Universities in China to withdraw from all world university rankings, advocating ‘educational sovereignty’ and ‘universities suited to Chinese characteristics’, the news this September that BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) would jointly create their own university ranking system is also noteworthy.

Reflecting on the past decade since 2014, when Korea University students shouted, "We reject the JoongAng Ilbo University Ranking," we observe the flow of the academic community and realize that the struggle to dominate higher education hegemony on the international stage is still fierce. “Who Rules?”, a slogan once put forward by QS, now leads us to ask, “Who Should Rule?”

--------------------------------------

*Disclaimer

This content is a translation of an article originally composed in Korean language, which was published in September 2023 on the University News Network, a premier media outlet in South Korea dedicated to higher education. For the original article, please visit https://news.unn.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=552998.