Education Story

The Autonomous Innovation University is a new name, not a new principle. The Ministry of Education's plan to select private universities with growth potential, ease tuition and admission regulations, and provide comprehensive financial support means fostering universities above a certain level into global education and research hubs. The selection criteria, number of universities, support scale, and scope of special provisions are not yet determined. However, the direction is clear. The difference is that it's not just a funding project, but one that will include core regulations of university operation as special provisions, and shift research support from individual/project-based to comprehensive university-wide support. There is also discussion of allocating resources based on university characteristics, such as research-focused, regional/industry-academia cooperation, educational innovation, and adult/vocational education.

Even if the difference seems small, the phrase 'select and support well-performing universities' has been repeated for over 20 years. After BK21 in 1999 focused investment on project teams with the goal of world-class graduate schools, NURI, LINC, PRIME, CK, and ACE followed. In 2019, purpose-specific projects were grouped under the University Innovation Support Project, increasing the proportion of general finances. The most recent iteration is Glocal University 30. In that it selects non-capital region universities, provides about 100 billion won per university over 5 years, and prioritizes regulatory reform, the structure of combining finance and special provisions for one university is the same. Only the focus is different. Glocal University emphasized co-growth with regions and industries, while the Autonomous Innovation University, based on the publicly released sketch, is closer to the global leap of private universities with growth potential. The statement about revitalizing local areas and the statement about making strong private universities even stronger may sound like the same policy, but their destinations are different.

The track record of past projects makes this difference even clearer. BK21 changed the number of papers and the framework of the research system. Quantitative achievements were clear, but qualitative leaps and self-sustaining structures after the project ended varied by university. NURI promoted the training of local university personnel and regional virtuous cycles. Educational satisfaction and employment rates of some large project groups improved, but no shift was observed in job quality or the retention rate of graduates in their hometowns. Similarly, PRIME was able to change short-term enrollment reallocation and industry-academia linkage indicators, but it is difficult to say that it led to long-term competitiveness or regional settlement. When the government pours resources into a specific function, the number of that function increases. Whether that number remains a structure that supports universities in regions where the population is declining is another matter.

The core of that other problem is the school-age population. According to Statistics Korea's projections, the school-age population aged 6-21 will decrease by 3.37 million from 7.5 million in 2022 to 2040. The 18-year-old population will drop from 480,000 to 260,000. In 2040, the 18-year-old population will be 54.7% of the 2022 level. If universities in Seoul and the metropolitan area fill their current enrollment quotas first, local universities will have a significant portion of their quotas empty. While there are avenues to broaden the composition with international students and adult learners, it is difficult for them to become substitutes to fill the halved 18-year-old population. International students come with additional costs such as educational quality, housing, and stay management, and adult learners do not fill finances in the same way as school-age enrollment. This is also why universities are already looking for breathing room by raising tuition fees. As of April 2026, 67.7% of the 192 four-year general and education universities have raised tuition fees, and the average tuition fee for private universities is around 8.23 million won per year. The legal increase limit is further tightened to 1.2 times the average inflation of the previous three years. This is the background that makes deregulation attractive, and at the same time, it is a risk that will be passed on to students.

So this concept did not come alone. The Private University Structural Improvement Act came into effect on August 15, 2026. It designates universities in management crisis through financial diagnosis, orders structural improvement by receiving implementation plans, and opens paths for dissolution and liquidation if rehabilitation is difficult. For implementing universities, it eases restrictions on asset disposal and use of reserves, and for dissolved corporations, it provides a portion of remaining assets as dissolution settlement funds or allows contributions to public interest/social welfare corporations. For faculty and staff of closed schools and students who gave up transfer, consolation money within the scope of remaining assets was prepared. On one side, procedures for closing doors are created, and on the other side, regulations and finances are concentrated on private universities with potential, a dual approach. At the same time, the Innovation Support Project stipulates expulsion for up to 5 years if performance is not achieved and gives extra points to universities that reduce enrollment. RISE aims to decentralize the authority for fostering local talent through cooperation between local governments, universities, and the central government. The policy language is autonomy and innovation, but the actual landscape is a period of compressed adjustment where selective nurturing and selective expulsion proceed simultaneously.

The effectiveness of autonomous innovation universities must therefore be read in two ways. Research output, internationalization, academic flexibility, and industry-academia contracts of the selected few universities may increase. The past has shown that. The key is how much tuition, enrollment, and academic system regulations are actually loosened, and whether comprehensive support remains a temporary subsidy that disappears with the end of the project. The more difficult point is the universities that were not selected. It is difficult for this policy to reverse the crisis of all private universities. In a market with a declining population, a rebound that maintains the current size of all universities is arithmetically impossible. With Glocal Universities already pouring finances and special provisions into non-capital regions, if autonomous innovation universities again select private universities with growth potential, there is a high possibility of overlap between upper-middle private universities in the capital region and relatively strong ones in local areas. At that time, lower-middle private universities in local areas will become subject to the Structural Improvement Act, and access to higher education in those regions will become a public infrastructure issue for the region, not just a management issue for a single university.

Policies to revitalize local universities should not be an expanded version of university support projects. The goals should be divided into two. While global research and educational excellence should be concentrated on a select few, the primary goal of local university policies should be to maintain essential higher education and lifelong vocational training functions in those regions. The moment we try to turn every local university into a replica of Seoul National University, the policy will fail. The roles of national universities, specialized private universities, and junior colleges should be reallocated at the regional level, and redundant departments should be reduced, but functions tied to local jobs, such as nursing, health, engineering, education, and public services, must be protected.

Enrollment reduction and financial compensation must be a package deal. If student numbers decrease and the tuition-dependent structure remains, the only remaining options are a decline in quality or poor management. Restructuring that does not compensate for operating costs commensurate with the reduced enrollment will only cause local universities to wither first. Regulatory exceptions, too, should be open at the operational level, not just for promotional purposes. Flexibility in academic systems, joint degrees, contract departments, dedicated tracks for adult learners, and quality management for international students are the core. Tuition deregulation, if not accompanied by national scholarships, regional talent scholarships, and living expense support, will result in the benefits remaining with university finances while the costs are passed on to households. International students and adult learners are supplementary, not primary, pillars. It is also difficult to talk about transitioning to adult learning while applying the same enrollment rules for school-age students.

The exit strategy for failure must also be clear. The Structural Improvement Act is the beginning. However, to prevent dissolution exceptions from being perverted into a channel for corporations to recover assets, the exclusion of those involved in corruption, student transfers, compensation for faculty and staff, and the transfer of research records must be actually enforced. Neither neglecting 'zombie universities' nor abruptly closing them down and leaving enrolled students stranded is a policy. Performance indicators should also move beyond a short-term aggregation of papers, employment rates, and enrollment rates, and instead examine whether functions are maintained after the project ends, whether graduates remain in the region, and whether matching investments from local governments and businesses have been executed.

The easiest way for autonomous innovation universities to fail is to package them as a solution to the crisis of local universities. That is not a solution, but selection. Selection may be necessary. In a country where the population is halved, not all university names can be preserved. However, if the criteria for selection are only aligned with the global indicators of already strong private universities, the local areas will become a void in higher education. Saving local universities does not mean preserving all university names. It means preserving majors that young people in the region can study without going to the metropolitan area, jobs they can return to, and a structure where universities are connected to local hospitals, factories, and public institutions. The government's current strategy can strengthen a part of that structure. It cannot replace the entire structure. The success or failure of this policy will be determined not by the number of selected universities, but by the actual scope of the special provisions, and who and how students from regions with unselected universities will be accommodated.