[CONTRIBUTION] Korea's universities face test of relevance

Korean higher education faces a test of relevance as the student-age population is projected to drop from 460,000 in 2020 to about 280,000 by 2040. The piece argues that universities must show value through graduate skills, distinctive research and regional impact. It says some institutions may need to specialize, merge or close, while regional policy should back differentiated missions.

The Korean Council for University Education projects the number of Koreans of university-entrance age will fall from 460,000 in 2020 to about 280,000 by 2040, a decline of almost 40 percent.

Korea’s Regional Innovation System and Education initiative and its Glocal University programme are described as early attempts to shape the restructuring of regional universities.

In the QS Global Employer Survey, communication, teamwork and problem-solving were the three capabilities Korean employers rated most highly, with problem-solving scoring 91.5 among Korean employers versus an East Asian average of 89.7.

International student numbers in Korea rose from about 102,000 in 2016 to roughly 239,000 by March 2026, according to Korea Immigration Service data.

Korea invested 4.9 percent of GDP in research and development in 2023, compared with 2.6 percent in China, and about 44 percent of the country’s top universities are located in Seoul.

Published Sep 8, 2026 7:00 am KST

Updated Sep 8, 2026 2:09 pm KST

Leigh Kamolins, vice president of Evaluation and Insights at Quacquarelli Symonds

For years, debate about the future of Korean higher education has been dominated by demography. The concern is justified. The number of Koreans of university-entrance age is projected to fall from 460,000 in 2020 to about 280,000 by 2040, a decline of almost 40 percent, according to the Korean Council for University Education. Regional universities, many of them dependent on tuition income, are already confronting the consequences.

But demography alone will not decide which universities survive. It will expose which institutions can still persuade students, employers, governments and communities that they provide value worth sustaining. Korea’s unavoidable demographic contraction is therefore also a test of relevance.

That distinction matters. A university cannot reverse the country’s birth rate. It can decide whether its graduates acquire useful capabilities, whether its research addresses problems in which Korea can make a distinctive contribution and whether it creates demonstrable value for the region around it. These should be the three tests of relevance.

The choices may be uncomfortable. Some universities will need to specialise around genuine regional strengths. Others will have to merge, consolidate or share provision while a few may need to close. Korea’s Regional Innovation System and Education initiative and its Glocal University programme, which support selected regional universities as anchors of local development, are early attempts to shape this process rather than leave it to attrition.

This graph shows capabilities most valued by Korean employers, compared with the East Asia average. Courtesy of QS Global Employer Survey

The first test is what universities enable their graduates to do. Selectivity, research output and reputation remain important, but they are not substitutes for educational purpose. Artificial intelligence is changing jobs and the organisation of work. Graduates are likely to move through several careers, some of which do not yet exist. Subject knowledge remains essential, but it must be accompanied by the ability to keep learning, think critically, communicate, collaborate and apply knowledge in unfamiliar circumstances.

Korean employers have already signalled this demand. In the QS Global Employer Survey , communication, teamwork and problem-solving were the three capabilities they rated most highly. Problem-solving scored 91.5 among Korean employers, compared with an East Asian average of 89.7, the widest of the three gaps. Such skills cannot remain optional additions delivered chiefly by careers services. They must influence curricula, assessment and wider student experience.

These graphs show average international student ratio rank, left, and international faculty rank of the top five universities in five East Asian higher education systems from 2023 to 2027. A lower rank is better. Courtesy of QS World University Rankings

Internationalisation should serve the same educational purpose. Korea has made impressive progress as a destination, with international student numbers rising from about 102,000 in 2016 to roughly 239,000 by March 2026, according to Korea Immigration Service data. On QS’ international-student-ratio measure, its leading universities now rank ahead of their counterparts in mainland China, Japan and Taiwan and have been closing the gap year on year, though they remain well behind Hong Kong. Yet a shrinking domestic population could tempt institutions to treat overseas recruitment chiefly as a way to fill empty places. That would be a strategic mistake.

Recruiting international students is not the same as building an international university. Korea has been markedly more successful at attracting international students than international faculty, where its leading universities rank far lower, a sign that recruitment has so far outpaced the deeper work of building genuinely international academic communities. Global talent will contribute fully only where students and academics can belong, exchange ideas and influence teaching, research and campus life. Cultural diversity is not merely an enrollment strategy. Properly embedded, it is part of the infrastructure through which graduates learn to question assumptions and work across borders.

The second test is whether Korea converts research intensity into a distinctive impact. The country has formidable foundations: a highly qualified research workforce, strong research outcomes and the highest R&D intensity in the OECD. In 2023 it invested 4.9 percent of GDP in research and development, compared with 2.6 percent in China. But intensity does not guarantee influence. China’s far greater absolute scale means that Korean universities cannot compete simply by doing more of everything.

They will need to make hard choices about where they can lead. Ageing, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, climate technology, public health and other fields that cross disciplinary boundaries offer opportunities, but priorities should reflect genuine institutional capability rather than fashionable labels. Fundamental research must remain protected. The challenge is to connect it more deliberately with the economic and social problems Korea is particularly well placed to solve.

The third test is regional value. Korea’s most prestigious universities and much of its economic opportunities are concentrated in Seoul. Around 44 percent of the country’s top universities are located in the capital, a concentration found nowhere else in the world. Demographic decline will sharpen competition everywhere, but its effects will be unequal. For leading institutions in the capital, it may mean a smaller and more contested recruitment pool. For tuition-dependent regional universities, it threatens the economic and civic infrastructure of the communities they serve.

Regional policy should ask more than how many institutions can be preserved. It should ask what each university is for. An institution might earn its future by developing talent for a local industry, providing research capacity that smaller firms could not build alone, supporting public services or becoming a magnet for international students and academics. The answer will differ by region.

Public funding should support credible, differentiated missions and measurable public value, rather than preserving existing structures irrespective of their outcomes. Equally, reform must give successful regional institutions sufficient autonomy and funding stability to pursue distinctive long-term missions, rather than making their progress overly dependent on successive competitive funding programmes.

Korea’s predicament offers a warning to university systems elsewhere. Higher education’s social contract is no longer renewed automatically through rising participation and the assumed value of a degree. Students want evidence that education will prepare them for uncertain working lives. Governments expect research and innovation to produce public benefit. Regions need institutions capable of supporting their economic and social resilience. Demographic decline will determine how many students Korean universities recruit. Relevance will determine which institutions thrive.

Leigh Kamolins is vice president of Evaluation and Insights at global higher education analytics firm Quacquarelli Symonds.

随着适龄学生人口预计将从2020年的46万下降到2040年的约28万，韩国高等教育正面临生存挑战。文章认为，大学必须通过培养毕业生技能、开展特色研究和扩大区域影响力来展现自身价值。文章指出，一些院校可能需要进行专业化转型、合并或关闭，而区域政策应支持各院校发展方向的差异化。

韩国大学教育委员会预测，韩国大学入学年龄人口将从 2020 年的 46 万下降到 2040 年的约 28 万，降幅近 40%。

韩国的区域创新体系和教育计划以及全球本土大学计划被认为是塑造区域大学重组的早期尝试。

在 QS 全球雇主调查中，沟通、团队合作和解决问题的能力是韩国雇主评价最高的三个能力，其中韩国雇主解决问题的能力得分为 91.5 分，而东亚平均水平为 89.7 分。

根据韩国移民局的数据，到 2026 年 3 月，韩国的国际学生人数将从 2016 年的约 102,000 人增加到约 239,000 人。

2023年，韩国将国内生产总值的4.9%投入研发，而中国这一比例为2.6%。韩国约44%的顶尖大学位于首尔。

发布于2026年9月8日 上午7:00（韩国标准时间）

更新于2026年9月8日下午2:09（韩国标准时间）

Leigh Kamolins，Quacquarelli Symonds 评估与洞察副总裁

多年来，关于韩国高等教育未来的讨论主要集中在人口结构问题上。这种担忧不无道理。据韩国大学教育委员会预测，韩国适龄大学生的数量将从2020年的46万人下降到2040年的约28万人，降幅近40%。许多依赖学费收入的地方性大学已经开始感受到这一趋势带来的影响。

但人口结构本身并不能决定哪些大学能够生存下去。它将揭示哪些院校仍然能够说服学生、雇主、政府和社会，让他们相信自身提供的价值值得延续。因此，韩国不可避免的人口萎缩也是对高校相关性的一次考验。

这种区别至关重要。大学无法改变一个国家的出生率，但它可以决定其毕业生是否具备实用技能，其研究是否着眼于韩国能够做出独特贡献的问题，以及是否为周边地区创造切实可见的价值。这三点应当是衡量大学相关性的标准。

这些选择或许令人不安。一些大学需要围绕其真正的区域优势进行专业化发展。另一些大学则必须合并、整合或共享资源，而少数大学可能不得不关闭。韩国的“区域创新体系与教育”计划以及“全球本土大学”项目旨在扶持部分区域性大学，使其成为当地发展的支柱，这些都是早期尝试，旨在引导这一进程，而不是任其自然消亡。

此图显示了韩国雇主最看重的技能，并与东亚平均水平进行了比较。数据来源：QS全球雇主调查

首要的检验标准是大学能让毕业生做什么。录取标准、科研成果和声誉固然重要，但它们不能取代教育本身的目的。人工智能正在改变工作岗位和工作组织方式。毕业生可能会从事多种职业，其中一些职业目前尚不存在。学科知识固然重要，但必须同时具备持续学习、批判性思考、沟通、协作以及在陌生环境中运用知识的能力。

韩国雇主已经表达了这种需求。在QS全球雇主调查中，沟通、团队合作和问题解决能力是他们最看重的三项能力。韩国雇主对问题解决能力的评分高达91.5分，而东亚平均水平为89.7分，是三项能力差距中最大的。这些技能不能再仅仅作为就业指导中心提供的可选项，而必须融入课程设置、评估体系以及更广泛的学生体验中。

这些图表展示了2023年至2027年东亚五大高等教育体系中排名前五的大学的平均国际学生比例排名（左）和国际教师排名。排名越低越好。数据来源：QS世界大学排名。

国际化应服务于相同的教育目的。韩国作为留学目的地取得了令人瞩目的进步，据韩国移民局数据显示，国际学生人数从2016年的约10.2万人增长到2026年3月的约23.9万人。在QS国际学生比例排名中，韩国顶尖大学目前已超越中国大陆、日本和台湾的同类院校，并且差距逐年缩小，尽管仍远落后于香港。然而，国内人口的萎缩可能会诱使高校将海外招生主要视为填补空缺的手段。这将是一个战略性错误。

招收国际学生并不等同于建设一所国际化大学。韩国在吸引国际学生方面明显比吸引国际教师方面更为成功，其顶尖大学的国际教师排名远低于其他国家，这表明招生工作迄今为止已经超越了构建真正国际化学术共同体的深层工作。只有当学生和学者能够找到归属感、交流思想并影响教学、研究和校园生活时，全球人才才能充分发挥作用。文化多样性不仅仅是一种招生策略。如果能够真正融入其中，它将成为毕业生学习质疑固有观念和跨越国界开展工作的基础设施的一部分。

第二个考验是韩国能否将科研强度转化为显著的影响力。韩国拥有雄厚的基础：高素质的科研队伍、卓越的科研成果以及经合组织成员国中最高的研发强度。2023年，韩国研发投入占GDP的4.9%，而中国仅为2.6%。但研发强度高并不保证影响力大。中国庞大的研发规模意味着，韩国大学无法仅仅依靠在所有方面投入更多资源来与之竞争。

他们需要在发展方向上做出艰难抉择。老龄化、半导体、人工智能、气候技术、公共卫生以及其他跨学科领域都蕴藏着机遇，但优先事项应体现机构的真正能力，而非追逐时髦的标签。基础研究必须得到保护。挑战在于如何将基础研究与韩国尤其擅长解决的经济和社会问题更紧密地结合起来。

第三个考验是区域价值。韩国最负盛名的大学和大部分经济机遇都集中在首尔。全国约44%的顶尖大学都位于首都首尔，这种集中度在世界其他任何地方都找不到。人口下降将加剧各地的竞争，但其影响并不均衡。对于首都的顶尖院校而言，这可能意味着招生范围缩小且竞争更加激烈。而对于依赖学费收入的地区性大学而言，这将威胁到它们所服务社区的经济和公共基础设施。

区域政策不应仅仅关注能够保留多少所院校，而应探究每所大学存在的意义。一所院校的未来可能在于为当地产业培养人才、提供小型企业无法独立建立的研究能力、支持公共服务，或是吸引国际学生和学者。答案因地区而异。

公共资金应当支持可信、差异化的使命和可衡量的公共价值，而不是不顾结果而维护现有结构。同样，改革必须赋予成功的区域机构足够的自主权和资金稳定性，使其能够追求独特的长期使命，而不是使其发展过度依赖于一系列竞争性资助项目。

韩国的困境对其他国家的大学体系敲响了警钟。高等教育的社会契约不再仅仅依靠入学率的提高和学位价值的默认，而是不断延续。学生们需要确凿的证据，证明教育能够帮助他们应对充满不确定性的职业生涯。政府期望科研和创新能够带来公共利益。各个地区需要能够支撑其经济和社会韧性的机构。人口下降将决定韩国大学的招生规模。而大学的实用性将决定哪些机构能够蓬勃发展。

Leigh Kamolins 是全球高等教育分析公司 Quacquarelli Symonds 的评估与洞察副总裁。