In this blog post, we examine whether expanding rolling admissions is a fair way to reform Korean university admissions and analyze the impact on university autonomy and diversity in education.

 

Unfair to universities: Expanding the number of seats for rolling admissions

Every year in Korea, more than 500,000 students analyze the entrance exams of the universities they want to attend and choose the one that is most favorable to them. Each university has a variety of entrance exams, including rolling admissions, rolling admissions, and equal opportunity admissions, and the qualifications and verification methods for each are different. While universities design their admissions programs to reflect the kind of talent they seek, they cannot escape government-led education policies.
The South Korean government has revised its university admissions policy 16 times in 60 years. Recently, the Park Geun-hye administration announced a plan to simplify the university admissions process by expanding the SAT-oriented regular admissions process and reducing the number of other processes such as essays and oral interviews. In response, Seoul National University increased the proportion of regular admissions by about 7%, and other universities have followed suit.
In my opinion, the government’s admissions policy is inappropriate because universities should take the lead in higher education, and expanding the number of selective admissions not only hinders the autonomy of universities, but also leads to a number of side effects. In particular, expanding selective admissions does not respect the individuality of universities and may lead to further hierarchization of universities.

 

University individuality and the limitations of rolling admissions

First, the expansion of rolling admissions centered on SAT scores does not respect the individuality of universities. Universities are key institutions that provide higher education at the final stage of primary, secondary, and tertiary education, and each university specializes in education based on its own educational philosophy and human resources. To this end, universities have different ways of selecting students. Since universities have different educational goals and philosophies, for example, students are selected through practical assessments in arts-based majors, while students in research-oriented majors are selected by assessing basic skills at the secondary education level.
Furthermore, even within the same major, different universities require different qualities from their students. For example, Hongik University’s design department uses a non-practical entrance exam to select students, while Chung-Ang University prioritizes practical skills through practical exams. Each university uses different assessment methods to select the right talent, and these processes play an important role in realizing the university’s personality and educational goals.
However, rolling admissions ignores this individuality and forces universities to select students based on a single criteria: SAT scores. This approach fails to fully assess the qualities that colleges are looking for and can hinder their ability to achieve their educational goals. In the end, it costs colleges more money to realize their educational goals, and students are less satisfied.

 

Expanding rolling admissions and increasing college hierarchy

Secondly, the expansion of rolling admissions could lead to further stratification of universities. Korean universities already have a hierarchical structure, with expressions such as “SKY” and “Inseoul” distinguishing the top universities from the bottom. This hierarchy is largely driven by an evaluation system centered on SAT scores. SAT scores provide a numerical representation of a student’s academic achievement, making it relatively easy to rank universities.
As rolling admissions becomes more prevalent, the more colleges and universities become stratified by SAT scores, the more this phenomenon intensifies. Evaluating students based solely on SAT scores ignores the variety of evaluation criteria that are specific to each college’s characteristics and needs, and makes it easier to compare and rank colleges. This, in turn, perpetuates college stratification and reinforces hierarchy among students.

 

The relationship between rolling admissions and private education

While some argue that rolling admissions will expand the private education market and widen the gap between rich and poor, research shows that rolling admissions has actually led to a decrease in private education expenditures. In 2010, when private education expenditures declined by 3.5% year-on-year, the proportion of rolling admissions centered on the SAT increased significantly, which had a negative impact on the private education market. This argument is also supported by research that shows no difference in private education expenditures between students who prepare for rolling admissions and those who do not.
On the other hand, the SAT-centered rolling admissions system has been pointed out as one of the reasons for the increase in private education expenses. As the EBS SAT linkage policy has led to an increase in the number of SAT-centered entrance exams, students are more likely to use private education to learn EBS materials and utilize additional learning content provided by private education institutions, which is contrary to the government’s claim that EBS SAT broadcasting reduces private education expenses.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, policies that force universities to increase the proportion of rolling admissions may infringe on the autonomy of universities and lead to increased university hierarchization. By insisting on a uniform assessment method centered on SAT scores, rolling admissions ignores the right of universities to select the talent they want and can lead to a decline in the quality of education. In addition, SAT-centered admissions policies have the side effect of expanding the private education market and forcing students to learn by rote.
Therefore, we believe that maintaining a variety of assessment methods through rolling admissions and allowing universities to select talented students autonomously is a better policy direction. University admissions policies should move toward a pluralistic assessment system that considers students’ diverse abilities and potential, rather than simply evaluating students’ grades. This will contribute to improving the quality of education and providing students with broader opportunities.