With knowledge gained from the last assessment, preparation for the 2018 university assessment included trying to eliminate significant problems and to set an appropriate direction fit for the present situation. The last assessment highlighted three critical problems. First, due to a division into 6 grades, the ranking system caused aggravation and the evaluation burdened the universities that were evaluated. A diamond-shaped evaluation distribution meant that low-graded universities were regarded as inferior universities. Moreover, an excessive number of grades and factors to estimate, and a slow pace of evaluation turned out to be problems. Specifically, only one assessing team evaluated all factors of around 10 universities which resulted in the slow assessment. Second, all universities except for the top grade ones had to reduce the number of students. This was a problem because it focused too much on quantitative modification. A-ranked universities comprised 16 percent of universities over all so that meant the remaining 84 percent couldn’t avoid reducing their student numbers. Fewer students led to less tuition income, which hampered the development of the schools. Last, on account of the elimination financial support resulting from the previous assessment, universities could not improve the quality of education provided to students.

Then, what changed this time? First of all, the grade divisions were decreased from 6 to 3. Thanks to this alteration, the distribution shape became an inverted triangle, with all of the top grades of previous assessment being integrated into one grade. Adding to this, the work of the assessment team was somewhat improved. This time they evaluated only one factor for all universities. Next, official suggestion for personnel reduction was given to second- and third- grade universities. This was not different from the last assessment, but the increase in the number of top ranked universities created a significant gap between the top schools and those below them. Also, a limitation on financial support is only for the last grade universities. The first result of the assessment in June this year showed that only 18.4% of schools are subject to financial support limitations. Excluding the third grade schools, any university can apply for support for special purpose business, which means if a school had a reduction in students number, it would be possible to search for a way to grow through a brilliant business idea. However, there have been some criticisms that in reality the current assessment is only superficially different from the previous assessment because the structure makes low-ranked universities take all the burden. Kyonggi University, which received a grade of C in the last university assessment, was selected as a selfimproving university in the 2018 assessment. This result was achieved with the efforts of all the members of Kyonggi University. It means a lot because it is generally agreed that Korea has too many universities now. As a result, Kyonggi University will not be affected by worries of abolition for at least a few years. Also, it is now possible to remedy the drawbacks of the university in order to become a better one. As we all know, positive results never come from nowhere. Thus, the Pharos will try to help readers understand what the university assessment is and what efforts have been made. The impact of university assessments on schools is quite significant. Therefore, the Pharos met with Kim Sangbeom, a professor of Chemistry and Engineering who is the president of the faculty, to find out what the assessment means and what we should do in the future.