“Vanishing Foundations, a Shaken Future” — 15 Korean Universities Removed From China’s Degree Recognition List

Long-Term Entrenchment of Academic Downgrading
Parallel Weakening of Mathematics and Literacy
Chain Erosion of the Talent Development System

China’s Service Center for Scholarly Exchange (CSCSE), an affiliate of the Ministry of Education, has recently removed 15 South Korean universities from its list of recognized overseas higher education institutions. The move is widely interpreted as a signal that the long-accumulating qualitative deterioration of South Korea’s higher education system is now being formally reflected in external evaluation frameworks. In particular, observers note that Korea’s declining foundational academic competencies—especially in mathematics—have reached a point where they are no longer tolerated under international standards, lending the decision considerable significance.

Nineteen Universities Dropped This Year Alone

According to South Korea’s Ministry of Education and Chinese education consultancy sources on the 31st, CSCSE revised its overseas higher education recognition list in late October, removing 270 institutions worldwide. Among them were 15 Korean universities, including Korea National Open University, Gangneung-Wonju National University (scheduled to merge with Kangwon National University), Mokpo National University, and Chungbuk Provincial University. Although two of the removed institutions had already closed, most continue to enroll Chinese students, leaving the domestic higher education sector visibly shaken.

Following the exclusion of five Seoul metropolitan universities with large Chinese student populations—such as Daejin University, Sahmyook University, and Anyang University—in late July, the latest revision brings the total number of Korean universities removed this year to 19, excluding one institution slated for merger. Chinese students who study at overseas institutions not listed by CSCSE face non-recognition of their degrees at home, resulting in disadvantages in employment and eligibility for civil service examinations. As a result, CSCSE actively discourages students from enrolling in delisted institutions.

Chinese education authorities reportedly did not provide explicit reasons for the exclusions, stating only that the decision was part of routine management to maintain the credibility and reliability of foreign degrees. South Korea’s Ministry of Education has suggested that the adjustment targeted institutions with no degree certification cases processed over the past five years. However, this explanation has been met with skepticism, as most of the removed universities have been hosting Chinese students for years.

CSCSE is known to be tightening its recognition criteria and conducting regular reassessments of study destinations and institutions, raising the possibility of further exclusions. While the Ministry of Education is reportedly discussing the matter with the Chinese Embassy in Seoul, it has not held separate consultations with the affected universities.

Downward Equalization of Intellectual Capacity

Experts point to factors such as governance issues, educational quality, institutional accreditation, and the legality of international student recruitment as possible reasons behind China’s decision, with educational quality emerging as the most persuasive explanation. According to the “2026 QS World University Rankings: Asia” released last month by UK-based evaluator Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), the Asian top 10 is dominated by Chinese and Singaporean universities, with none from South Korea. Yonsei University ranked highest among Korean institutions at 11th, followed by Korea University (12th), Sungkyunkwan University (16th), Seoul National University (17th), POSTECH (18th), and Hanyang University (20th). Even these results are concentrated among large private universities in the Seoul metropolitan area, leaving little presence for regional or mid-sized institutions.

The root of the problem is increasingly traced to declining mathematical competitiveness. According to the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022, Korea ranked between third and seventh among 81 countries in average scores, a result comparable to its third-to-fifth-place ranking among 65 countries in PISA 2012 mathematics. However, a decade-long comparison reveals a sharp deterioration in distribution: the share of top-performing students fell from 30.9% to 22.9%, a decline of 8.0 percentage points—nearly three times the OECD average decrease of 3.1 percentage points. Over the same period, the proportion of low-performing students nearly doubled, rising from 9.1% to 16.2%, exceeding the OECD average increase. Among six Asian economies traditionally strong in mathematics—Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Japan, and Korea—Korea recorded the steepest drop in high performers and the largest increase in low performers.

Changes to the high school mathematics curriculum illustrate the issue. While the expansion of applied content such as statistics, probability, and data analysis has merits, advanced concepts essential for university-level mathematics have been shifted to elective status. As a result, a growing number of students enter university without completing foundational coursework, leaving them unable to keep pace with introductory classes. Faculty members increasingly find themselves re-teaching high school material at the university level. Conditions are even more severe at regional institutions, where departments such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry face consolidation or existential threats due to declining enrollment. This signals a weakening of the national foundation for cultivating scientific and technical talent.

Despite persistent warnings from professional bodies such as the Korean Mathematical Society, mathematics education associations, and STEM faculty, successive governments have continued to lower curriculum difficulty. The result has been widening gaps in prerequisite knowledge for fields such as artificial intelligence, data science, physics, and engineering. In particular, the removal of matrices—a cornerstone of linear algebra—from core curricula has drawn sustained criticism as incompatible with the demands of the AI era. Policy decisions to reduce difficulty were driven by concerns over private education costs, declining student interest, and the rise of so-called “math dropouts,” yet these adjustments have neither curbed private tutoring expenditures nor reversed disengagement from mathematics.

University Reform Subordinated to Fiscal Logic

Literacy decline presents an equally serious challenge. The proportion of middle and high school students unable to keep up with Korean language classes has steadily increased. According to the “2024 National Assessment of Educational Achievement” released by the Ministry of Education and the Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 10.1% of third-year middle school students fell below the basic proficiency level in Korean, up from 9.1% the previous year. Among second-year high school students, the rate reached 9.3%, the highest since 2017. Deficient literacy is identified as the primary cause.

Low literacy inevitably undermines comprehension across subjects, including English and mathematics. When students struggle with basic vocabulary used in daily life, keeping pace with other disciplines becomes nearly impossible. The issue extends beyond secondary education. Recent anecdotes circulating on university online forums include students misinterpreting “to be announced later” as the name of a vocational high school, or parents asking which city “rainy conditions” referred to in school notices.

Warnings about the erosion of Korean higher education quality have been raised repeatedly since the early 2000s. Declining foundational skills among freshmen, curriculum contraction, and the loss of disciplinary depth have accumulated over time. Yet policy intervention and internal university reform have consistently lagged, as short-term fiscal stability took precedence over structural change. The situation is particularly acute at regional national universities, which continue to maintain near-identical departmental structures regardless of local industrial characteristics or future workforce needs.

This trajectory risks undermining national competitiveness in an era defined by intense global competition for talent in fields such as artificial intelligence, space technology, biotechnology, and semiconductors. The arena of competition is global, not domestic, and the decisive factor lies in the strength of a country’s higher education system. Experts therefore stress that addressing deficiencies in foundational education at the middle and high school levels is essential to securing world-class talent. As one university professor put it, “Students enter institutions meant to be centers of scholarship only to relearn basics they should have mastered in high school. That reality shows how far behind we already are compared with countries that have moved decisively ahead in global competition.”