Stony Brook University SUNY Korea

  English Proficiency in Korea More than half of the world’s population have one of ten languages as their native tongue. English, with about 400 million native speakers, is the third, after Chinese (1.3 billion) and Spanish (485 million). However, if we include people who speak English as a second language, the estimates of English-speaking populations range from between 1.5 billion to 2.0 billion. This makes English the most spoken language worldwide.  English is also the most influential language, dominating the fields of science, technology, medicine, business, art, etc. There are many reasons why English has become a universal language. The British empire, colonizing close to a quarter of the world’s population, had a significant role in spreading the English language, particularly in Asia and Africa. The emergence of the United States of America as a world power after World War II is another important reason. Technological and scientific development mostly originating in the US and some other English-speaking countries made English the dominant language of science and technology. This economic and technological power has also led to the spreading of English through news, entertainment, and social media.  As a result, English language proficiency can substantially enhance people’s career prospects, academic pursuits, cultural experiences, access to information, and ability to connect with people globally. Since the economic development of countries increasingly relies on information and global presence, for the foreseeable future English will remain the dominant global “lingua franca” (a language used by people with different native languages to communicate with each other. The EF English Proficiency Index (EF EPI) is the most common index used  to rank countries for English proficiency  It is produced annually by EF Education First, an international education company. The EF EPI 2023 edition was calculated using test data from 2.1 million test takers in 2022. The test takers were self-selected from 113 countries and territories. Countries’ English proficiencies are categorized as very high (12 countries), high (18 countries), moderate (33 countries), low (27 countries), and very low (23 countries).  The report finds that per capita, gross national income and innovation all correlate positively with English proficiency. Overall, Europe has the highest proficiency in English while the Middle East averages the lowest. While people in Engineering and Information Technology rank highest, on the average most industries have levels of English lower than they would need to work optimally (Moderate Proficiency or higher). Men’s English proficiency has outpaced women’s for the first time this year in Asia, driven by India and Thailand, with gender gaps of 21 and 32 points respectively. Expectedly, adults in their 20’s and 30’s remain the best English speakers in Asia. The top five countries, with scores between 625 and 661, are Northern European countries, except for Singapore (ranked 2nd with a score of 642, after the Netherlands with a score of 661). With a score of 525 South Korea ranked in 49th place in this survey, which is considered moderate proficiency. This represents a 13-spot drop from the previous ranking of 36th place in 2022. China and Japan also experienced declines of 20 and 7 spots respectively, ranking 82nd and 87th. Korean learners of the English language face many challenges in acquiring the language on a proficient level, even though English is introduced to children at an early age and many private programs teach English as extracurricular programs. Unfortunately, however, only a minority master the language on a proficient conversational level. The reasons seem to stem from cultural and social differences, the significant differences between the two languages: Korean and English, and the Korean Educational System. The EF-EPI report makes several recommendations for government and educational authorities to improve English proficiency. They include: • Consider the hours available in the curriculum and the proficiency level achievable for each major educational milestone. • Ensure that English is taught only by people who speak the language well • Adjust entrance and exit exams so that they evaluate communicative English skills. • Include English in the training for all new teachers. • Re-train English teachers in communicative teaching methods if they were initially trained using other methods • Assess the English skills of all public servants and provide training as necessary • Provide English language instruction in job centers and unemployment reduction programs. • Give adults access to lifelong learning programs. • Ensure that government-funded adult language courses are long enough and intensive enough for learners to meet their goals. • Develop standardized micro-credentials that certify course quality and improve skill portability. • Allow TV shows and movies to be shown in their original language, with subtitles rather than dubbing. Click here to read the article.

  Understanding University Rankings University Rankings are a major factor for many students when selecting which university to attend. They are generally perceived as an important indication of prestige of the university and quality of their research and education.  There are many university rankings published annually. Some rankings evaluate universities within a single country, while others assess institutions worldwide. In the United States, U.S. News and World Report, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes Magazine are among the more recognized rankings. In Korea the Korean Council for University Education evaluates universities.  Times Higher Education (THE), QS World University Rankings®, U.S. News & World Report and Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) also known as Shanghai rankings are among the more recognized global university rankings.  THE World University Rankings 2023 included 1,799 universities across 104 countries. It used 18 performance indicators (PIs) to determine the rankings. Research environment and research quality make up 59% of the grade with teaching 29.5%. International collaboration and international outlook are also considered (10%)  QS world university rankings are prepared by the British Company Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). The 20th edition of the rankings featured 1,500 universities across 104 locations. The highest weighted PI in QS ranking is the Academic Reputation of the University (30%) followed by faculty citations (20%). Since 2023, QS has included Sustainability, Employment Outcomes and International Research Network (each 5%) in their methodology. Teaching related measures (faculty student ratio) only determines 10% of the grades.   The 2022-2023 U.S. News & World Report Best Global Universities Rankings included 2000 universities from 95 countries. The rankings are based on thirteen PIs, all of which are research oriented with no teaching related indicators involved.  ARWU published by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, considers every university that has any Nobel Laureates, Fields Medalists, Highly Cited Researchers, or papers published in Nature or Science. In addition, universities with a significant amount of papers indexed by Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) are also included. In 2022 a total of more than 2500 universities were ranked, and the best 1000 were published. ARWU uses four general indicators consisting of quality of education (10%), quality of faculty (40%), research output (40%) and per Capita Performance (10%).  Quality of education and faculty are determined by such measures as the number of alumni and faculty receiving Nobel Prizes, Field Medals and highly cited research.   As it can be seen, these rankings are heavily focused on research and reputation of the universities. THE is probably a more balanced ranking system which includes teaching among its PIs.  University rankings have been criticized by many. One of the main criticisms has been that rankings reduces the universities’ performances to a set of numbers alone which can not convey the broader experience of education. Furthermore, these rankings pay minimal attention to the real-world undergraduate experience. Factors that can make a huge difference to a positive education.  As a result, some universities have been accused of “fudging” the data or “playing the numbers game” to improve their rankings without any consideration for the quality of their education. As an example, a number of Law Schools started to put more emphasis on LSAT scores after U.S. News gave more weight to the average LSAT scores of entering students. This came at the price of all other measures that could indicate the success of students. Another problem with university rankings is the focus on perceived reputation. The QS and Shanghai rankings have been criticized for their overemphasis on these factors. Would hiring more Nobel Prize laureates on faculty really improve quality of education, particularly undergraduate education, where many of them may not even teach?  As a result of these controversies some universities have recently dropped out of rankings such as U.S. News. Withdraws form U.S. News rankings is most significant among Law schools and Medical Schools where almost all of the major universities such as Harvard, Columbia, John Hopkins, etc. Have recently dropped out. Among undergraduate program rankings, Colombia is the most recognized school that will no longer participate.  The general recommendation of many educators to students is that they should not consider rankings as the only (and even most significant) criterion for selecting schools. They should rather evaluate which university and program fits their profile and needs best and allows them to achieve their full potential. Click here to read the article.

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on University Education A recent study claimed that ChatGPT, the popular AI chatbot, completed the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) undergraduate curriculum in mathematics, computer science, and electrical engineering with 100-percent accuracy. While the study is a preprint, meaning that it hadn’t yet passed through peer review it has 15 authors, including several MIT professors.  Recent progresses in AI technology have raised several important questions for university educators. Will AI reduce students’ creativity? With access to vast amounts of information, students can use AI to solve their homework and assignments, rather than using their own creativity and knowledge to solve such problems. Does AI technology impact all fields of education equally? Will AI technology take away the control of education from universities and give control to major technology companies? Can AI effectively be used to improve higher education? While the answers to these and many other questions are still being debated, several conclusions can already be made.  AI technology will greatly impact higher education and we must accept that the traditional models of higher education must change dramatically. Technology will continue to advance and unless students and faculty adapt, they will be eliminated from the modern education system.  A major potential impact of AI is to change the education system from a teaching-centered to a learning-centered system. In this system students will have a much more active role in a class. The faculty will not play the only active role in a class, but the main participation will come from students. The impact is not limited to the role of the faculty. An AI based education system can move towards individualized education. It is understood that the learning ability of students can be very different. AI allows faculty to recognize these differences and provide individualized models of learning to different students and actively monitor their progress.  While AI technology can be used in all fields, the level of its application can be different. For example, in areas such as chemistry and biology and mechanical engineering where visual modeling is important AI can have a lot of applications. In contrast in fields such as theoretical mathematics, the application may be less.  The application of AI tools such as ChatGPT in some of the areas of arts or humanities such as language and literature can be significant. In general, the impact in theoretical fields may be more limited.  A properly designed AI based education actually may help advance students’ creativity. For example, in the current educational system students are asked to memorize a lot of information. Using AI, the system instead can focus more on analysis and research of complex problems. Obviously, the types of questions must change from simple questions to those requiring research and analysis. Questions which can be answered through an Internet search are not typically complex problems faced in industry and society anyway.   Students today are very technology savvy, mastering any new technology very quickly. Continuous training for faculty to keep up with students in this regard is essential. Today we are educating students for jobs that do not yet exist. The same conditions apply to AI based education. Many faculty were educated when such technologies did not exist. This gap between what faculty learned and what they need to apply today must be addressed with sustained continuing education. Utilizing teams of faculty with different expertise is a way of addressing this issue. Addressing a complex problem such as this requires educational authorities to develop a road map, utilizing faculty administrators and experts who believe in the need for change to bring this new technology into the educational system.  Click here to read the article.

K-Fashion Conundrum Hallyu is alive and well. The global phenomena of K-Beauty, K-Brand Ambassadors, K-Cars, K- Drama, K-Electronics, and K-Pop, amongst other sectors, have been sweeping the world. Is Korean culture of the present a unique entity or are there parallels from Japan of the past? Is it fathomable that K-Beauty was preceded by J-Beauty, K-Cars preceded by J-Cars, K-Electronics preceded by J-Electronics, and others? Not long ago, Japanese brands similarly swept the globe with names such as Sony and Panasonic dominating the television industry. Today, these brands have been usurped by LG and Samsung. In December 1997, Toyota introduced the first hybrid, gas-electric vehicle called the Prius. This was over a quarter of a century ago. However, instead of taking the Prius hybrid to the next level, full electric, the Japanese manufacturer rested on its laurels paving the way for numerous competitors such as Tesla to develop and launch fully electric vehicles. A recent visit to Washington DC’s Union Market revealed an interesting yet unscientific observation. The line of cars parked along one row of the parking lot had more Hyundais than Hondas. More importantly, has K-Fashion achieved equal or greater global success than the aforementioned sectors riding the Korean wave? This depends on the definition of K-Fashion. If K-Fashion includes K-Pop celebrities wearing and endorsing fashion goods, then the answer is certainly “Yes.” On the other hand, if K-Fashion is defined by the global recognition of Korean fashion designers as leaders in the fashion world, then the answer may be quite different. It takes time to take a deeper dive into K-Fashion. Specifically, there are two distinctions which need to be made. For Korean fashion brands, there are brands which bear the name of the designer and there are brands which do not bear the names of the designers. For the former, think of brands such as Hyein Seo and Wooyoungmi versus brands such as Andersson Bell and Gentle Monster for the latter. The history of J-Fashion goes back more than fifty years. If challenged to name the top three to five global Japanese fashion designers and their eponymous labels, who would they be? If asked to name the same number of Japanese fashion brands but not bearing the designers’ name, who would they be? Now, replicate these questions for Korean designers and brands. Perhaps, one or two Korean designers or brands come to mind but what about the rest? The goal of any nation is to increase Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the total market value of all the goods and services produced by a country within a specified period. Korea has been masterful across many sectors in increasing its GDP through the careful planning and marketing of numerous Korean brands to the world. However, one could argue that K-Fashion is an exception to the trend. Looking back at the history of Japanese fashion, there are lessons to be learned and perhaps “reinvented” from investments by Japanese fashion designers beginning in the early 1970s. According to Yuniya Kawamura, Professor of Sociology at the Fashion Institute of Technology, New York and author of The Japanese Revolution in Paris Fashion, and Fashion-ology: Fashion Studies in the Postmodern Digital Era, one of the key factors was that “Japanese designers went to Paris and were legitimated by French fashion professions, such as editors, critics, publicists, and buyers, who were the gatekeepers of fashion prior to the invention of the Internet. They became members of the French fashion federation that controlled Paris Fashion Week every season. Kenzo Takada who created his own brand in 1970 in Paris and was a pioneer and forerunner for other Japanese designers.” According to Dr. Kawamura, Japanese fashion designers who began the J-Fashion revolution such as Kenzo Takada, Issey Miyake, Yohji Yamamoto, and Rei Kawakubo showed their first collections in Paris from the early 1970's to early 1980's. In retrospect, these global brands are still relevant nearly fifty years later. Today, the physical landscape of fashion has been transformed by digital technologies such as 3D design software, artificial intelligence, and social networking services (SNS). What will it take for Korean fashion designers to achieve similar global success? The answers may lie in looking back at the history of Japanese fashion designers along with an intimate knowledge of today’s technologies using social media to grow brand recognition and sales. In a recent conversation with the chief designer of Korean fashion brand MMAM (Maison Museum of Modern Art), Ms. Hyun Park states that her brand appeared five consecutive times at Seoul Fashion Week to build brand recognition. MMAM along with local brands CHARM’S and KIMMY.J were recently awarded the opportunity to participate in New York Fashion Week (NYFW) under the 2023 Concept Korea New York program sponsored by the Seoul City Government. While programs sponsored by the government sector such as Concept Korea and Fashion Code have contributed to the exposure of Korean fashion labels, is it enough to reach the level of success as Japanese designers have achieved? Probably not. Building a globally recognized brand will require substantial investments by both the public and private sectors to support local brands. Juun.J would be an example. Participation in a few of the major Fashion Weeks around the world is also a must. Is settling down in Paris a requirement too? It probably would not hurt to take a page from Kenzo or his peers. In the meantime, “Whassup” Korean Fashion Designers? Do we have all the pieces in place to truly go global? As a footnote, the sequencing of the upcoming Spring/Summer (SS24) Fashion Week schedule commences in early September with New York followed by London, Milan, and culminating in Paris. This leads to another question. How does a city like Seoul become the fifth fashion capital of the world?  Click here to read the article in Korean  

  College Students’ Mental Health; a crisis Mental health of college students is a global problem that requires serious attention by university administrators. According to a 2022 survey by Best Colleges, in the United States more that 77% of college students experienced moderate to severe psychological distress. This included anxiety (35%), depression (27%) as well as trauma, eating disorder and bipolar and substance use disorders. Another 2020–2021 Healthy Minds Study, which collects data from 373 campuses nationwide found more than 60% of college students met the criteria for at least one mental health problem.  The situation in Korea is similar. A 2022 published study by Daejeon University conducted on 260 Korean Female College Students in 2018 (Pre-COVID-19) found that 51.9% experience light to sever depression. The rate increased to 69.1% in 2020 (Post-COVID-19). Overall in 2020, South Korea's suicide rate was 25.7 which is more than double the OECD average of 11 per 100,000 population. Although lower than the rate for the elderly (101.4 per 100,000 population) grade school and college students in Korea have a higher than average suicide rate. Factors that affect suicide and suicide ideation are combinations of individual, family, and school factors. University education in Korea is very competitive. Students are constantly worried about their academic performance, grades, class rankings, etc. School-related influencing factors includes stress related to finding a job.  Several studies have suggested that critical communication by parents is an important family-related risk factor for suicidal ideation in Korean university students. Korean parents maintain a major influence on their children even after they are grown up. As a result, students who experience considerable critical communication from their parents that reduces their self-esteem, experience more suicidal ideation.  Dealing with mental health issues on university campuses requires a multifaced approach which includes university administrators, professors, students and students’ families.  Universities must ensure that students have access to high quality mental health care including psychological crisis intervention resources. The mental health care system in Korea can be hard to access and overwhelming for a student in crisis. A combination of on campus resources plus designated outside specialty clinics can help provide needed access.  Designing and implementing realistic programs tailored to students' academic majors to enhance their self-esteem and provide practical knowledge in dealing with academic stress will help students obtain a healthier school life emotionally as well as academically. For young adults, college can offer self-discovery, lifelong friendships, and a better understanding of the world. However, college life may also bring enormous social and emotional pressures. Being away from family and friends, unfamiliar environments can cause intense levels of loneliness.  Universities can help students navigate through these challenges by having programs that engages inspires and build friendly communities that students can feel safe and welcomed. Studies have also suggested that lack of physical exercise and adequate sleep are important factors for depression among students. Promoting a healthy life style should be an important part of student services programs.  Faculty paly a significant role in addressing mental health issues on University campuses. Universities must make sure faculty are adequately trained on how to identify students in distress and how to respond and refer them to mental health professionals. A study by Boston University School of public Health found that only 51 % have a good idea of how to recognize a student is in mental distress, with a mortify (61%) support mandatory training for faculty.  Finally, the role of families, particularly parents in student’s mental health is significant but more difficult to address by the universities. Education programs tailored to parents and families, such as brochures maybe effective methods for such communications.  Click here to read the article

  Academic Freedom in American Universitas In the United States, academic freedom is a recognized principle in the higher education. It is generally defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure," jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges and Universities. These principles broadly state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject." Academic freedom is based on the idea that to have a dynamic and safe environment for research, inquiry and education, faculty must have the right to engage in discipline-related teaching, learning, and research without outside interference. More specifically faculty must have the right to determine the universities’ curricula, teaching, students’ admission and evaluation criteria, research topics, publications, etc. The goal is to ensure that universities students and scholars can freely challenge the popular or conventional wisdom. The concept is closely related to principles of shared governance and tenure. Many other countries including South Korea have adopted similar principles in their higher education system, albeit with different degrees of strength. In 2021 Freedom House placed Japan and Taiwan in its top 10% ranking, scoring 4 out of 4 for academic freedom. South Korea’s ranking tied with that of the US at 3 out of 4. China and North Korea, were in the bottom 10%, with academic freedom for both assessed at 0 out of 4. Academic freedom however is not without limitations. The laws of society, including those concerning obscenity, pornography, and libel, apply to academic discourse and publication. Faculty also may not claim the privilege of discussing in their classroom controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. The above-mentioned 1940 statement also permits institutions to impose "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims" In the US, discussions of race, gender and sexual orientation are among the most controversial related issues. Can a professor use racial epithets in teaching a course? Should a white supremacist professor argue for his belief? Should academic freedom protect those who make false and morally repugnant claims? In response to these questions , many universities have adopted policies aimed at limiting speech and writing that is deemed discriminatory , or offensive on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or physical disability. Whereas supporters of the measures, known as “speech codes,” defended them as necessary to protect vulnerable groups against discrimination and harassment, opponents contend that they amounted to the legal enforcement of “politically correct” ideas and expressions. In Korea, the atrocities committed by Japan during its occupation of Korea, and North Korea related topics are among the most controversial academic freedom issues. For example, academics  have to tread carefully in accessing officially blocked North Korea state and media websites for their research in order to not violate the National Security  Law passed in 1948. As another example, In 2018 a Sunchon University professor was dismissed, prosecuted, and imprisoned for six months for insulting former Korean comfort women during a lecture . Sejong University scholar Park Yu-ha was fined in 2017 for false defamation of comfort women in her book Comfort Women of the Empire. Retired Yonsei University scholar Lew Seok-choon was tried after complaints from civic groups that he had insulted comfort women during a class. Academic freedom is an active subject of controversy   and debate. the universities are well advised to have an open dialog with their faculty and students on this topic with consideration of their university’s culture. While in the exercise of this freedom faculty members may, without limitation, discuss their own subject in the classroom, the principle of academic freedom shall be accompanied by a corresponding principle of social responsibility Click here to read the article

  Academic Misconduct Among University Students Violation of academic integrity by students is a real concern to university administrators around the world. Cheating, plagiarism, having someone else do the work, or using prohibited resources are some of the more common modes of academic dishonesty among students. However, falsification of records for admission, and cases of falsified research have been more the subject of recent media attention. A comprehensive survey of academic dishonesty in the US was conducted by the International Center for Academic Integrity over 12 years (2002-2015) among 70,000 students. This study found that 17 % of graduate students and 39% of undergraduates admitted having cheated at least once on a test.  More importantly, only 39% of the respondents said it is not acceptable to cheat on tests or homework.  The situation in Korean universities is similar. In a study conducted by Konkuk University in 2009, 35% of the undergraduate students surveyed reported that they have copied from another student or used a “cheat sheet “during a test. Another study (2015) at two veterinary schools in Seoul reported plagiarism and falsification by students ranging from 32% to 71%. Many researchers have studied and identified various factors that influence cheating. For example, students in small elite colleges have much lower rates of cheating (15-20 %) compared to large public universities where the rate can be as high as 75%. Other factors include age, gender, and grade point average (GPA). Older students, females, and students with higher GPAs are less likely to cheat. Students with excessive extracurricular activities are more probable to cheat according to some studies. The above-mentioned Konkuk university research found that classes that are taught by foreign professors reported fewer incidents of cheating. This might be partly due to the types of assignments and assessment methods that foreign professors employ as well as more emphasis on the importance of academic integrity issues. Race, nationality, and religion show little correlation with cheating. However international students in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have a substantially higher rate of cheating. For example, A Wall Street Journal analysis of data from 14 public colleges in the United States during the 2014-2015 school year found that international students had five times more reports of cheating compared to their domestic counterparts. As online teaching becomes more prevalent, there is a perception among students and faculty that online teaching leads to more cheating. Working remotely may make it easier for students to use unauthorized resources such as cell phones, and the Internet or communicate with others during a test.   The research on this topic is ongoing and somewhat inconclusive due to the availability of limited data for a comprehensive study. Addressing the problem of cheating in university classes requires a complex and multifaceted approach. First and foremost, the university administration has to take an active and decisive role.  Studies indicate that having a clear code of conduct that is well communicated to students and enforced, is essential. The approach however has to go beyond enforcement and punishment.  Faculty play an instrumental role in preventing cheating. For example, avoiding recycling exams and homework, developing the tests and their supervision by faculty, not delegating the task to t teaching assistants, assignments that require oral presentations, using subjective questions that require a written response, and using random questions in tests are among methods that can be used.  Finally, creating a culture of integrity in the class by professors that includes, often talking about academic honesty, expecting high standards, being clear about expectations, and getting to know the students is paramount in order to educate responsible and ethical students. Click here to read the article

  Academic Leadership Unlike the corporate world, which relies on formally trained managers and leaders, academic leaders typically come to their positions without such formal education or training. Historically, academic leaders go through a transformation from teachers/scholars to department chairs, to deans, to provosts, and presidents. It is during this transformation that they develop their leadership and management philosophies and styles. While at first glance this may seem unsettling, some studies of managers cite work experience, not the classroom, as the best training for developing management styles and leadership skills. In the majority of cases, educational managerial and leadership philosophies of academic unit leaders are the results of their experiences and career transitions, and sometimes in combination with some “self-training” and socialization in academic environments. In general, the definitions of an academic leader pertain to both leadership and management. Academic leadership issues have been widely researched and studied. Numerous articles, texts, and scientific journals such as the Journal of Academic Leadership have been produced to investigate and discuss the nature of the concept. However, despite this extensive literature, the term leadership, while frequently used, is neither consistently used nor uniquely defined. In general, some use the term to describe a collection of tasks or functions performed by individuals appointed to formal positions of responsibility within universities. Others use it to describe the qualities or characteristics of particular individuals who are recognized by others as being academic leaders. There is also the question of the difference between management and leadership. Leadership is distinctly different from management. While management focuses on budgets, tasks, and roles, leadership is about direction and vision. Academic leadership is an influence relationship. Leaders direct efforts toward future results. This influence relationship should be a two-way and non-coercive relationship that is based on interpersonal skills rather than organizational authority. However, this relationship is not an equal partnership since the parties do not provide the same level of expertise and outcome towards the goal. Leaders must articulate the vision, encourage, direct and inspire faculty and staff towards the desired future state, while faculty and staff must contribute with quality teaching, recognized research, and excellent service to all of the stakeholders. Managing an academic unit is no less challenging than leading it. There are generally different and sometimes conflicting ideas and interests about almost any decision and issue facing the academic unit. The main role of the manager is to build a participatory framework where major decisions are openly discussed and decided. Elements of this framework include fairness, transparency, and accountability. A potential drawback of a participatory approach is inefficiency. However, an effective manager must make certain that the process is not unnecessarily prolonged and once a decision is made, the organization moves forward. All of the above strategies require a commitment to excellence. Excellence has to be deeply embedded in the culture of the unit. However, excellence needs to be carefully defined in the context of the mission and capabilities of the institution. It is important to avoid the tendency of mimicking excellence in the sense of other, albeit elite, universities which have different missions and capabilities or serve different constituents. Finally building an academic organization, consisting of highly skilled professionals, which is dynamic and purposeful requires shared governance. The administration alone cannot bring all of the necessary elements to the table. Successful leadership builds a “participatory framework and continual commitments to the shared values, responsibilities and rewards of group leadership” (Polglase, Leadership is everyone’s business, Leadership 2003), which ensures that contributions of all parties, while maybe unequal in specifics, are channeled towards accomplishing the mutual intent. Click here to read the article

Engineering Ethics    On a cold day on January 28, 1986, at 11:38 am, the Space Shuttle Challenger was launched from Kennedy Space Center. The mission designated as STS-51-L was the tenth flight of the Challenger. The orbiter broke apart 73 seconds into the flight, killing all seven crew members. A subsequent investigation by NASA determined that the technical cause of the accident was the failure of two redundant O-ring seals joining the solid rocket boosters (SBRs).    On the surface, this appears to be an unfortunate accident where no malice was involved. Investigation however showed that a series of carless, sometimes self-serving, and unethical decisions were made by managers and engineers of NASA and Thiokol, the SBRs manufacturer, which led to this disaster. Several other notorious and high-profile incidents involving ethical failures such as disregarding public safety, environmental protection, fairness, honesty in research and testing as well as bribery, fraud, and conflicts of interest, on the part of engineers, have been documented in previous years.    These problems have raised an important question for engineering educators. Engineers perform works that significantly impact the environment, and public safety, and also have major financial and economic consequences. These conflicting aspects sometimes present ethical dilemmas for engineers.  Are engineering students trained and prepared for confronting and resolving such ethical dilemmas in their work? To address this challenge, led by the ABET (ABET.org) the body responsible for accrediting undergraduate engineering programs in the United States, engineering programs in the US are mandated to incorporate engineering ethics in their curricula.   Professional ethics is primarily addressed by professional codes of ethics which are specific to each profession.  Perhaps the most rigorous professional codes of ethics belong to the medical and legal professions. Engineering professional organizations also have their own codes of ethics. In the United States, these include the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) codes of ethics among many others.      It is important to note that these codes are guidelines and do not cover every potential ethical dilemma that may be faced by an engineer. Their applications often require a subjective review of the problem. They also sometimes present apparent conflicts when applied to a problem. For example, one of the NSPE Fundamental Canons states that engineers should “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”.  Professional Obligation section of the same code however states that “Engineers shall not disclose without consent confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical process of any present or former clients or employers or public body on which they serve”. The dilemma presented here is, for example, when Thiokol engineer Roger Boisjoly was aware of potential problems with the O-ring in the booster, was he ethically bound to disclose that to the public without the consent of his employer?    Situations like that require students to develop ethical problem-solving skills. Elements of ethical problem solving include understanding both the factual and conceptual issues of the problem, identifying the moral principles to use, and developing a systematic approach to applying these principles. Most problems have a clear ethical answer. Safety health and welfare of the public clearly supersede the professional obligation of confidentiality to an employer. There are however situations when the answers are not as clear.    Practicing engineers are well-advised to understand and follow relevant professional codes of ethics in order to protect society, themselves, and their employers from serious negative consequences. Engineering curricula must train students on the analytical skills that are required for addressing ethical questions that are faced by engineers.   Click here to read the article  

  Engineering Education in South Korea by the Numbers   During the past few decades, South Korea has experienced the highest economic growth in the shortest time ever seen in modern world history.  This growth was accomplished by investing in Heavy and Chemical Industries (HCI) during the 1970s, followed by the development of high technology-focused industries. At the time, the country lacked adequate engineering educational institutions to support such growth. As a result, the main body of research institutions (such as the Korean Institute of Science and Technology), which provided support for high tech industries, consisted of researchers with Ph.D. training from abroad.   The history of contemporary science and engineering education in Korea dates to the early 1900s. Ten engineering students on the college level graduated in 1918 and four more students in mathematics and physics graduated in 1919. The first Bachelor’s degrees, which consisted of one in physics, four in mechanical engineering, two in metallurgical engineering, five in electrical engineering, and two in chemical engineering were awarded in 1943.   Today university education and research in Korea are quite diverse. The university entrance rate (percentage of high school graduates who enter higher education institutions) increased from 33% (1990) to 68.2 % (2014) and 71.5 % (2021). Despite this increase in rate, the university enrollment numbers have dropped from a peak of 2.13 million in 2014 to 1.93 million students in 2021. Korea's ranking with regard to published SCI journals went up from 34th (1990) to 12th (2015) out of 180 countries.     In 2021, there were around 202 universities and 134 community colleges in Korea. There were also a large number of other higher education institutions such as industrial universities, graduate universities, and graduate schools that are unaffiliated with a university. One hundred sixty (160) universities offered at least one undergraduate engineering program.   In 2019, more than 571,000 undergraduate students were enrolled in engineering programs.  Computer Science and Engineering with 45,654 and Mechanical Engineering with 44,703 had the two highest enrollments. The population of Korea is approximately 16% of the US, however the number of undergraduate engineering students in Korea was 61% of 622,550 engineering students in the US.  Similarly, more than 30,000 Master’s and 18,000 Ph.D. students were enrolled in engineering programs in Korea in 2019. These were 32% and 22 % respectively of those in the US.   More than 81,300 BS engineering and computer science degrees were awarded in Korea in 2019. This was close to 42% of the 191,336 BS engineering degrees that were awarded in the US.  In Korea, the highest percentage of degrees (12.5%) was awarded in mechanical engineering with computer science and engineering a close second at 12.1%. In the US. mechanical engineering and computer science comprised 22.5 % and 29% respectively of the total degrees.   Engineering profession and education have historically been male-dominated and despite some progress in recent years, they continue to be so. For example, in the US, women earned 21.9 % of bachelor’s degrees, 26.7% of master’s degrees, and 23.6% of doctoral degrees in engineering in 2019. The disciplines where women earned over 40% of the bachelor’s degrees in were environment engineering, biological/agricultural engineering, and biomedical engineering.   In Korea, in 2019, 23% (5, 18,745) of BS degrees were awarded to women. The highest percentage of engineering BS degrees awarded to women was in Architectural Engineering (41.5%) and the lowest in Mechanical Engineering (9.5%). The numbers for MS degrees awarded to women were 2,781 out of 13,722 (20%) and 507 out of 4,217 (12%) for Doctoral degrees.   From 385,350 enrolled engineering undergraduates in Korea in 2019, about 1.5% or 5,860 were international students.  The numbers for MS and Doctoral degrees were 2,599 out of 30,342 (8.5%) and 2,621 out of 17,986 (14.5%).  Computer science and engineering and mechanical engineering are the two top choices for international students.   Despite recent decreases in the numbers, US remains the top destination for international students. The number of international students in US universities dropped by 15% from a peak of 1.1 million in 2019 to 914000 in 2020/21. In 2019, About 21% or close to 230,000 of them were studying engineering.  This represents 29% of over 795,000 students in undergraduate and graduate engineering programs in the US.   In 2018, 10.5 %, 57.1% and 56.3% of BS, MS and Ph.D. engineering degrees in the US were awarded to international students.   Over 39,000 Korean students studied in the US during the 2020/21 academic year. This is 12 % less than close to 49,800 in 2019/20 and represents close to 4.2% of the total international students in the US. Korea is ranked third after China and India. The influx of Korean students adds close to $2.3 billion to the US economy each year.   During the past few decades, Korea has achieved eye-opening progress, producing significant quantitative growth and increased quality in engineering education. However, recent trends lead by the decline of the school-age population and the shift towards a creative economy calls for urgent qualitative and quantitative research focused on reform of universities to meet the needs of the country.   Click here to read the article          

SUNY Korea Admissions’ Speech at Annual Conference of Korean Association of International Educators in Jeju ​ SUNY Korea Admissions was invited to speak at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Korean Association of International Educators at the Oriental Hotel in Jeju Island on January 13, 2022. ​ KIM Kyuseok (Mick), admissions team leader, led the session themed as ‘Investor-Centered Strategies for Successful International Recruitment’, speaking about the international students and recruitment trend between the U.S. and South Korea, particularly in the context of the pandemicdriven transformation in the global higher education. He also discussed the value-centered approaches in international student recruitment and enrollment to maximize the return on investment from students’ and parents’ perspectives. ​ It was the first opportunity for SUNY Korea, as the first and the most prominent American higher educational institution established in South Korea, to share its 10-year experiences and the ideas of innovating transnational higher education with the international educators and professionals of the Korean colleges at the conference.     Read more

How to prepare to get a job in a Global Company-Based on the case in SUNY Korea   Recently, Korean global companies are gradually increasing, and the companies’ globalization is accelerating.   Korea's five largest groups such as Samsung, LG, SK,  Hanwha, Naver, and Kakao, these big tech and bio companies are expanding into global companies. It is time to look back on whether Korean universities, which have changed their status as global companies, are still thinking of Korean enterprises as local companies and are providing easy job guidance to students.   SUNY Korea is a school that has the strength in finding  a job in global companies. Professor Sunghyun Sean Lee, the Team Leader of the SUNY Korea's Career Development Team, talked about what needs to be done to prepare for a job in a global company.   Read More  

AI and job interviews: Leveling the playing field   Written by Chihmao HSIEH   In the recent last few years, artificial intelligence has been implemented to handle some of the filtering processes involved in assessing job interviews. A growing number of companies is requiring job applicants to answer questions online via video camera, whereby computer programs then process the video clips and audio transcripts. Assessments of facial expressions, eye movements, voice intonation, and word choice are combined to come up with sets of scores for each applicant.  For now, it appears that most of the companies using this technology are using it only for the initial cut, thus capable of filtering applications easily from tens of thousands to mere dozens. Some AI interview software works by having current employees answer the questions on video, and then evaluating the candidates on how well they match those employees.   The criticism has been swift and wide-ranging. Besides the obvious criticisms related to tying voice intonation and facial expressions to personality or expected job performance, applicants also express unfairness about the unilateral nature of AI interviews, where applicants are unable to correct an AI’s perception in the same way that they can correct a human interviewer while face-to-face. Career development staff at universities lament that AI doesn’t know how to comprehend applicants’ value systems, or appreciate the work motivations stemming from their aspirations or passion. Researchers have found that AI systems are prone to making decisions that reflect racism or sexism, and have called to regulate AI to ensure transparency and accountability. AI also has severely limited ability to recognize humor, which is valuable within creative, entrepreneurial organizations. As a result, some companies such as Korea Airports Corp. have gotten rid of AI interviews because managers were unsure exactly how and what the AI were evaluating. Overall, policymakers have asked whether the cost savings offered by this technology are worth discounting this much of human value and dignity.   As with many technological advances, there are tradeoffs in using AI to assess job interviews.  At the surface, the cost savings are obvious and significant. As communication technology improves and more work goes remote, the physical boundaries of the workplace will open up. HR managers become less confined in recruiting from a local labor market, and companies can benefit from more candidates for each of their open positions. In processing all these extra applications, AI doesn’t suffer from fatigue or the broadest set of human biases. As many AI software chiefs have commented, AI’s purpose here is to complement human-led decisions, without substituting for them completely. Maybe we trust AI’s job placement ability in the future just as much as we trust Google’s search capability today.   But let’s take a step back: the ultimate goal here is to accurately match job seeker to open position. We can design the system with two strategies. In a first scenario, we facilitate the assessment of job applications. That’s what AI technology currently offers to us. In a second scenario, we help job seekers to foster taste in all the large and small companies hiring around the world. But how? I suggest that technology should scrutinize companies, as much as companies want to scrutinize job applicants. For example, a system could collect 24-hour real-time electronic data of employee behaviors at companies, and offer scores of each company’s ability to manage and support communication and collaboration. It might track the daily actual communication between employees, use that data to score the quality and challenge of all workgroups’ actual goals and projects, and offer weekly scores regarding the company’s level of creativity and bureaucracy. In this way, the burden then falls on companies to be more transparent about the quality of their daily internal work environment and the worklife of employees, besides simply relying on technology that robotically sifts through hundreds of thousands of resumes and video interviews.   These two strategies are not mutually exclusive. But the point is that we give some power back to job applicants and level the playing field. Although companies today have more applicants to choose from, applicants today also potentially have more companies to choose from. If a medium-sized company in the USA has opened up their boundaries to the world, then the world should also be able to identify and assess it. We need more employment policies and entrepreneurship acknowledging that job seekers deserve to identify the best companies that are fit for them, not just the other way around. Perhaps one day, job applicants can use AI to help them identify the thousands of companies around the world that are currently hiring, and then see a score that estimates the probability that they won’t like or are too talented for any given company.   Companies could simultaneously get the chance to send a strong signal regarding the quality of their philosophy towards humanity. Perhaps some companies would be willing to pay for the rights to be certified in this kind of applicant-friendly system. They could be proud that they not only welcome shortlisted finalists to interview face-to-face at their offices, but that they are also confident and humble enough to respect job applicants in helping them decide whether their company is good enough for them in the first place. On the other hand, if job applicants paid a nominal subscription fee to use such AI, it would have the added benefit of helping companies to identify those job seekers that signal seriousness about their job hunt (as we might observe with LinkedIn’s subscription service today). These kinds of business models bring some balance back to the equation. If companies use AI job interview software to assess candidates but aren’t willing to share daily or weekly AI data regarding their own internal environment or their own company culture, then they are largely hypocritical.   These kinds of issues regarding the direction of innovation weren’t matters of concern in the past. However, times are changing. As AI advances further and further, part of the system should still ensure that job candidates are valued with some basic standard of dignity, from a human perspective. But at the very least, candidates deserve to be on a similar playing field as companies. If that requires giving job applicants the power to leverage their own AI in assessing the desirability or fit of companies to work for, so be it.      Note: News story regarding Korea Airports Corp dropping AI interviews: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20211004000214     Click here to read the article

The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Future of Engineering Education Written by Hamid Hefazi, PhD Professor & Chair, Mechanical Engineering Department     Convergence and recent advances in numerous emerging technologies are referred to as the era of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR).  The term was first proposed in 2016 by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF).  4IR has major social, cultural, political, and global implications. American writer Alvin Toffler, in his book “Future Shock” published in 1970, was among the first to predict and discuss many of these issues.  Engineering is one of the most crucial professions for achieving the potentials of 4IR. In turn, it is also markedly impacted by it.     Faced with tremendous opportunities and challenges that the 4IR presents, engineering educators must take a critical look at the current state of engineering education and answer a number of hard questions such as: What skill sets are required for future engineers? Do current engineering curricula adequately provide these skills? What is the appropriate balance between theory and practice in engineering education? Is a four-year curriculum adequate to educate engineers of the future? Who should become an engineer?  These are difficult questions, for some of which there are no consensus answers.        Several studies by prominent engineering organizations such as the US National Academy of Engineering and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers have addressed this topic.  While some of their conclusions are different, they all strongly agree on the need for the development of certain attributes beyond the technical training of engineers.  These skills which are referred to as “soft skills”, are considered as essential as technical skills.       4IR presents substantial growth in the scope and scale of problems that engineers need to address. For example, engineering knowledge is now applied to improving the quality of healthcare, the safety of food products, and the operation of financial systems. Many of these problems are multidisciplinary and require teams of experts to address them. The complexity of the problems also requires a “tool-based” approach, integrating advanced technologies such as Computational Methods, Machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence with traditional engineering disciplines.        As former US secretary of education, Richard Riley noted: “We are currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist, using technologies that haven’t been invented, in order to solve problems, we don’t even know are problems yet.” These challenges demand that engineering curricula go beyond traditional technical training. While it is safe to assume that future development in engineering will still be rooted in Mathematics and Physics, many other disciplines will be integrated with engineering. The intersection of biological sciences and engineering is already well established. However, the multidisciplinary nature of future problems is not limited to these areas. For example, understanding Cognitive Sciences play an important role in the engineering design process as well as the development of autonomous robots of the future. Understanding human psychology and human factors is an essential consideration in the development of space travel and space colonization.         It is only by aligning teaching and learning methods with the skills such as lifelong learning, complex problem solving, critical thinking, and cognitive flexibility, we can ensure that today’s students will be able to advance in the future dynamic environment.  Educating future engineers also needs integrating advanced tools in curricula and assigning complex problems that would require the synthesis of concepts from multiple disciplines, applying logical boundary conditions, and examining outcomes.       Engineering work is also the link between social needs and commercial applications. Along with solving technical issues, engineers must also analyze the impact of the products they develop or the systems they design on the environment and on the people using them. In the 4IR era economy, the allure of employment in “big businesses” will be replaced by the success of new industries that start as home businesses.  To thrive in such an economy, innovation, entrepreneurship, a global perspective, communication, and leadership skills are essential.       Finally, attracting the right talent to engineering programs is essential for the future of the profession. The current approach requires that young students join an educational pathway that ultimately results in an engineering degree. If a student enrolled in the wrong math class in 7th grade, she will find it difficult to become an engineer. This approach deprives the profession of many potential talents. A more holistic approach is needed to identify those candidates who have the ability to acquire knowledge rather than those who have certain pre-requisites.        In short, engineering education should focus on strong fundamentals in a wide range of sciences, the ability to acquire and use advanced technology, various softs skills, and most importantly the ability to acquire and apply new knowledge. It could be argued that it is extremely difficult to adequately include all of these elements in four-year engineering curricula. Therefore, the need for education beyond the Bachelor’s degree and technical specialization at the graduate level becomes inevitable.  The American education system is perhaps the first to recognize these challenging requirements and attempt to address them to some level of success.         Click here to read the article

How can forthcoming changes in Korean educational policy serve a meaningful worklife? Written by two authors: Chihmao Hsieh, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship, SUNY Korea Karl Wennberg, Professor of Education and Entrepreneurship, Stockholm School of Economics   Education has been a focus in policy-making recently, as experts have called for a shift in the educational system amid forthcoming demographic changes and the “fourth industrial revolution”.  This past summer, the Education Committee of Korea’s National Assembly approved a bill to install a new body tentatively called the ‘National Education Commission’ (국가교육위원회).  The commission, scheduled to be launched next year, would be responsible for taking the lead in establishing a non-partisan long-term educational policy, while the Ministry of Education would carry out the policy’s goals and make any short-term administrative adjustments.   Although education in Korea is culturally tied to anticipated job security and life satisfaction, this renewed focus on Korean education comes at a time when job satisfaction in Korea remains dubious.  Between July-October 2020, the JoongAng Ilbo and Teamblind interviewed roughly 72,109 office workers from 9,371 local companies about their work, asking them about their welfare benefits, relationships with colleagues, trust among team members, and work autonomy.  Seven out of ten workers in Korea suffered burnout over the preceding one-year period.  While it is unsurprising that Korea still has one of the lowest worker productivities among the G20 countries, the data revealed that the two most important factors directly linked to the level of job satisfaction were the meaningfulness of work and the quality of relationships with bosses.   We believe that any major educational reform should be designed this time for the long-run purpose of fostering job satisfaction.  Ideally the government panel mentioned above will include businesspeople who respect education, alongside educators that respect organizational ‘best practices’ and the economy.  Yet we still envision some tactics for educational reform that can support future job satisfaction in Korea. In order to develop a workforce that is more innovative and passionate for re-learning throughout working life, more effort should be put into combining critical thinking with transdisciplinary education.  Such a prescription opens the door for unstructured problem-solving, and unfortunately, that’s when student performance assessment starts to become prohibitively subjective by Korean standards.  One possible solution is to enlist high-tech companies with their expertise in Big Data and AI to help with assessment.  For years, the ‘EdTech’ industry has worked on digital tools that assess knowledge, and these systems are not easy for students to ‘game’ and cheat on.  Most importantly, these high-tech companies and educational providers must convince students’ parents that their assessment systems are legitimate.   Even today, the meaningfulness of learning via concept acquisition is still emphasized less than rote memorization and standardized test taking.  There could be more interaction between EdTech companies and parts of the educational system, designed to address students’ and parents’ potential concern. For example, some of our Swedish university students created a startup called ‘Sqore’ which was briefly the largest in the world for holding student talent competitions, later pivoting into an assessment/student selection service for graduate school programs and companies. Those organizations contracted with Sqore because they saw problem-solving competitions as a good way not only to assess “soft” skills like creativity and interdisciplinarity, but also as a way to market their company in recruiting the most talented students.   Korea’s conglomerates could be enlisted to create more problem-solving competitions where winners are awarded with month-long or summer internships. Many large US-based companies as well as NASA have successfully used such ‘innovation competitions’ to attract talented and interested new employees. Such initiatives would send strong messages to both students and parents alike that grades should not be the sole obsession, and that the business world cares about critical and innovative thinking at all decision-making levels. Ideally, such competitions should focus less on narrowly specifying ‘ideal solutions’ or deliverables involving intellectual property, and more about assessing complementary measures of ability (e.g. creativity, interdisciplinary thinking, and communication skills).    Lastly, students should be exposed to greater amounts of teamwork at all levels of Korean education, instead of excessive competition and rivalry. Transdisciplinary education ideally should involve combining instructors and students from multiple disciplines into a single classroom environment, and forming teams. Students are then exposed to teamwork environments which include unfamiliar situations, requiring them to develop curiosity.  They would also learn about trust and trustworthiness, which are important for effective collaboration and team innovativeness. Of course, team-teaching is risky in Korean education if the instructors end up antagonizing each other’s authority in front of students during class. Teachers should instead take the opportunity to enhance their own learning and building interpersonal trust when interacting with each other. It is here where an instructor’s humility can be promoted to impress students.   Certainly, there is no single ‘silver bullet’ for simultaneously improving student outcomes and job satisfaction in Korea.  But we see these two as correlated objectives.  Improving the educational system to allow for reputable AI-driven assessment solutions; showing parents and students that businesses care about critical thinking skill over test scores; and introducing transdisciplinary teamwork to students, can all naturally lead to a more meaningful, entrepreneurial, dynamic, and exciting career development experiences. Perhaps these three tactics could even be combined synergistically; for example, Korean EdTech companies could host transdisciplinary problem-solving team competitions. Overall, shouldn’t the focus be less about educational and training policy, and more about a broader learning policy?   Read More