1. Need for internationalization and enhanced university rankings

All of the 20 articles focused on the need for the nation's higher education to go global, citing the dismal performance of local universities in international rankings. For example, none of the Korean universities made it to ‘The World's Top 100 Global Universities’ survey conducted by Newsweek in 2006 (Joongang, August 27, 2006). Even the nation's most prestigious university, the Seoul National University (SNU), only managed to rank 93rd in 2005 in ‘The World University Rankings’ published by The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) based in London (Joongang, August 27, 2006). Among the five headline categories of teaching, research, citation, industry income, and international mix that THES applies in determining global rankings, both newspapers pointed out international mix as the main culprit behind the poor performance of the nation's higher education institutions. According to the statistics entitled ‘Education at a Glance’ released by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) in 2005, the proportion of international students attending local universities stood at 0.2 percent, the lowest among the OECD member countries with an average rate of 6.4 percent (Joongang, February 15, 2007). The document also mentioned that the proportion of foreign professors working at local universities accounted for only 3.2% of the total of 66,862 academic staff in 2005. Following the release of these figures, both Chosun and Joongang argued that local universities should work harder to encourage an international mix in staff and students by hiring more foreign professors and attracting talented international students, and that expansion of EMLs should be adopted as one of the core globalization strategies.

Against this backdrop, in 2006, new KAIST President Suh launched a university reform focusing on the expansion of EMLs at all levels of programs. Chosun, in particular, has supported his move, as shown for example in its hugely influential editorials on two occasions (November 30, 2007 and June 25, 2010), saying that the reform should continue at KAIST if the school wants to improve its ranking on THES. The newspaper even quoted a high-ranking official from the Ministry of Education as saying that ‘KAIST's move is a way to go for the advancement of the Korean academia’ (Chosun, October 3, 2007). In another article, published on February 11, 2010, Chosun argued that ‘internationalization of universities is irreversible and universities should remove the language barrier to help foreigners to live and study free from communication issues’, citing English as one of the main reasons for the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology topping Asian university rankings conducted by the newspaper in collaboration with QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) in 2009.

It is legitimate to pose the question of why there appears to be such preoccupation with the international rankings of local universities. As is well known, Korea is a country that suffers ‘national obsession with the attainment of education’ (Seth, Reference Seth2002: 9) and education has been valued for centuries as a way of achieving status and power as well as a means of self-cultivation (J. K. Park, Reference Park2009). In Korea, the university a person attends in his 20s can determine his position and salary in his 50s (New York Times, January 18, Reference Choe2008) and universities cannot be free from the broad impacts of global university rankings on reputations and hence financial sustainability.

2. Issues with EMLs

Two out of the 20 articles sampled covered issues with EMLs at universities based on surveys with professors and students. Despite the nature of the issues presented, neither of the articles was entirely supportive or critical of EMLs, but rather appeared to adopt an objective stance by presenting differing opinions from supporters and opponents. One article published the results from email surveys with 20 local professors from departments of English education across the country to find out whether or how well local universities are prepared for EMLs (Joongang, February 15, 2007). In response to the question ‘Do you think local professors who earned degrees in English-speaking countries such as America and Britain are capable of delivering EMLs?’ 10 out of 20 respondents were negative, nine were positive with the one remaining respondent ambivalent. The findings do not match a general perception that people with higher degrees from English-speaking countries are able to teach fluently in English. In another question, ‘Do you think EMLs should be pursued even at the expense of academic knowledge, for the purpose of improving English language proficiency?’, 10 out of 20 opposed the idea, whereas five respondents believed EMLs should be made mandatory, with the remaining five neutral. Meanwhile, the same article briefly touched upon other issues relevant to EMLs, including learners' resistance to EMLs at some universities, how to balance the different needs of undergraduate and postgraduate students, and local students being potentially disadvantaged compared with international students due to inadequate English. In conclusion, it argued that the Ministry of Education should pay more attention to this issue as the leading education authority, rather than staying away from the debate.

The other article written about a protest from KAIST students against the school's reform measures presented responses from 198 students in their first year at KAIST through a survey conducted by the school in 2007 (Chosun, February 14, 2007). The survey results (as presented below) indicated that negative opinions significantly outnumbered positive views in response to the question ‘Do you think English lectures are conducted well?’

Figure 1.

Student responses to EMLs at KAIST (Based on data presented in Chosun Ilbo, February 14, 2007)

Most respondents expressed concerns about the low quality of some classes delivered in poor English and a lack of support from the school for students unable to follow EMLs, while only a handful of students with foreign exposure during childhood supported EMLs as an opportunity to maintain their English. The article concluded by arguing that KAIST ranked 48th in the THES Global University Rankings in 2006, and that there is a long way to go for the school to accomplish its ambition of joining the top 10 players by the year 2011. Though both articles effectively articulated issues with EMLs, the fact that only one out of 20 articles covered learners' opinions about EMLs leaves a lot to be desired from the viewpoint of learners, given the number of universities involved in the drive for EMLs and the widely differing levels of English among learners attending different universities.

3. Concerns from international students

Since 2006, the number of foreign professors and international students in Korea has risen significantly as a result of the efforts by local universities to promote international mix. At the SNU, for example, the number of international students enrolled in 2010 registers around 3000, or over 10 percent of the entire student body, which represents a dramatic increase from 270 a decade ago (Joongang, November 30, 2009). With the number of overseas students in Korea estimated at around 60,000 (Chosun, January 5, 2009) as of 2010, the drive to raise the international mix at Korean universities has brought with it some difficult issues.

Among the 20 sampled, a total of four articles covered difficulties that international students have experienced during their stay in Korea. To start with, all of the four articles blamed language barriers as the biggest obstacle that hinders their study and life experiences. One of the biggest concerns of international students was an insufficient number of classes conducted in English in their areas of interest. For example, at the SNU, there was no subject taught in English in the Department of International Relations (one of the popular areas of study for international students) until 2007, and the school has assigned only one EML to the department since then (Chosun, September 24, 2009). In a similar vein, foreign students on a scholarship from the Korean government complained about the limited choice of universities at which to study (Chosun, September 27, 2009). International students sponsored by state organizations such as Korea's National Institute for International Education are allocated to universities designated by the organization, and regional universities account for the majority. While regional universities are eager to recruit foreign students to increase their international mix and promote global rankings, expatriate students are often reluctant to move to regional areas due in part to a lack of EMLs. Apart from EML issues, international students experienced difficulties finding teammates for group assignments, since their Korean peers prefer not to work with foreign students due to the language barrier (Joongang, February 1, 2007). The same article concluded that local universities should hire more foreign professors to increase its international mix and provide more favorable learning environments for international students.

Despite the legitimacy of such concerns, it is worth noting a disparity between the number of articles covering international students and those covering domestic students in relation to EMLs. As mentioned above, only one out of the 20 articles sampled reported concerns from domestic students about EMLs, whereas four articles (or 20 percent) paid attention to issues related to EMLs from the viewpoint of international students. Furthermore, the tone of the articles in question showed the contrast. Whereas the single article about domestic students remained neutral by presenting opinions about EMLs from both supporters and opponents, all of the articles about international students were equally critical of the inadequacy of EMLs and a lack of support for foreign students. Given the fact that domestic students far outnumber foreign students in Korea and are key stakeholders in the ongoing linguistic transition of tertiary education, such disparities in the findings raise the question of whether domestic students have been given equal opportunities to raise concerns about EMLs from their own point of view; it appears that the views of their international counterparts have received disproportionate attention in the mainstream media. In the interests of equity in representation, this article aims at bringing EML-related issues affecting local students to the attention of readers by investigating their coverage in student-run university newspapers.

1. Undemocratic process

The most serious and yet unnoticed issue is the absence of democracy in the introduction of EMLs. In the 13 April 2009 issue, the Sungkyunkwan Newspaper reported that the university decided to conduct core subjects of the Basic Science Department in English only for the first-year students from the beginning of 2009. Though rumors circulated about such a possibility during the previous year, the final decision was not conveyed to the targeted students at all until the new semester, when the students suddenly had to face the new language policy on their first day at school. A similar example was found at POSTECH, in which students learnt about the school's decision on using English as a second language on campus through the media, not from the school (Postech Times, January 1, 2002). The Sungkyunkwan Newspaper argued that the school's unilateral decision bordered on infringement of learners' linguistic rights to education, to which the school responded that it was ‘just a change in the mode of class operation’ and the school would continue to increase EMLs in line with the internationalization of education. Such a top-down system devoid of communication with learners points to the possibility that EMLs act as a tool to promote globalization of a university and hence global rankings, rather than serving to address the real academic needs of students.

2. Quantity-driven approach

Though the disappointing quality of EMLs perceived among learners was mentioned in the previous section, some samples from the university press provide a broader perspective on issues related to EMLs. In the 9 March 2009 issue, the Yonsei Newspaper pointed out that the portion of EMLs at this university almost doubled from 15.7% to 27% between 2005 and 2008. The paper was critical of the university's ‘blind pursuit of increasing the numbers of EMLs’ without considering the unique characteristics of individual studies. It reported that even the Department of Korean Literature, a subject which cannot be taught exclusively in English due to its unique nature, is under pressure from the school administration to raise the portion of EMLs to 35 percent by 2010. On 9 October 2009, 60 Minutes, an investigative television program of the state-owned Korean Broadcasting System, reported issues surrounding EMLs at KAIST, which was teaching about 68 percent of classes in English at that time. Among the classes taught in English were also second-language classes (e.g. Chinese and Japanese). When students questioned the effectiveness of learning second languages in English, the school responded that ‘Top global universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are teaching foreign languages in English only, and so should we.’ In the 1 November 2008 issue, Ewha Newspaper reported that as students were reluctant to take EMLs, some universities even introduced criterion-referenced assessment to the classes conducted in English to attract more students. The newspaper said that the introduction of the new assessment system helped to quell possible criticism from students about the quality of EMLs since they could receive better grades under the new system. In a similar vein, the Sogang Newspaper revealed the results of a student poll about EMLs in the 8 July 2010 issue, in which a more generous assessment system or criterion-referenced system was cited as the biggest attraction by students in favor of EMLs. Such a quantity-oriented approach pursued by universities again raises questions about for whom EMLs should exist, if not for the learners.

3. Inadequate support for educational stakeholders

A number of articles were critical that schools were turning a blind eye to students who needed help to adjust to the move to English. In the 8 July 2010 issue, the Sogang Newspaper pointed out that although the school considered measures to raise the quality of EMLs by, for example, hiring more foreign teachers, a discussion about support for its own students was non-existent. In the 1 November 2008 issue, the Ewha Newspaper reported that EMLs led to a financial burden on students with lower English proficiency. The paper said that an increasing number of students were turning to private English language institutes in an effort to follow classes taught in English, and that had added to the already high fees spent on private institutes specializing in English proficiency exams, as English is required in almost all professions in Korea (Choi, Reference Choi and Lim2002). On the other hand, the issue of inadequate support for professors in relation to EML teaching methods was also discussed. In the 1 June 2001 issue of Ewha Newspaper, Professor Sunyeol Choi deplored that ‘Nationwide, there are as little as 10 professors who are truly capable of teaching in English, except for those having English as their first language’, questioning a blind pursuit of EMLs without considering the reality. In the 9 March 2009 issue, the Yonsei Newspaper said that although the school made it mandatory for professors to give six EMLs as part of their assessment reviews, support systems for them had been hardly considered. Similarly, the Sungkyunkwan Newspaper dated 13 May 2007 cited Professor Joon-goo Lee from Seoul National University as saying that ‘Contracts that stipulate EMLs as a compulsory requirement for the newly hired are a modern version of slave contract. There is nothing else but vanity that is a factor behind universities' pursuit of EMLs.’ The current situation, in which learners and teachers alike are being forced to adjust to a new system without proper support, is an acute example of a lack of consideration by the universities of their members, both staff and students. As the aforementioned Sogang Newspaper suggested, universities should be obliged to help key educational stakeholders in need, rather than letting them be self-critical of their linguistic deficiency, if they really want EMLs to serve the stated purpose of enhancing learners' English capability.

4. Considerations for non-native international students

In the 23 May 2010 issue, the Sungkyunkwan Newspaper questioned whether an increase in EMLs would really benefit international students as the school professed. It found that out of 1020 overseas students attending the school, Chinese students accounted for more than 80 percent (or 819) and most Chinese students actually preferred classes to be taught in Korean rather than in English. It said that a substantial number of them even demanded more opportunities to learn the Korean language. This apparently ironic result is attributed to the school's admission criteria for international students, in which students should obtain a reasonable level of Korean, not English, language proficiency to be allowed in. As the results contradicted the school's argument that overseas students need more EMLs, the paper concluded that the school needs to review its admission criteria to make them more realistic, and should meet the real needs of the majority of its international students by promoting the Korean language for them.

5. English as a class marker

Finally, EMLs risk creating a class structure among students according to their levels of English proficiency. In the 18 March 2007 issue, the Ewha Newspaper said that classes conducted in English were led by only a few students fluent in English, whereas the majority of students, having less command of English, were forced to stay silent during classes. In the 11 October 2009 issue, the Sungkyunkwan Newspaper also reported a range of issues that students with weaker English are destined to face in EMLs, such as a lack of interaction with teachers, subsequent impacts on their studies and lower grades, and, more importantly, stratifying students into the English haves and have-nots. This grim prediction is in a way a microcosm of Korean society, which suffers ‘collective neurosis of English fever’ (Y-M. Kim, Reference Kim2002) and English has now become ‘a class marker’ (S-J. Park & Abelmann, 2004: 646). EMLs represent issues of power and inequality linked to language (Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2002: 38) and these external threats posed by a dominant language can be understood through a notion of language rights (Phillipson, Reference Phillipson1998; Skutnabb-Kangas, Reference Skutnabb-Kangas1998). Though denying one's rights to receive education in one's mother tongue is simply a ‘linguistic wrong’, university students in Korea are divested of their right to identify with, to maintain and to fully develop their mother tongue (Skutnabb-Kangas, Reference Skutnabb-Kangas1998) in the name of globalization.