[KS] IUC

Jay Lewis JayatAKS49 at netscape.net
Thu Apr 17 17:50:38 EDT 2003


    Well, I'm back from dinner, and I see the conversation has advanced 
on many fronts.  By the way, the cuisine at the AKS has improved 
considerably since the last time I regularly dined here in 1996. Coming 
from the UK and having such delicious varieties of kimch'i morning, 
noon, and night for little more than a pound sterling a meal is like a 
dream come true......but I'm off the subject now.
    I have no original ideas or information to add to the conversation 
about an IUC, but I do have a few musings if we are serious about even 
talking about, even dreaming about creating an IUC in Korea.  I'm 
married to a futurist, and I get daily reminders (when I'm at home) of 
the importance of dreams, so the skeptics among us might hold their fire 
for a while and even allow themselves to take a few flights of fancy. 
 One of the other great lessons from Futures Studies is that prophecies 
can be self-fulfilling, which is to say, if we talk about it enough, it 
may happen.
    I don't think any of us disagree about the objective of language 
teaching in the most effective manner possible, although we might think 
about beginning small, say with only a graduate program and `refresher 
courses' for senior academics.  Horace, Ross, and David have reminded us 
to take a realistic look at the demand for the supply we're proposing to 
provide.  Horace is probably right that the numbers of non-heritage 
students are small, but if we start out focussing on a program for 
graduate students needing intensive training for field-work or research, 
I don't think we need to become embroiled with this question now.  The 
heritage/non-heritage divide is a question for home institutions to deal 
with at the undergraduate level.  An IUC initially oriented to graduate 
students could set a particular standard and admissions could be open to 
all on a competitive basis.  If sufficiently endowed, substantive 
scholarships could be offered and admissions could be highly selective, 
because operating costs would not have to rely on tuition payments.
    Looking to the future and expanding the demand (i.e. opening 
programs for undergraduate students), I would suggest that home 
institutions consider establishing the requirement of a period of six 
months to a year in country (such as we have for Chinese and Japanese at 
Oxford).  I don't think this would put an unreasonable demand on 
students, particularly if some of the very high tuition payments at 
North American institutions can be waived or partially waived for 
students who are out `in-country'.  (Of course, waiving tuition payments 
at home might make it impossible for home institutions to contribute, so 
this is something to consider as well.  All the more reason to take a 
close look at the governance and finances of the Japanese and Taiwanese 
cases.)  To require those graduating with a degree in Korean to have 
spent a year in Korea may strike the already fluent heritage speaker as 
a waste of time, but the `in-country' requirement would be something for 
home institutions to waive or not as they see fit.  In-country language 
training would put real meat onto the bare bones of any degree in an 
East Asian language.  It should also go a long way towards solving the 
hour shortage that Ross complains of, and it would probably tilt the 
table in favour of language training within other faculties in the Arts 
and Social Sciences at home institutions.  I would expect colleagues in 
other faculties to be greatly impressed.  Ours are.
    Gari's mention of the law and the necessity of involving the MOE may 
only apply if we want the MOE to recognise any certificates issued. 
 Until quite recently, I've heard that the Japanese have kept a keen eye 
on foreigner education, but this is only because the monitored sectors 
(middle and secondary schools for Europeans, Americans, Koreans, and 
Chinese) issue qualifications that apply to the process of entering 
Japanese universities.  I don't know how the Japanese or Taipei school 
is governed under local law, and I don't know how the hundreds of HagwOn 
operate in Chongno, but whether an IUC would be independent of or 
attached to an existing institution might not be a legal problem, or it 
might be finessed by a clever lawyer and some governmental backing.  I 
suggested using an existing institution simply to be able to call on 
their adminstrative (even legal) expertise and certainly their 
buildings, but with the intent of establishing a separate school, our 
IUC.  Contrary to Ross, I think that many Korean universities would be 
willing to sacrifice sovereignty for prestigious association.  (Again, 
the lawyers appear to write the rules of engagement.)  An alternative 
(or an addition) to association might be to buy a block of flats or an 
entire small building that contains numerous apartments.  Some would 
function as classrooms and some as living quarters for students and 
`refreshing` seniors.  The point is to get it up and running.
    Finally, I share Ross' desire to be outside Seoul, not just for 
linguistic reasons, but also for health and environmental reasons. 
 However, we have to consider our constituency.  If we begin with 
graduate student training and `retooling' seniors, then they may better 
benefit from being located near to the contacts, libraries, archives, 
museums, and other resources of Seoul.  After all, for most of us, 
language learning is only a means to an end and budding researchers may 
well want to spend a few free afternoons ransacking archives and 
libraries or getting acquainted with leading lights in their specialty 
so that they feel as though they're `getting the ball rolling'.
    Sorry to have gone on for so long.  Again, thank you John for 
raising this question in a public forum.

Jay







More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list