"Does the Prospect of Securing a Site Count as an Achievement?"... Mokpo National University Alumni Association Blasts Medical School Selection

Ministry of Education slammed for giving a free pass over "site already secured"
"Is 'plan first, secure later' the new principle?" the association asks
"Just retrofitting the rationale to fit the outcome... Calls for a full re-evaluation"

The Mokpo National University Alumni Association expressed deep disappointment and regret over the Ministry of Education's announcement of the universities selected to establish new medical schools, and called for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the review results.

On November 4, in a statement titled “The Ministry of Education Defends the Unfair Review by the Special City—Is This Fairness Under a Government of Popular Sovereignty?” issued at the briefing room of the Jeonnam-Gwangju Integrated Special City Council, the association strongly criticized the ministry, saying it had focused on justifying the existing review results rather than addressing allegations of unfairness.

Mokpo National University’s Alumni Association expressed deep disappointment and regret over the Ministry of Education’s announcement selecting a university to establish a medical school, and called for a comprehensive re-evaluation. Reporter Lee Junkyung

The central issue in the controversy is whether the evaluation of Sunchon National University's “site acquisition” was fair. According to the statement, the Ministry of Education explained that securing ownership of the site was not a mandatory requirement at the selection stage, and that Sunchon National University's description of the site as “already secured” could not be definitively deemed an intentional false statement.

In response, the Mokpo National University Alumni Association refuted the explanation point by point, saying, “Whether securing ownership is a mandatory requirement and whether a university is evaluated as having already secured a site are entirely different matters,” and, “The fact that the statement was not intentionally false does not make the high evaluation score justified.”

The association continued, “If this logic holds, does it mean that in all future national public project competitions, applicants can receive a new evaluation based solely on the ‘possibility of securing’ sites, funding, and facilities in the future, without having secured them?” It also asked pointedly, “Is ‘plan first, secure later’ the new evaluation principle for national public project competitions in South Korea?”

The association also criticized the lack of transparency in the Ministry of Education's verification process. It called on the ministry to disclose all details, including the advisory institution, the questions put to experts, and the recommendation process, so the public could judge whether the process amounted merely to bolstering the rationale for upholding the existing conclusion, despite repeated requests for explanatory materials and consultations with external legal advisers.

The association declared, “If the ministry had simply explained that the decision was based on political or policy considerations, it could have been held accountable,” adding, “It is difficult to earn the public's trust without explaining the legitimacy of the core evaluation.” It then asked, “Where are the fairness and common sense promised by the President?” and appealed, “Is it impossible even for the government to correct allegations of a government agency's flawed evaluation?”

The association asked, “Can the Ministry of Education's explanation be confidently presented to our students as well?” It stressed, “We are not asking for special treatment for Mokpo National University. We are asking for it to be evaluated by the same standards and for any mistakes to be corrected.”

The association called on the Ministry of Education to fully disclose the grounds for its evaluation of site acquisition and the results of its legal advice, and to conduct an active re-evaluation. It declared, “Fairness is not a rationale to be tacked on to justify an outcome. We will keep asking questions and taking action until that principle is upheld.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.