In this blog post, I will examine the differences between universal education and elite education and discuss why South Korea should implement elite education from the perspectives of overall social development and educational efficiency.
The Purpose of Education and the Need for Elite Education
Education is a means of nurturing desirable talent so that individuals can lead happy lives and, furthermore, help society develop in a better direction. As such, education plays a very important role in society. In South Korea, in particular, education is a matter of great concern to many people. Since the effectiveness of education can vary significantly depending on the educational approach, it is an area that requires very careful consideration. There are two main types of educational approaches: elite education and universal education. Elite education is a method in which students who excel academically are separated from other students and taught in distinct classes, allowing them to further develop their abilities. In contrast, universal education is an approach in which students with varying academic abilities are placed in the same classroom so that, overall, all students can develop appropriately. I am in favor of elite education.
First, from the perspective of society as a whole, elite education is more likely to yield greater benefits to society than universal education. As an individual’s social status rises, they acquire greater amounts of wealth, prestige, and power. This is, to some extent, a natural phenomenon. As status increases, so does the social demand for that person, and they gain an advantage over others. However, the amount of value a person acquires as their status rises does not increase steadily according to a simple linear relationship. In many cases, the amount of reward received increases at a much faster rate as status rises. Of course, to discuss this distinction between linear and exponential growth, one must express status and rewards as a single function; some may question whether this can be measured numerically. While rewards can be measured in concrete numerical terms—such as income—when considering wealth, one might wonder whether it is possible to quantify the exact degree to which a person’s status has increased. However, this is not necessarily a problem, as status can be quantified to some extent by expressing it in terms of income level or social standing—for example, by indicating which percentile one falls into. Ultimately, as the English expression “Winner takes all” suggests, it often happens that a single elite individual reaps more rewards than what a group of mid-to-upper-tier talents would collectively earn. For example, the foreign director Steven Spielberg is often cited as a prime example of someone who generated enormous profits at the time with the movie ‘Jurassic Park’. ‘Jurassic Park’ was a massive global box office hit and is still regarded as one of Spielberg’s signature blockbusters. As this example shows, there are cases where a single person’s outstanding ideas and abilities generate immense economic value. In modern society, ingenious thoughts and ideas are highly valued.
This holds true even beyond financial rewards. I’d like to pose two questions to readers. Who was widely recognized as the leading male swimmer in South Korea in the past? Many people would likely answer “Park Tae-hwan” without hesitation. Let me ask another question. Who was the second-ranked male swimmer in South Korea at that time? I suspect almost no one will be able to answer this one. I don’t remember exactly either. As this example shows, even within the top tier—where the difference is merely one rank between first and second place—there can be a significant disparity in the level of international recognition and national prestige that the two athletes achieve. So, I’d like you to think carefully about this. Is it better to develop a large number of top-tier domestic athletes, or is it more desirable to nurture a single elite athlete who achieves excellent results on the international stage? I used sports as an example to aid understanding. In other fields as well, the higher one climbs the ranks, the greater the disparity in achievements and rewards based on an individual’s status can become. Especially in a country like South Korea, which relies heavily on human capital rather than natural resources, the value generated by a single elite individual can never be ignored.
The Impact of Elite Education on Society
As a counterargument to my position, some may point out that implementing elite education could lead to a relative decrease in educational support and attention for those who are not considered elite. It is certainly true that the focus on non-elites will inevitably be less intense than it would be under a system of universal education. However, given the immense impact that elites have on society, the development of elites can indirectly bring significant benefits to the rest of society as well. For example, the advancements in computer software and Internet-related technologies and services led by Bill Gates at Microsoft have made it easier for people around the world to access information and digital services. Furthermore, considering the countless jobs created in new industrial sectors centered on computers and the internet, the impact of elite education on the rest of the population cannot be ignored. Although Bill Gates did not personally develop the internet itself, this example remains relevant because he was a figure who significantly influenced the development of the computer and internet industries through Microsoft.
Second, elite education can be more beneficial to lower-performing students than a one-size-fits-all educational approach. In a single classroom, it is practically difficult to tailor instruction to the individual level of every single student. Instead, instruction is typically tailored to the level of the average student to minimize the number of students who feel the material is too difficult or too easy for them. However, if classes are organized based on academic ability, high-achieving students will benefit from a higher level of instruction that is better suited to them, allowing them to receive a better education than before. Likewise, for lower-achieving students, lessons that were previously somewhat difficult will be adjusted to a level they can more easily keep up with, making it easier for them to follow along than before. This is a win-win approach that benefits both high- and low-achieving students.
However, there may be a counterargument that middle-performing students—who previously took classes closest to their own level—will find themselves in an ambiguous position, and unlike students in other groups, the class level may actually become too far removed from their abilities. Nevertheless, when providing a single class to a large number of students with varying abilities, it is inevitable that some so-called “victims”—those for whom the class does not perfectly match their level—will emerge; our goal is to minimize the number of such students. In that sense, if the number of “victims” resulting from universal education is likely to be greater than the number resulting from elite education, there is no need to reject elite education solely on the basis of this potential problem for mid-range students.
Furthermore, the creation of two or more classes based on academic ability can provide students in the lower-level classes with a positive environment that motivates them to strive to move up to the higher-level classes. While students may not have been fully aware of their exact standing when they were all in the same class, the division into separate classes allows them to indirectly recognize their relative standing and may motivate them to work hard to avoid falling behind. However, this desire to keep up could also create a sense of alienation between the higher-performing and lower-performing classes. Nevertheless, school serves as a “preparatory society” where students gain experience in advance to prepare for life in the wider world. Therefore, this can serve as another form of education that prepares students for the fact that, once they enter society, differences based on ability—far greater than the educational disparities currently seen between top and bottom classes—may arise, and that they must work hard to further their own development.
Counterarguments Regarding Elite Education and Social Inequality
One counterargument raised by proponents of universal education is the concern that elites may not give back to the society that nurtured them. That is, elites might leave for other societies or countries without making any contribution to the society that nurtured them. Of course, such situations can certainly occur. However, even if a particular elite does not directly give back to the society in which they were raised, the mere fact that they are recognized as talent nurtured by that specific society can serve to demonstrate that society’s educational standards and capacity for nurturing talent.
Furthermore, it is difficult to view cases where elites have no positive impact whatsoever as the norm among the many who have been nurtured.
Another argument raised by opponents is that elite education can lead to inequality between the select few and the rest. The claim is that because different groups receive different educations, they receive unequal benefits. It is true that, in elite education, the elite receive greater educational benefits. However, equality does not mean treating everyone exactly the same without acknowledging individual differences. Rather, equality can be viewed as treating people appropriately by taking their respective circumstances into account. In this sense, since students in the lower-performing group also receive instruction tailored to their academic abilities, even if the level of instruction differs between the top and bottom groups, this cannot necessarily be viewed as discrimination.
Reasons to Choose Elite Education
There is a saying that “education is a plan for the next hundred years.” Since society changes significantly depending on educational methods, we must strive to find the optimal approach. However, finding the right answer regarding educational methods is a very challenging task. Both universal education and elite education have their respective advantages and disadvantages. However, by implementing elite education, we can provide instruction tailored to students’ academic levels and narrow the gap between the level of instruction and students’ abilities. Furthermore, considering the significant value that elites generate for society, the advantages of elite education can be seen as outweighing those of universal education. Therefore, I am in favor of elite education.
