In this blog post, I will examine the problems that English-only classes in universities pose for student learning and consider what prerequisites and educational systems are needed to properly achieve university internationalization and English education.
In conclusion, I believe that in the future, all courses at top-tier universities should be conducted in English. However, I also believe that the current system has many problems, and to resolve them, South Korea’s English education system itself must change. Using English as the language of instruction should not be an end in itself; rather, the priority must be creating an environment where students can effectively acquire major-specific knowledge and develop academic thinking through English.
Any college student these days has likely experienced stress while taking a class conducted in English. During my five years as an undergraduate, I had the opportunity to take three or four courses taught in English and faced considerable difficulty in my studies. At the time, the College of Engineering at Seoul National University required students to complete three English-taught courses as a graduation requirement. This was a relatively lighter burden compared to universities like KAIST or POSTECH, which use English as their primary language of instruction. Even today, KAIST uses English as its primary language of instruction, and POSTECH, having steadily increased the proportion of English-taught courses, is further strengthening its English-taught curriculum for undergraduate programs starting in the 2026 academic year. However, there are differences among universities in how they approach this: some conduct all major-specific courses uniformly in English, while others operate English-taught courses based on a certain percentage or specific requirements. So, are there any issues associated with the mandatory enrollment in these English-taught courses? First, it is necessary to examine students’ perceptions of English-taught courses.
A survey conducted at the time revealed that more than half of the students viewed English-taught courses negatively. Despite these perceptions, English-taught courses have steadily expanded under the banner of university internationalization and global education. So, what problems do the current English-taught courses present? The first issue to consider is the extent to which students can actually understand the course content accurately.
The biggest problem—and the root of many others—lies, of course, in the students’ level of comprehension. It is a fact that even when university major courses are taught in Korean, their native language, it is not easy to understand the content accurately. I consider myself to be among the more proficient English speakers among science and engineering students, yet I found taking courses taught in English extremely difficult. If a class is taught in Korean, students can devote all their energy to understanding the subject matter; however, in English-taught courses, the primary challenge becomes deciphering the English rather than grasping the content itself. In such cases, it’s all too easy to lose track of the class’s flow. In particular, when students must simultaneously process specialized terminology and complex concepts from their field in English, a gap may emerge between the knowledge they actually possess and the level of understanding they demonstrate in class.
The situation may be slightly better in the STEM fields. This is because the primary goal of such courses is the acquisition of knowledge. However, this is not the case in the humanities or social sciences. For example, let’s say a student is taking a course on Western political history. In such a class, the more important objective is the process of reflecting on whether one can form one’s own opinion about a political phenomenon based on historical facts and context, how one’s thoughts differ from those of the professor and other students, and what the basis for those judgments is. In other words, while the transmission of information from the professor to the students is important, the two-way—and even multi-directional—interaction between students and between professors and students is even more crucial. However, if such a class is conducted in English, while one-way information transmission may be possible, it becomes difficult to expect the kind of interactive learning mentioned earlier. This is because students need more time to fully organize their thoughts and express them in English. Ultimately, this can lead to a situation where English proficiency limits the depth of thinking or the level of participation in discussions.
Another significant issue lies in the professor’s English proficiency. At many universities, professors also feel burdened by teaching in English, which can lead to situations where they are reluctant to take on such courses or try to pass the responsibility onto others. This is because they are well aware of their own English abilities. The ability to use English and the ability to teach a specific major in depth are separate issues; therefore, one cannot assume that an outstanding researcher in a given field will necessarily be able to deliver lectures in English at the same level. Conversely, just because someone is fluent in English does not mean they possess sufficient subject-matter expertise or teaching ability. Therefore, rather than simply emphasizing the expansion of English-only courses, it is necessary to provide professors with adequate support and preparation time and to evaluate the educational effectiveness of the courses.
Nevertheless, universities continue to push for the expansion of English-language courses and international education. So why are so many universities competitively strengthening their English-language courses and international education programs? While universities explain this as part of their commitment to nurturing global talent, it can also be seen as a strategy driven, to some extent, by considerations of their international reputation and ranking results. However, unlike in 2012, it is difficult to view current global university rankings as being structured to directly evaluate the proportion of English-taught courses. The current THE World University Rankings comprehensively evaluate teaching, research environment, research quality, internationalization, and industry engagement; in the internationalization category, they consider metrics such as the proportion of international students, the proportion of international faculty, and international collaborative research. The QS World University Rankings also comprehensively reflect academic reputation, research impact, teaching environment, the proportion of international faculty, the proportion of international students, and international research networks. Therefore, explaining that universities prioritize internationalization policies simply because “increasing the proportion of English-taught courses raises their ranking scores” does not align with the current evaluation system. However, it cannot be denied that a university’s international reputation and internationalization indicators influence its strategic direction.
The argument that universities cannot afford to ignore their rankings—since university image and promotional effectiveness vary significantly depending on these rankings—still holds some merit today. In particular, internationalization is an area that many universities currently promote as a key development goal, and the recruitment of international students and foreign faculty, international collaborative research, and exchanges with overseas universities have become important factors in assessing a university’s international competitiveness. However, rather than concluding that universities offer a large number of English-taught courses solely because of university evaluations, it is more accurate to view this as the result of multiple objectives—such as internationalization and strengthening educational competitiveness—acting simultaneously. Currently, in the THE World University Rankings, the internationalization category accounts for 7.5% of the overall evaluation, assessing international students, international faculty, and international collaborative research separately; QS also uses the proportion of international faculty and international research networks as key indicators.
Given this situation, it is highly likely that the trend of universities expanding their English-taught courses will continue in the future. In fact, as of 2026, the Ministry of Education’s university financial support policy is also being implemented to support universities’ autonomous innovation so that they can improve their curricula, enhance the quality of education, and cultivate future talent. The 2026 Innovation Support Project for Universities and Colleges supports curriculum innovation, improvements to academic systems, and enhancements to the education and research environment, while the performance-based financial support system is also being strengthened. Therefore, rather than treating the proportion of English-taught courses as a direct criterion for government financial support—as was done in the past—it is necessary to understand the current structure, which comprehensively evaluates universities’ achievements in educational innovation, internationalization, and the cultivation of future talent, and links these to financial support. Simply put, there is a need to continually scrutinize whether universities are offering English-only courses for the sake of students’ substantive education, or whether they are more focused on generating visible metrics and achievements under the guise of internationalization.
At first glance, this may seem like a problem specific to universities. However, at a more fundamental level, it is also an issue of government policy and the education system. In a situation where universities are required to strengthen internationalization and English education, if the educational environment is not in place to ensure that students acquire sufficient English communication and academic English skills before entering university, it will be difficult to achieve the desired results through the expansion of English-only courses alone. In the past, the expansion of English-language courses was often understood as being directly linked to government financial support for universities. However, the approach has now shifted toward comprehensively supporting and evaluating universities’ educational innovation, specialization, and the strengthening of regional and international competitiveness through policies such as the University Innovation Support Program, regional university support, and the “Glocal University” initiative. Ultimately, what matters is not how many English-language courses have been offered, but rather what actual impact those courses have had on student learning and on strengthening the university’s international capabilities.
So, how can this issue be resolved? As mentioned earlier, this is not merely a matter of how universities operate their English-language courses; rather, it is an issue that requires a comprehensive examination of South Korea’s English education and higher education policies. The world continues to globalize, and the fact that English remains a key language in international academic activities has not changed. In particular, one of the key reasons universities offer English-only courses is precisely because English is widely used in international academic activities. From this perspective, English-only courses at universities need to continue playing a certain role. In fact, KAIST operates with English as its primary language of instruction, and POSTECH is also continuously strengthening its English education and English-taught course systems. A look at POSTECH’s current curriculum reveals that it operates a separate English certification program, and its guidelines for exchange students highlight a bilingual campus system where English-taught and Korean-taught courses are offered side by side. However, there is a clear prerequisite for English-only classes to be conducted effectively.
That prerequisite is the establishment of a proper English education system. Under the current educational system, it is difficult to avoid the criticism that there remains a gap between learning English as a test subject and the ability to actually use English to communicate and understand academic content. Even students who have received sufficient English education cannot be assumed to have naturally acquired the ability to listen to and understand specialized college coursework in English, let alone express their own opinions and engage in discussions in English. Therefore, there are clear limitations to the approach of uniformly requiring English-only classes immediately upon university admission. In particular, if students with insufficient English proficiency are required to learn English and major-specific knowledge simultaneously, English may become a barrier that hinders learning rather than a tool that facilitates the acquisition of that knowledge. This does not mean opposing the use of English itself; rather, it means that before using English as the language of instruction, a preparatory process is necessary to ensure students can utilize the language as a learning tool.
The goal of fostering global talent and the direction to expand English-only classes in preparation for the accelerating trend of globalization are certainly meaningful. However, if we focus only on immediate, visible measures without paying attention to the educational foundation and support systems needed to achieve this noble goal, the cultivation of global talent will remain a distant prospect. Rather than simply increasing the number of English-taught courses, we must first create an environment where students can understand their major’s subject matter through English, where professors and students can freely ask questions and engage in discussion, and where students can compare and build upon one another’s ideas. Only when English becomes a means for acquiring knowledge and sharing ideas—rather than the end goal of education itself—will English-only classes truly come into their own. Ultimately, I believe what is needed is not a simple choice between expanding or reducing English-only classes, but rather a collective effort to transform the entire school and educational system so that English can be effectively used in actual learning and academic activities.
