Various university evaluations have become more prevalent in recent years - the KCUE, for example, has conducted surveys since 1982, growing from a subject range of a few universities to 46 nationwide. In addition, evaluations from institutions such as the JoongAng Daily and the National Customer Satisfaction Index (NCSI) have tended to sharpen the competitive spirit among universities in the "education market." Striving for "enhanced quality of educational curriculum" is good, but yet to be verified are the clarity of the direction in which this is taking place.
When universities begin to modify school policies to better grab the attention of young adults, exactly where do the moral and concrete standards of university education stand? Do the policy experimentees, evaluators, and the policy makers all agree on a certain point of focus which has been examined by all parties? Are the impartiality and reasonableness of policies agreed upon?
Policies that have long-term effects on people? lives should be thought out carefully. Ideally, people who make such decisions have a long time to debate. Taking a look at the workings of institutions around the world whose choices and actions affect international ranges of people, one notices that certain bodies are given long terms for the time they serve in office. For instance, the United States Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court allot fourteen years and lifetime terms, respectively, for their members. The point of this analogy is not that a longer time is needed to make policies for Ewha. It is that greater consideration should be given to long-term effects. The policies that are made and put into effect should not simply try to suit customers ?emands; they should take Korea? future into consideration. Well-thought out school policies are more likely to enhance school reputation in the long run than ?lowing evaluations based on survey results.