[Lim Woong] Watching Korea’s education go off track

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence and digital technology is forcing countries everywhere to rethink how we educate. South Korea, with a new president at the helm, sits at a moment when major education reforms could actually happen. But instead of looking forward, most conversations still revolve around the same old issues — brutal competition for top university spots, higher education as a credentialing system for the job market, and the endless obsession with medicine and law.

Is Korea’s education stuck in a cycle of tests, stress and empty victories? And if there’s hope for change, what should that even look like?

To get a fresh perspective, let’s talk about two ways of thinking about learning: the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor. These aren’t just theories; they help us see education as more than just taking in facts — it’s about thinking, growing and becoming part of something meaningful.

The acquisition metaphor sees learning as stockpiling knowledge — like collecting baseball cards. You memorize, store and repeat information. The teacher pours knowledge into students, who are treated like empty vessels waiting to be filled. This is where lectures, rote learning and endless standardized tests dominate. Naturally, it feeds into a ranking system where test scores rule. In extreme cases, it drives kids into cutthroat competition, fuels private tutoring markets and even encourages cheating — all in the name of “getting ahead.”

The participation metaphor, on the other hand, sees learning as joining a community. You don’t just collect knowledge — you live it. You start on the sidelines and gradually move in by doing, practicing and working with others. Think of an apprentice chef learning in a real kitchen instead of just reading recipes. Or a grad student who starts by following the professor’s lead but eventually runs the lab. This idea comes from Jean Lave, emeritus professor at UC Berkeley, and her colleagues’ Situated Learning Theory — basically, that learning always happens in context, not isolation. When education follows this participation approach, you get internships, project-based learning, practicums, concerts for music majors, art exhibits for art students — real experiences that integrate knowledge, skills and social engagement into a profession.

To be clear, these two approaches aren’t enemies. They’re two sides of the same coin. Leaning too hard on acquisition leaves students full of disconnected facts, with little idea how to apply them and no sense of purpose in sitting through long lectures. But going all-in on participation without solid foundations leaves gaps in basic knowledge. It's also difficult to create authentic communities of practice in K-12 settings. Good education needs both: a solid grasp of content, plus opportunities to apply, question and grow in real-world contexts.

Education scholar Anna Sfard at the University of Haifa explains this balance well. The Acquisition model provides clear, organized ways to deliver information, but risks becoming too rigid and detached from real life. Participation brings in the messy, rich aspects of learning — relationships, identity, growth — but can be harder to structure into neat curricula. Sfard argues that participation-based approaches may feel less tidy, but they better reflect individual needs and help students grow together, not just compete, which seems much more aligned with today’s world.

One of my graduate students put it better than I could, “Before this class, I never even thought about this participation thing. But it hit me how much our schools treat knowledge like something you collect just for yourself, like a private stash (used) to beat others. I get why we need to learn stuff, but I also see now that what’s missing is real practice with people. You can ace tests but still be totally lost when you start working.”

She added, “You know how people say school smarts aren’t the same as work smarts? It’s true. You can get good grades, but once you start a job, it’s all about teamwork, problem-solving, dealing with people you don’t like — stuff we barely practice in school. But employers still look at GPA and certificates because that’s the easiest thing to measure.”

Her words capture the real crisis. We’re obsessed with what’s easy to measure — test scores, grades, credentials — while ignoring what actually matters after graduation: flexibility, communication, character, collaboration, creativity, and a sense of humor. The scary part? We’re stuffing students with dead facts and test-taking skills that serve almost no purpose once they step into the real world. We’re preparing them for a world that doesn’t exist.

If we’re serious about giving students meaningful lives in a messy, unpredictable world, we need to balance both models. Yes, build knowledge. But also build people — capable of working with others, solving real problems and earning trust and merit not with test scores, but through actions and real contributions. That should be the real measure of merit. The students we train today will shape tomorrow’s society. If we fail to change course, we risk raising yet another generation that’s great at passing tests but lost at living.

Lim Woong

Lim Woong is a professor at the Graduate School of Education at Yonsei University in Seoul. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.