The Core of Education Inequality: Hypercompetition and Standardized Scores

The Core of Education Inequality: Hypercompetition and Standardized Scores

Education inequality is an ongoing issue that has been pervasive for many decades in almost every country. When tracing this problem back to its source, it is evident that global hypercompetition is at its core. Although there are small adjustments that can be made to combat education inequality, the core problem of hypercompetitiveness must be addressed through the undermining of numerical scores.

Global hypercompetition, the swift and intense escalation of competition between countries around the world, has started to increase due to “new and complex demands from society” (Rossi), especially in terms of education and human capital. The world has started to drive towards a “knowledge based economy” (Rossi). Therefore, in order to cater to the rapidly changing needs of society, “universities are required to contribute to the ongoing re-qualification of human resources” (Rossi). Consequently, it is inevitable for society to demand more educated and more qualified individuals, leading to fierce competition between individuals striving to meet that demand.

Typically, financial assistance provides education that helps differentiate one’s value. This is where the gap between different socioeconomic groups causes inequity in the process of competition. Higher income groups are able to afford the additional resources that help them improve and stand out from those without, which are typically lower income individuals. As a result, the gap between these groups is only exacerbated when those who “stand out” are able to get into better schools and better jobs, while those who could not afford additional resources remain in the lower class. These consequences of hypercompetition, such as demand for private education is evident within South Korea and the United States, which are known to be educationally developed countries.

Hypercompetition in South Korea is evident in the extreme dependency on private tutoring academies called “hagwons.” The dependency on hagwons is so great in South Korea that even the spotlight of popular media has illuminated this issue. For example, Mihyang, the main character of a popular Korean drama, Sky Castle, invests the price equivalent to a luxury apartment into a hagwon taught by the most elite tutors. These tutors have graduated from Ivy leagues or one of the “SKY” colleges. With their help Mihyang’s daughter seeks to attend Seoul National University Medical School (one of three “SKY” colleges, or the Korean equivalent of Ivy leagues).

Some may assert that this is an unrealistic image created through dramas, but there is more truth behind these scenes than they may think. Surprisingly, when the current students of Seoul National University Medical School were interviewed, they admitted to meeting many fellow classmates who attended very pricey hagwons in order to be admitted to Seoul National University (“Sky Castle Fact Check”). All of the respondents themselves also confessed that they relied on multiple hagwons to maintain high grades during high school (Sky Castle Fact Check”). Every subject is taught at these hagwons at an expensive price averaging up to a minimum of two hundred and ninety dollars a month. Despite their costliness, it is evident that hagwons are beneficial in assisting students with their academic success. The problem with these hagwons is that students become highly dependent on them to boost their GPA and do well on their college entrance exam. This dependency causes their prices to skyrocket further limiting accessibility to only privileged groups of students. This is a clear example of how hypercompetition has shaped society for high demands of private education in means of standing out, eventually contributing to education inequality.

In fact, inequality in education accessibility is a global concern also present in the United States. Likewise to South Korea, in American education inequality is also apparent. Students who have the financial ability to afford private secondary school and private SAT prep tutoring have a significant advantage over those who do not in standardized tests and college admissions.

Most college admissions mark GPA and standardized test scores under the “very important” category of their application review process. Naturally, parents will do anything to set up an environment in which their children are set up for success. To do so, prep schools in the United States parallel Korean hagwons. In this process, disproportion between low-income students and higher-income students becomes evident. For the SAT, “‘… scores… [vary] — by about 30 to 50 points for every $20,000 in family income” (Miranda). Kids whose families earn less than $20,000 per year have an average combined score of 1320 on the SAT; those with income of $80,000 to $100,000 have a combined score of 1543; for those who reported family income of $200,000 or higher, the combined score is 1676’” (Miranda). These statistics show that standardized test scores strongly correlate with income. Even the Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at Harvard has admitted that “…many of the better schools, whether they think this way or not, tend to teach to the test . . . There are at least two Americas out there, and the advantages are all in one of them” (Miranda). Miranda implies that these “better schools” are either private schools or public schools from more richer areas, and there is no doubt that these private schools are only accessible to certain socioeconomic groups. Not surprisingly those who can afford these high prices continue to use the assistance of private education.

Therefore, the unreasonably high prices of hagwons in South Korea and SAT prep and private schools of the United States, cause a constant debate on whether there should be regulations on their pricing and usage. As expected, there are two sides to the matter. On one hand, a small percentage of the population either remains silent, or claims that private education is beneficial. This small population tends to be the wealthy who are unphased by the price of hagwons, or those who work in the hagwon industry. On the other hand, many families and parents have stated that the price of these private academies is burdensome and unnecessary. At least 33.3% of parents in South Korea asserted that hagwons are a great financial burden for their family, and 9 out of 10 South Korean parents agreed that hagwons are at least slightly burdensome (Kim). According to Jones, “the cost of private tutoring rose from 3.4% of household spending in 1990 to 7.4% in 2009” (Jones 102). Now that another decade has passed, it is predicted that the spendings on these hagwons have grown to be even more than 7.4% of a parent’s total income. The financial burden of private education is also predicted to have increased parallely to the spendings on hagwons. Likewise, in the United States, other than those that can afford expensive SAT prep and private schools, the majority agrees that certain students “enjoy significant advantages throughout the college application process, and that income greatly impacts a student’s performance on standardized tests” (Zinshteyn). Based on the amount of people of the latter opinion, it is clear that there are repercussions of unequal accessibility to private education.

Along the same lines to South Korea, reform in the similar private institutions within the United States is called for. Although some people argue that private schools providing an advantage in United States college admission is a myth, this stance lacks backing. Recent research shows that “around 95% of private high school students (non-parochial) go on to a four-year institution, versus about 49% of public high school students” (Andersen). Almost twice the percentage of private school students enter tertiary education in contrast to public school students. Furthermore, students that can afford private schools or students that live in districts with prestigious public school education are assisted in college admissions even more through standardized test prep. For instance specifically, “School system data [that] show[s] that Wootton students’ mean score for the SAT… was 1784, the fourth-highest in Montgomery County, and well above the county mean of 1616” (Miranda), and the students of this high school are known to “spend thousands of dollars for the help of private counselors” (Miranda). These private institutions “map out a tutoring and testing schedule, help with essays, suggest colleges, and in some cases offer advice on getting financial aid” (Miranda). It is also clear that this forum is only accessible to certain students since it “can easily cost $5,000 and often much more”(Miranda) to hire a college counselor.

Although there are so many reasons for reform in the accessibility of private education there is a reason for its failure in execution. The barriers are slightly different depending on the country. For the United States it is difficult to engage people in improving public education since it is an individualistic country. For South Korea, hagwons’ contributions to the economy are one of the main reasons the government cannot regulate their heavy use or price. Since the 2000s, families have been investing on average two hundred and ninety dollars a month on hagwons (Jeon). Those who have more financial freedom state that they spend around one thousand dollars on their child’s hagwon fees (Jeon). Diminishing the entirety of hagwons would reduce such spendings and cause a negative impact on the economy.

Therefore, as for potential reform, some suggested implementing government subsidies directed toward private education as a possible solution, but the results were not prominent. Currently, the South Korean government allows for the families of the lowest 20% income to receive a loan of up to five thousand dollars per year for private education (Shin). However, considering the price of most hagwons, people state that the loans are not nearly enough to cover the necessary cost. In addition, loans only offset and push back for further financial burden for families in the future, thereby not solving the actual problem and merely exacerbating it. Another suggestion involved government funding directly given to these private institutions (such as private schools and hagwons) could alleviate financial inequities. Unfortunately, this solution wasn’t viable, as the subsidies that were directed to these private institutions were too hard to control. When government subsidies were provided to Australian private schools, for example, it was used to increase the quality of its services instead of decreasing fees for low-income groups to afford (Watson and Ryan 86). Accordingly, “The data [concluded] that Australia’s government funding scheme is ineffective in facilitating access to private schools for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and has undermined the viability of public secondary schools” (Watson and Ryan 86). Some may ask, “if funding private schools improved their quality of education can’t more funds just be directed towards public schools to give just as high quality education as private schools?”

Yes, infact, once government subsidies were directed to the secondary private schools in Australia the quality of education improved. To illustrate, the funds “enabled private schools to improve their student: teacher ratios substantially” (Watson and Ryan 94). This proves that one of the causes for more demand in private education is due to the lack of funding in public schools. Public school funding in the United States and South Korea comes directly from community property taxes, which are unequally distributed once the “privileged students flee the public school system for private primary or secondary schools’’ (Miller). This causes certain districts to be “richer”, through property taxes and private donations from the parents of these areas facilitating “higher quality” education. If more government subsidies are offset, and taxes are distributed evenly to all public schools across the country rather than focused on wealthier districts, the overall condition -such as teacher to student ratios- of public schools will improve. With the improved condition of public schools, demand for private education would decrease.

Despite the benefits of government subsidies directed towards public education, people will continue to doubt the success and necessity of public schools improvements. Why would I want to pay more taxes to improve public education when I can pay for my own children’s private education? How will this solve inequality? This is a valid reaction, since the prevalence of private tutoring is a result of public schools’ failure to provide equal and efficient education. Depending on the district and teacher, the information and quality of classes are drastically different, making current public schools unreliable in preparing South Korean students for the college entrance exams (Kim). The same can be said for the United States, as certain schools are known to prepare students for the SAT and ACT better (Andersen). Due to these barriers, it will be difficult to reform the public school system and direct more subsidies towards them.

Furthermore, even if government subsidies and redistribution of taxes decrease the gap in education between the wealthy and poor, the core source of this hypercompetition has not been removed. People will continue to look for a different way to make themselves stand out from the rest of the crowd. Under the current system of college admissions, the easiest method to differentiate oneself from others is through visible numbers.

In order to prevent hyper competition among applicants, the easily comparable standardized scores must be undermined in the process of college admission. Rather, other aspects of college admissions — such as extracurricular activities, essays, and interviews — should be underscored. If these other aspects are emphasized, people will be able to focus on their own strengths, since the three aforementioned categories cannot rank people based upon score or visible numbers. Numbers like the SAT, ACT, college entrance exams, and GPA are numerical so that we can automatically group people into “qualified” and “unqualified.” This is why competition escalates so much that people pay to fit into the qualified category. If being “qualified” is presented in a non numerical way, people will mellow out from trying to prove their value through a score, ultimately reducing demand for private education.

Some may argue that other determinants will not be as successful as standardized scores in determining the students’ fitness for colleges. In spite of this, the importance of standardized tests is already being slowly phased out as more people acknowledge their ineffectiveness in measuring students’ aptitude.” In fact, in the United States, the trend of college admissions is drifting towards making standardized tests optional. Prestigious schools including all of the Ivy league universities and other top universities including all California public colleges have changed requirements of standardized tests to test optional (“What Colleges Became”). The fact that there is unequal access to the prep to these tests prove that they are not successfully determining the students’ own ability. These standardized tests must be given up to lower hypercompetition, which is the core cause of education inequality.

Lowered hypercompetition will allow students to prove their value in different forums that actually exhibit their interests. Students will no longer feel that they are represented through a number and thereby settle a bit from competition. It will be inevitable that some students will become less motivated to work hard with the reduced stress of visible scores, but if the education system is able to allow students to pursue what they truly are passionate about without as much regard to how they appear on paper, there will soon be a more diverse and well represented student population.

Works Cited

Andersen, Ellen. “Myth: Attending a Private High School Boosts Acceptance Odds.” College Raptor Blog, 18 Aug. 2020, www.collegeraptor.com/getting-in/articles/myths/myth-attending-private-high-school-will-increase-college-acceptance-odds.

Daeun, Shin. “Will Loans for Low-Income Families Increase Demand?” Hankyoreh [Seoul], 15 Feb. 2021, www.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/economy_general/983062.html.

Exley, Sonia. “Selective Schooling and Its Relationship to Private Tutoring: The Case of South Korea.” Comparative Education, vol. 56, no. 2, Routledge, 2020, pp. 218–35, doi:10.1080/03050068.2019.1687230.

Harper’s BAZAAR Korea. “[SKY Castle] This is how you get into SNU Med School?” Youtube, uploaded by Harper’s BAZAAR Korea, 29 Jan. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyHXsO0HTE.

Jeon, Minhee. “1 Month Worth Hagwon Fees Are $1000. How Is the Average Monthly Spendings on Private Education Only $290?” JoongAng Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, 12 Mar. 2019, news.joins.com/article/23408347.

JONES, Randall S. “Meeting the Social Policy Challenges Facing Korea.” Asian Economic Policy Review, vol. 7, no. 1, Blackwell Publishing Asia, 2012, pp. 91–108, doi:10.1111/j.1748–3131.2012.01221.x.

Kim, Jaemyung. “3 Reasons Why College Entrance Exams are Unfair.” Edujin News, 18 May 2017, www.edujin.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=15801.

Kim, Mihyang. “Monthly education expenses… 9 out of 10 say is ‘burdensome.’” Hankyoreh, Inc [Seoul], 13 Feb. 2017, www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/schooling/782374.html.

Miranda S Spivack. “The Admissions Gap; Affluent Students Who Can Afford Pricey SAT Prep Have an Advantage When It Comes to Getting into College. But More Educators Are Asking Whether Such Exams Are Necessary.” The Washington Post, WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post, 2009.

Miller, Margo. “Private Schools Are the Antithesis to Social Justice.” The Mac Weekly, 6 Nov. 2020, themacweekly.com/79128/opinion/private-schools-are-the-antithesis-to-social-justice.

Moon, Aram, et al. “Child Rearing Burden in Low Fertility Society: Education Expenses and Childbirth Decisions Centering on Correlation.” , 2018, pp. 1–40. SNU Law Library, law.snu.ac.kr/data/hb_awards_3__research__low_birthrate.pdf.

Park, Seongwoo. “Even after Investing Millions of Dollars South Korea Is Last Place for Birth Rates within the OECD Countries… Is Population Decrease Going to Happen Faster?” ChosunBiz [Sejong], 24 Feb. 2021, biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2021/02/24/2021022400946.html.

Rossi, Federica. “Increased Competition and Diversity in Higher Education: An Empirical Analysis of the Italian University System.” Higher Education Policy, vol. 22, no. 4, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp. 389–413, doi:10.1057/hep.2008.33.

Sparkadmissions. “What Colleges Became Test Optional for 2020–2021.” Spark Admissions, 13 Oct. 2020, www.sparkadmissions.com/blog/complete-list-of-newly-test-optional-schools-for-2020-2021.

Watson, Louise, and Chris Ryan. “Choosers and Losers : the Impact of Government Subsidies on Australian Secondary Schools.” The Australian Journal of Education, vol. 54, no. 1, SAGE Publications, 2010, pp. 86–107, doi:10.1177/000494411005400107.

Zinshteyn, Mikhail. “The Growing Wealth Gap Between Rich and Poor Students Who Earn a College Degree.” The Atlantic, 29 Apr. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/the-growing-wealth-gap-in-who-earns-college-degrees/479688.