In last week’s Sisa Journal, Noh Jin-seop examined the state of foreign professors at Korean universities, who apparently feel themselves to be “ghosts” whom are not treated as equal to their Korean colleagues.
In fact, said the piece, they are often treated as if they don’t exist — they are outcasts, or wangtta who are completely excluded from the administration of their own departments.
Even with their masters and doctorates, they’re treated no different from hagwon instructors, leading a growing number of qualified professors to leave Korea, negating efforts on the part of the nation’s educational authorities to globalize Korean universities.
On Aug 28, the reporter met with a Prof. Ferguson (fake name), a professor at a Seoul university. When the journalist suggested they meet in the professor’s office, the professor responded that he didn’t have a personal office. Ferguson, with a Ph.D in linguistics from a US university, had been teaching at the university for eight years, and was an associate professor in the English literature department, but he complained of “unfair conditions” because his hair and skin color was different. He noted that even Korean professors who came after him received personal offices, but foreign professors needed to share a communal office, which the reporter said was more akin to a “reading room” where students study. Some 20 professors shared the space, and desks lacked computers and telephones. Professor Kenneth (fake name) said, however, that the English professors had it relatively good. At least they they had the office to themselves. Professors of less popular languages, such as Vietnamese and Spanish, had to share their office with professors of different languages. And to make matters worse, the communal offices were locked up at 10-11 o’clock, meaning if they wanted to do research at night, they needed to go elsewhere. Prof. Veronica (fake name) said the level of Korean universities was dubious.
Journalist Noh visited four other Seoul universities, but the foreign professors were very reluctant to talk, fearing reprisals from their schools should their identities be revealed. Once they agreed to talk, however, they poured out their concerns about their failure to receive proper treatment. Prof. Yuri (fake name), a German literature professor, said not all, but most foreign professors working at Korean universities wanted not special treatment, but rather to be treated equally.
Prof. Marcus (fake name), who has worked for eight years at another Seoul university, said he’s never received — not even once — notification to attend a professors’ meeting. This, he said, was because he was a foreigner. He said he didn’t even expect a personal office; all he hoped was that the foreign professors wouldn’t be left out of the department meetings. He hoped that the foreign professors would be thought of as colleagues, just like the Korean professors.
A Professor Lee discussed the exclusion of foreign professors from the department meetings. He said the department could not hold the meetings in English for the benefit of the foreign professors, the minority, but if the meeting were conducted in Korean, the foreign professors would feel ostracized. So they aren’t notified at all. The reporter noted that Lee’s explanation meant that foreign professors received no consideration from the school.
Professor Alex (fake name), a German, said he recently received a fright when he received a simple notice that the school’s parking fee system had changed. Since he couldn’t read Korean, he thought the notice had to do with his contract with the school. He said since all notices were in Korean only, and all events were conducted in Korean only, foreign professors were being denied their right to participate in the school administration.
The foreign professors complained that they are treated like hagwon teachers. They said they are sometimes told by the school to teach foreign languages to students outside their department, leading many professors to feel like they’re hagwon teachers.
Foreign professors are also being discriminated against in terms of hours and wages. Prof. Gabriel (fake name), who teaches at a certain university, said Korean professors teach an average of seven hours a week, while the foreign professors teach at least 12 hours. Prof. Karlson (fake name), who teaches at another university, said there were differences in wages, too, although he could reveal specific amounts. He also said Korean professors get bonuses such as research fees, but he didn’t know a single foreign professor getting such bonuses. He claimed that Korean professors get all sorts of allowances that foreign professors could only dream about. Prof. Michelle, who majored in Australian literature, said there was even one foreign professor who was earning only 2.2 million won a month teaching 20 hours a week. The professor eventually returned to the United States out of dissatisfaction with his pay.
Then, of course, there’s the issue of job security. Foreign professors sign contracts of 2-4 years. Yet they are often disadvantaged by the terms and/or timing of their contracts. Prof. Josephine (fake name), who teaches French literature, said there are many cases where schools sign their professors just three days before the start of the semester. If you can’t sign a deal by then, you have to leave Korea immediately. She said it would be nice if schools decided on their contracts at least one month in advance, and that she couldn’t even think about job security. Another professor said the contracts were simple, one-page documents with only the duration of employment, salary and date. Far from honoring the professor, he said, the contracts felt more like slave papers.
About this, the Ministry of Education said the hiring and administration of foreign professors was carried out in accordance with the regulations established by each school. Or, in other words, everything was up to the universities.
Jeong Gyeong-won, the dean of academic affairs at HUFS (where 113 or the 505 professors are foreign), said foreign professors were not assuming positions of responsibility, and because of this, there could be a difference between the way they and the Korean professors are treated, but the school would try to improve this situation. Hong Jong-hwa, the dean of academic affairs at Yonsei University (where 61 of 800 professors are foreign), said foreign professors would unavoidably experience difficulties due to cultural differences, and that work needed to be done to maintain smooth relations between them and their Korean colleagues. In the case of some universities, the journalist couldn’t even get the number of foreigners were employed at their schools.
The situation being such, a growing number of foreign professors were expressing their discontent with their feet. Yonsei’s Dean Hong said one professor even left after just one six-month semester. He said the failure of foreign and Korean professors to harmonize was his school’s biggest problem. Professor Peterson (fake name), employed at a certain university, said he wanted to leave upon the completion of his contract next year, even if the school asks him to stay.
Some professors are remaining in Korea, however. Professor Anderson (fake name) says his enthusiastic students make him want to teach. He also said taxes and the cost-of-living was cheaper than in the United States.
The professors whom the reporter met while covering the story praised Sogang University and Hanyang University as schools that treat their foreign professors fairly. Kim Yeong-su, the dean of academic affairs at Sogang, said that at his school, there were no major differences between foreign and Korean professors in terms of wages or personal offices. He also said his school encouraged foreign professors to participate in department meetings by printing and distributing foreign-language fliers before hand.
The Ministry of Education recently announced it would triple the number of foreign professors at public and private universities in 2008 as part of its plans to globalize high education in Korea. Foreign professors, however, seem less-than-impressed with these plans. They say that if foreign professors are not treated as colleagues, a boost in numbers won’t help the schools. And at any rate, if the current environment remains the same, they won’t get good professors.
Said Professor Eo of a certain Seoul university said schools need to really raise their level of pay and treatment if they’re going to attract quality foreign professors. Moreover, schools must hire professors not just from English-speaking nations, but non-English speaking nations as well. For example, many Indian IT professors go to the United States. Korea, too, must land high-level professors from such countries.
Marmot’s Note: Certainly, there are issues that need to be addressed, although I don’t sympathize with the language issue — this is Korea, after all, and I’m not entirely sure why anyone would expect the universities to start doing things in English on their account.
Sphere: Related Content
48 Comments
It’s just a strange situation to recruit foreign professors, profit off them by using them as promotional props and then allow them to be unwillingly segregated within their own departments.
How do they teach Koreans if they can’t speak Korean? I suppose it’s workable if the subject they teach is their native language and the students are advanced enough. But how would they teach subjects other than language, like IT?
Would there be a translator (who is also knowledgeable enough in the subject being taught to use the correct terminologies and such) standing beside him translating everything he says?
One note:
That should be “Indian IT professors.”
I believe it is standard practice to teach in English in many Korean universities. One can easily see why this would be desirable to both Korean students and foreign professors.
The professor(s) who complained about being left out because they don’t speak Korean have no basis for their remarks. If you wish to be included, learn Korean.
Quoth the marmot: “this is Korea, after all, and I’m not entirely sure why anyone would expect the universities to start doing things in English on their account.”
While I agree that learning the local language is an advisable step for anyone planning a long-term residency in Korea, I’m not sure how a professor hired to teach in English or another foreign language despite a complete lack of Korean language skill, by a university which does not require candidates to know Korean, should expect the university to only deal with them in Korean. It’s understandable that they anticipate feeling out of place listening to the commencement speech, but considering the university’s hiring policies do not actively seek Korean speakers, is it fair to leave ‘em out of the loop?
As for SKY (and every other Korean university that uses “global” or “international” or other buzzwords,) those toolbags are only concerned about the “international” image as far as it can get ‘em ranked on BS lists in Time magazine and such. That thing poking you in the back is a ragin’ nationalistic hardon courtesy of the 연세대학국어학과. Does it tickle? They already purged it of hanja and 외래어
I taught at the Hanguk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS) as an instructor, and in Daewon Foreign Language High School, as well as the Hanguk Academy of Foreign Studies (HAFS), the boarding school out at Yongin.
Let me just say – without being too specific – that the FLHS gigs were some of the highest paying and most “prestigious” (to Koreans) institutions in the country. HUFS is a well-respected school for its language curriculums.
Although certainly not in actual conditions, but more in terms of the general way we were regarded, I was still nothing more than a intellectual “factory worker” at these institutions. And in both FLHS’s, the entire teaching staff of the ill-managed first-year grade, and in the other, the entire English-speaking foreign staff quit.
And it wasn’t for the money – it was because of being treated – many of us with MA’s and Ph.D’s – like we were simply stupid. I can’t put a finer point on that.
Year after year, the incoming staff always wonders why the entire previous staff all quit en masse. The Korean staff then tells you “they got greedy” or they were “too demanding in their contracts.” Then you go through it, and after getting so frustrated that you start losing hair, you and almost everyone on the staff quits.
And then they find more people.
Wisely, HUFS has a 7-year limit on foreign professors working there. So, so worries – after 7 years, you KNOW you’ll be hunting for another job again!
Love how Korean education administrators treat their “cream of the crop.” At HUFS, when departmental reorganization meant my American Cultures class would be rolled into a permanent hire’s contract (to save the peasly 70,000 per week I was getting to do the 2-hour lecture, which was, as my only lecture there and one of the most popular classes in the department, essentially charity work for the sake of keeping my CV current and my skills sharp with college-level lecturing work), the undergraduate clerk there continued to not return my calls because she was apparently “embarrassed” to tell me the bad news. I had to found out from students who had assumed I was teaching the class and who actually emailed me to ask me why the name was different on the course description. I simply replied, “I guess I’m not teaching there, then.”
Nice and professional, after several semesters of highly-rated teaching of both Introduction to American Culture and American Social Issues. I can understand rolling the lecture into one of the English instructor’s contracted hours (actually, I can’t, but whatever) – but I at least deserve a freakin’ phone call or an email to tell me that my services are no longer needed and were never appreciated.
Whew – nice to vent. I’m bitter, obviously, but I think the information relevant. In the end, no matter how good a job you do here, you’re just a walking dictionary, one easily replaced.
And to adapt one of my favorite jokes to the Korean context:
What do you call a bilingual Ph.D. in Education from Harvard?
“English teacher.”
Oh, and she quit after two months.
I’ve heard from a few American proffers in Korea that their departments in fact don’t want them to learn Korean; they want them to always use English. If they were hired to teach all their courses in English there should be no expectation that they must learn Korean to participate in department politics (though it’s a good idea to learn Korean anyway, aside from office politics).
Anther problem, as I understand it, is that foreign professors are seldom at a university for more than three years as the university must then contribute to the retirement system. This results in foreign professors being relegated to serial assistant or associate positions at and a lack of stability. If this three-year obstacle didn’t exist, I would imagine foreign professors would have greater motivation to learn Korean and at least attempt to become departmental players.
I don’t have a problem with Korean universities doing this, it’s their option and their business. But if they want to become real players in international education, they’ll need to change; the way things are they tend to drive away a lot of foreign educators who don’t have some other reason to stay in Korea (e.g., Korean spouse, etc.).
#2, Many of the top Korean Universities are increasing the number of classes taught in English. There are now undergraduate programs taught entirely in English - like Yonsei’s Underwood College, in addition to the GSIS graduate programs at most universities offering courses in English. The push towards education in English is also encouraged by the government partly to offset all the tuition money flowing out of the country, and to match any challenge from foreign universities that establish branches here in Korea.
So, there are separate funds set up to hire foreign profs, and depts are encouraged to hire them, but the system is not in place at many universities to encorporate them into the faculty, even Korean speaking faculty members. Korean faculty in Poli Sci, for instance, usually publish in Korean journals that lack anonymous peer review. Yet, foreign faculty want to publish in reputable international journals. Yet at some Korean universities, there aren’t agreed on standards, or rules to evaluate foreign profs. Another reason why foreign profs are “wangtta’d” has to do with being left out of the strong personal network systems which are prevalent in Korean academia. Unlike in Western countries, in Korean Universities, especially the top ones, most of the faculty were also once graduates of their own departments. They maintained relations with patron profs on the dept and were brought in as “Professor X’s” client. Who knows, there are also many stories of jr Korean faculty kicking back part of their salary to the patron Prof. In any case, competition is often fierce, and personal relations are key to getting the job. The foreign comes in with less competition, but weaker relations to the Korean faculty. He/She did not graduate from the dept obviously, can’t be counted on as a dependable and loyal personal supporter/client for one of the top patrons, and is expendable. And, the foreigner prof is going to be expensive. First, because the Korean university will have to pay an international standard salary to attract them. And, if he/she has a family and kids, s/he’ll want to send the kids to a foreign school, most likely, which costs 15 to 20K per year per kid. The school won’t want to pick that up, and the salary likely isn’t big enough to afford it. And living expenses, well Seoul was the second most expensive city in the world recently. The other Korean faculty will also likely resent the larger salary paid to the “outsider” foreigner.
Probably the best shot for the foreign prof is to work at one of the few “international” programs taught entirely in English, that don’t try to fit the foreigner into the Korean dept. Still, it looks as though it will be quite some time before Korean academia will willingly embrace foreign professors.
One small point - there could be some confusion here in the translation. Korean students use 교수 ‘kyosu’ ‘professor’ to refer to those teaching at the university level, with or without a PhD. So foreign language teachers without PhDs teaching at Korean Universities are usually called 교수, although the job title is technically 강사, ‘kangsa’ in Korea, rather than 전임교수. Salary and benefits for a 강사 position are usually less than for the 교수 slot.
My school has been very good to me. They gave me a huge office and bought me a brand new computer with a 17″ LCD monitor and laser printer. The professors have also been very nice, even asking me to join their tennis club.
The problem I have noticed in the Korean universities that I have worked at is that Korean professors tend not to like change. I think they realize they have a pretty good deal and do not want to mess it up by doing something stupid like improving the curriculum or better coordinating with each other.
Except for one university, I have not really been asked for my opinion on how to improve things, but then I do not think many Korean professors are asked their opinions, either. I once suggested that the curriculum in our English Department be better coordinated because I was teaching basic-level Englih conversation to freshmen while Korean professors were teaching them intermediate and high-intermediate level reading and grammar. I knew from my conversation classes that a large majority of the students did not have intermediate-level reading and grammar skills, so I made the suggestion that the Korean professors drop down a level or two. I was essentially told that that would be nearly impossible since the different professors had textbooks that they liked to teach and would not want to change.
It seemed to me as if the Korean professors were choosing textbooks that would help them improve their own English skills rather than those of the students. I think Korean professors just think teaching basic grammar and reading is boring.
I was once told by my department head that the textbook I was using in my classes was not college level and that I should use a more difficult book. The problem was that the English skills of my students were not college level, either. When I explained that to the department head, she just said that they were in college, so they should use college-level textbooks. That may work at Seoul National and Yonsei, but I was not teaching at Seoul National or Yonsei.
Even though I used basic-level conversation books, my students still had trouble with them. I probably failed about a dozen students from each class every semester, which the school did not like very much. I could not understand how Korean professors could be teaching intermediate-level books, yet only fail about one or two students. I can only assume that it involved a huge curve. Yes, students may have passed such a course, but I doubt they got much out of it.
Anyway, if foreign professors are being ignored, it may have more to do with the hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil attitude in Korean universiies rather than with discrimination. Of course, that does not explain why foreign professors are herded into one big office while Korean professors get their own.
Was this before or after they shitcanned you for refusing to drink the Dokdo Kool-Aid?
I knew a former Peace Corps guy, currently a professor at an American university, who took a leave of absence for one year to return to Korea to teach at one of Korea’s most prestigious schools. His office never got a computer, there was no phone in his house, etc. Having been in Korea during more difficult times, he took it all in stride, but I think he expected a little better.
My former university in Seoul would give us the official title of “교수” whenever the Ministry of Education would come around to “evaluate” the school every few years. (Once this involved signing a new contract in the middle of a contract year.) There were also new name plates in the lobby that indicated our individual offices. Of course, the individual offices never existed, and in the contract year following such ministry audits, our titles mysteriously returned to the earlier “강사” status.
Along with the new coats of paint and potted plants in the hallways, staged classes (complete with fake students), and lots of other behind the scenes stuff - all for the benefit of visiting Ministry of Education evaluators - the entire exercise was all about image and nothing about substance. It had nothing to do with giving the students a better education or whatever. (Which I imagine would surprise nobody here.)
Anyway, there is an upside to not receiving equal treatment as professors: Foreign professors/instructors are often fortunate enough to largely avoid the political infighting and other bullshit the plagues some departments of many universities. And it is easier to bail on whatever goofy university functions you might be invited to and would rather not attend on a Saturday. Life on the periphery of things isn’t all that bad sometimes. Gotta look on the bright side!
@#8:
Titles matter. You are right that most foreign teachers are 강사, rather than 전임교수. In fact, the more precise job title, at least at my old university, was 어학강사. We used to be 전임강사 until we hired three Korean nationals to join our formerly all foreign department. A PhD holder didn’t renew her contract after finding out about the title demotion.
A very important advantage in designating foreign staff with a different title is that the employer can use 규칙 to control employment conditions. At my university, several longtime foreign teachers at the affiliated language institute were 규칙ed out of jobs when the university lowered the mandatory retirement age for 어학강사 to 55. This 규칙 did not apply to full-time Korean language teachers, who are 전임강사.
I speak fluent Korean, yet as head instructor of the foreign English staff, I was not invited to college-level meetings in which our business was discussed. Koreans with comparable rank from other departments attended. I think this was not deliberate exclusion but an oversight that is a common manifestation of the “we/they inside/outside” mentality that permeates every Korean-foreign group interaction.
A missionary friend of mine had a similar experience. She was the only foreign national working in a church office, doing translating and handling communications between the Korean church and churches in other countries. She complained that she couldn’t do her job properly because she was sometimes left out of the loop. She was fluent in Korean, so the problem wasn’t language.
Oranckay is probably that rare foreigner who can say that he’s part of “우리” and look what he had to do to get into the club - graduate from a top Korean university.
Quitting my teaching job at a top Korean university and becoming an elementary school teacher back in the US was one of the smartest professional and life choices I’ve made. Wish I’d made the change sooner. I’ll take NCLB over Korean 규칙 any day.
So, the burning question I have is “we/them”, “inside/outside” more a function of race or of social connections (aka “paying your dues”) ?
If it’s more of the former, then we can admonish Korean University culture as simply bigoted and backwards. If it’s more of the latter, then the discrimination faced by foreign professors runs much deeper than simply skin and is thus more difficult to solve.
Either way, it seems unless a major cultural shift takes place, Korean Universities are going to keep churning through foreign professors rather than improving their standings in Korea and in the world.
“I’ve heard from a few American proffers in Korea that their departments in fact don’t want them to learn Korean; they want them to always use English. If they were hired to teach all their courses in English there should be no expectation that they must learn Korean to participate in department politics (though it’s a good idea to learn Korean anyway, aside from office politics).”
“And to adapt one of my favorite jokes to the Korean context:
What do you call a bilingual Ph.D. in Education from Harvard?
“English teacher.””
Bingo!
They feel threatened by us, so they set the system up so that we are simply ‘English teachers’. They don’t want us to let on to the students that we can speak Korean. I would guess that’s because they fear that the dividing line between ‘us’ (foreign instructors) and ‘them’ (Korean professors) would become clouded.
Nobody has ever asked any of us at the office who have graduate degrees in the fields of Education, Linguistics, and TESOL to help shape the department’s policies and curriculum. They want to keep the charade alive, make the students and the parents believe that they know what they are doing. It’s all about protecting their position in the ivory towers of academia. Unfortunately, the quality of education suffers for it.
“You are right that most foreign teachers are 강사, rather than 전임교수. In fact, the more precise job title, at least at my old university, was 어학강사. We used to be 전임강사 until we hired three Korean nationals to join our formerly all foreign department. A PhD holder didn’t renew her contract after finding out about the title demotion.”
Yes, my point exactly.
Marmot: I don’t sympathize with the language issue — this is Korea, after all, and I’m not entirely sure why anyone would expect the universities to start doing things in English on their account.
Expecting the parking notice to be in English is going too far. But why can’t departmental meetings of the English Literature department be conducted in English?
After all, Korean English professors - who have higher degrees and apparently make more money - are able to speak English, right? What could be the problem?
Because I don’t see why any departmental meeting should be held in a foreign language to benefit a minority unwilling or unable to learn the local language. If foreign professors want to participate in the school and department administration, they need to learn the language of administration, which in Korea would be Korean.
Nonetheless, I remember in my high school days that the Spanish department, of which 30% were not native English speakers, regularly conducted meetings in Spanish.
Don’t you think it’s a bit unrealistic to ask native English speaking foreign professors - who likely can’t stay on one position for more than three years - to learn Korean in order to participate in English department meetings?
If they had a clear tenure track it’d be a different story. But for the vast majority they do not.
My guess is that if there was ever such a thing as a “Korean Literature department” at a North American university, there’d be a whole lot of Korean spoken at those meetings. And no one would find that arrogant or offensive to local sensitivities either - it would be natural and expected.
Iheartblueballs,
I was referring to my current job. Actually, not being rehired by my old school turned out to be a good thing for me because my salary has increased by more than 700,000 won a month even though my teaching hours came down from fifteen to twelve hours a week. I am also living in a rent-free, high-rise apartment (24-pyeong) and do not have to teach any summer or winter vacation programs.
The problem with teaching in Korea is that there is not much job satisfaction beyond pay and vacation. The system is not set up to motivate foreign professors to improve themselves and advance their career. In other words, there is little or no academic recognition, and there are no support groups, which I think is more important than many foreigner professors may realize. Maybe, Sonagi could explain in more detail why she feels more satisfaction teaching elementary school students in the US than she felt teaching college students in Korea?
I would like to suggest to Korea’s foreign professors that instead of waiting to be invited to Korean organizational and academic meetings, they organize and have their own meetings, hold their own seminars, form their own support groups, and even publish their own academic journal. Soon they may find Korean colleagues asking for permission to join their meetings.
Sonagi wrote:
which is why I sometimes wonder if learning Korean is a priority, for business. I get this “you could do much more business if you were better in Korean.” but I really wonder if it is so. Knowing how to play the outsider role and using it to ones advantage is often effective so long as one is good and the skills are in demand.
It is a thought though I still work on my language skills.
Gerry wrote:
Noted. As mentioned last year, regarding Korea University’s step back from the brink of large growth, that comfort zone and the moths that live there is a dark place and the light-bringer will not be welcomed, after all why do you think Prometheus got his liver pecked out all those years? I am told by people that Seoul National University is a better environment for foreign professors though.
I am almost convinced that Korea needs a new fascist Park Chung-hee to drag them kicking and screaming into the next new paradigm and I only hope that one has no canals and a healthier self-image.
@#20:
I recall from several years ago a weekly TV news program doing a show on racial and ethnic conflicts in Palisades Park, NJ. It was mentioned in the show that the Korean-dominated Chamber of Commerce meetings were conducted in Korean.
Probably because her current students are more mature.
Perhaps. But I also think, in that case, it might be a bit unrealistic to expect schools to bend over backwards to cater to the special needs of a minority of professors who will only be with the school for a few short years.
Hey, I’m just saying, if they want to be treated as equals, they need to make the effort, too — if they’re unable to learn Korean, they should hire their own interpretors for department meetings.
For argument’s sake, however, could we say that if tenure were more of a possibility, foreign professors would find it more in their interests to learn Korean?
This is why I prefer hagwons. Their sleaze usually up-front. So in a perverse way, you can trust them.
And that, too, is probably wrong, but I’m not sure if it applies here. The Palisades Park Chamber of Commerce is Korean-dominated. Most Korean universities, including English departments, are dominated by Koreans. If foreigners dominated a particular department and wanted to conduct their meetings in English, French, Hausa or whatever, we might have an analogy.
I teach at a relatively small university in Daejeon, which may be why it seems I receive better treatment than that described here. I speak Korean and, although I do not teach in the English department, it was requested that I use English in my classes, although it was not specified that I should speak it exclusively. I’ve taught first, second and third year students and have to agree that they lack the English needed to follow even simple English instruction (students of more prestigious universities will no doubt vary).
An apartment comes with the contract and when figured in to the salary still comes to less than one could make in the states–about what your average hagwon teacher earns, although I only teach 10-12 hours/week (less than what other “full time professors” teach). I’m fortunate to have a private office while many of the other foreign professors share offices. I am invited to meetings and retreats as well.
I suppose it comes down to the competitiveness of the school. I can imagine that you make certain sacrifices to teach at a university like Seoul or Yonsei in exchange for the prestige. There’s political infighting in even the smallest schools so I agree with globalvillageidiot that it’s better not to be too involved sometimes. As per gbevers’ comment, I couldn’t agree more about the lack of solidarity among foreign professors. One thing we could learn from our Korean colleagues is how to network with other departments. Insulation from one’s host culture is never a good thing. After 2 1/2 years I’ve never once seen an English professor eating in the faculty cafeteria!
Following an interview and demonstration class, I was recently presented with an university contract in Seoul for 30 hours a week at a monthly salary of KRW2.5m!
The interviewer had told me how poor their previous instructors had been, so I felt it necessary to explain that any freshly-graduated native speaker of English with no experience of teaching could expect a better contract (the contract was just for the duration of a semester, so there was no air-fare and no bonus).
Needless to say, I didn’t sign.
Another issue was a clause that prohibited the instructor from revealing that the English classes were actually managed by a private company commissioned by the university. Students were led to believe the classes were provided by the university and if the instructor were to “disclose any information” they would be “responsible to the university for all possible losses suffered by the university”.
The company managing things was apparently raking in the cash by (all too familiarly) compromising the education of Korea’s students in the process.
I’m sure they found their usual standard of instructor in the two days left before classes began.
I dunno for English departments, but I know for a fact that my former colleagues couldn’t order a bière in Paris without using sign language and English, so I guess meetings in any other language than Korean wouldn’t have been practical. OTOH, I was a 전임교수, like my colleagues, although I never was part of the club — they expected extra efforts from their Korean-speaking fuhreenas to be “Korean” in their behavior… Probably one of the reasons I didn’t last too long there!
Times are changing I think though. There are more and more unis that are giving tenure and title to their foreign professors. A national uni down here in Daegu just gave tenure to a long time foreigner because basically, he deserved it. He did everything that a Korean prof would do and more. Of course, I’m sure that having a wife that is a professor in another department doesn’t hurt matters… But in the past it was said that National unis for some reason or another were unable to offer tenure… Well now it’s happening.
One of the things that is lacking in many schools is qualifications for professorship. It really doesn’t seem reasonable for the unis to make someone a professor and give them a lifetime job if they didn’t ‘pay their academic dues.’ This includes publications, conferences, community service, basically the same stuff you would have to do if you were in a US uni. But most foreigner professors just do not do that (not all MOST) and understandably the universities do not want to open those floodgates. So I really think that the selection needs to take the same process as with a Korean professor, in Korean, using the same set of standards that Koreans use for Korean professors. It can’t just be automatic.
It is changing, but for many it has been too little too late. Maybe this article will catch someone’s attention because from a legal standpoint, the schools are nearing a time when they will be forced to make a decision or face legal action (in some cases it has already started.).
As for English meetings, I think it’s a nice pipe dream.
Robert,
Not being able to speak Korean may be a good excuse for many departments, but it is not a good excuse for an English language department. If meetings cannot be conducted in English in an English language department, that suggests that some of the Korean professors in that department may not be qualified to be there. Also, it seems like it would be to the benefit of the departments not to ignore a large part of their teaching staff, regardless of whether they can speak Korean or not.
By the way, I am interested in creating a Korean language speaking group for advanced foreign learners in Korea. I do not really have a clear plan on how to do it, but the idea is to give Korean-speaking foreigners an opportunity to get together, socialize, and use their Korean in ways that help them develop professional speaking skills. For example, we could have monthly speech contests, formal debates, or individual presentations with Q&A sessions. It would not be a rap session, which is something native English speakers seem to feel uncomfortable doing with each other; it would be formal meetings designed to give us an opportunity to show off our professional speaking skills. I also have an idea for creating a Korean-speaking foreigner debating team that might eventually even challenge Korean college teams. Anyway, it is just an idea.
I am curious to know how many other people might be interested in forming such a group?
I believe if a foreign employee of a university in Korea were to show some initiative by meeting with his/her Korean colleagues on a regular basis for professional and personal reasons the bridge toward moving to the “inside” would be created.
It comes down to communication. Granted, rules are rules and school policy is school policy. However, if an instructor made the effort, created some “정” asked to attend meeting and social functions the impetus to contribute by enjoying more than just long vacation and low working hours would hardly upset and cause offence.
Sometimes it might be better not to be too involved, and I think 99% of Kangsas prefer to rock up, do their hours and then piss off home. When it’s better not to be involved for a foreign teacher there are probably many Koreans who feel the same way but don’t have a choice.
Re gbevers’ #32,
Toastmasters it is, Gerry, with meetings conducted in Korean.
Here in California I’ve seen some amazing progress by non-native speakers of English. (And considerable progress by native speakers of English as well.) It really works.
On the Toastmasters International website, you can find at least 12 clubs in Korea. I’m not sure how many of those conduct meetings in Korean, but if none of them do, then it’s time to charter a new club. If you need any help with it, just let me know.
kpmsprtd
So-called Competent Communicator
Kpmsprtd
Hey, it looks like Toastmasters stole my idea (Wikipedia: Toastmasters International).
Thank you for the tip and the offer of help. I will do a little research first to see what is available. If Toastmasters works, then I do not see any reason to reinvent the wheel.
Take care.
Re #31, Fencerider–that’s interesting. When I was in Seoul, the tendency was towards limiting contract renewals–usually to two or three, in some cases to five or six. I’d be interested to hear if that’s changing.
#27,
Actually, ‘foreign English teachers’ outnumber ‘Korean professors’ at many, if not most, universities.
#33,
We tried to offer our help in creating the next textbook, we were shot down.
#31,
I supposedly got tenure. They made a huge fuss about it, too. I shook hands with a bunch of people in dark suits after that got done. What did it get me? A place on the private pension plan and the loss of my severance pay that comes with it. In the end, I took a 2 million won pay cut…and I still have to resign my contract on a yearly basis.
I had tenure once. I won’t say where, but I was tenured here in Korea. My department from that time would deny that I had tenure, but I did have it. When I took the position, I had explained to me all the details of the pension, the sabbatical, everything.
There years later, the university changed the status of all foreigners because the Chinese Language Department wanted to take away the tenure of a Chinese woman teaching Chinese and give the job to a Korean friend.
I’m not bitter, for my life has gotten better anyway, but I have no job security here in Korea, and I doubt that I’ll ever get a ‘tenured’ position again. That first time must have been accidental…
Jeffery Hodges
Very interesting discussion; as usual it’s amazing how different the various experiences are. I can offer just my own testimony, in contrast with much of what is above and similar to a little of it.
More than two years ago I was taken on as a full-time tenure-track Prof, teaching actual Tourism subjects *in English* but not teaching English in itself. My Korean is not what it ought to be (due to tragic brain-damage problems, not any lack of incentive, interest or effort).
Ten years ago I never could have gotten this job, but now it seems that I’m exactly what they want — an expert in the subjects who does know the basic Korean vocabulary involved with them but otherwise lectures entirely in English. In fact when I interviewed with the university president and told him apologetically that I can’t lecture in Korean, he exclaimed “GOOD!”
These days the students are demanding all-English classes, the U recognizes the need for that, and ever-increasing numbers of foreign-exchange students are showing up who need that (I’ve got a Hungarian girl, a Japanese boy and three Chinese kids in my “National Parks of Korea” class!). Yet Korean professors are infamously reluctant to run their classes in English, even if they’re actually capable of it. So, I was just what they were looking for…
I’ve seen a few cases like Jeffrey Hodges’, where a foreign professor 전임 교수’s contract is changed, or reinterpreted, to suit immediate needs, and the foreigner pays the price. A former Yale Poli Sci prof at a leading all English grad program in Seoul, was given tenure, but this was revoked when a new Dean took over. A certain Korean University enticed me to leave another institution with a salary and position offer over the phone that was absent in the contract. When I pointed this out, the Dept Chair completely denied mentioning it. They tried the same trick on the housing allowance, but since they’d sent an e-mail they had to keep their promise.
The key is, it’s got to be in writing, because these schools will shamelessly go back on their word, and there’s no recourse. After that lesson, I started surreptitiously recording some meetings with my mp3 player. Actually, I have a question for Brendon Carr, if he doesn’t mind. Would a secret recording be admissible evidence in an employment dispute over a contract in Korea? I suppose a better way would be to somehow get them to email their promises.
Cute, IHBB, but actually it was the students who were the most pleasant aspect of the job.
By using Korean, formerly majority, now minority the non-Korean speaking members are essentially driven out of the organization. Nearly all of the Korean members could probably speak some English, even if they weren’t fluent.
A Peace Corp vet told me that there was
a rule that if a non-English speaking local was around, they all used the local language to include everyone.
I don’t have a problem with faculty meetings being conducted in Korean, but it would be a courtesy to invite foreign teachers and provide at least some summary in English. Becoming fluent in a foreign language takes years, something you know firsthand. As good as my Korean is, I know I wouldn’t catch everything without some clarification.
ESL/bilingual faculty meetings in both districts I have worked for use English as the primary language, but there are sidebars in Spanish. Our school also provides interpretation at evening functions. We are not required to do this. We do it because we want the non-English-speaking parents to feel a part of the school community.
“We” versus “we/they”
My further testimony is that i’ve been treated very well, equal to the Korean professors in every way — that has been repeatedly emphasized to me by them — including full authority and discretion about classes and grading — this surprises me but i’m getting used to it
Besides the phat salary i have an excellent private office (the one long used by the senior Korean professor whom i replaced when he retired, in fact), nice furniture and computer and etc. No housing like the “visiting foreign professors” get tho, because Korean professors don’t get any.
I’m subject to the new strict standards of Journal-publication requirements in order to keep the job and get promoted, as well as the other Korean standards for community service, conferences and associations and such (fortunately, posting on the M-Hole is a community service!).
Because of me my colleagues started holding Department meetings in English, i told them that they don’t need to, but they say they’re happy to because it’s good opportunity for practice for them — a good attitude. College and University-wide gatherings are of course all in Korean, but i’m pretty happy to ignore those anyway. After them my friends tell me what was discussed, and it’s almost never anything that interests me.
I’ve made it clear that i’m keeping out of all political infighting and just not participating in the seonbae/hubae game at all, and so far everyone seems content to leave me out of those. Department Chairman position rotates among the professors according to seniority, and they tell me that when it’s my turn i’ll serve in that position just like anyone else — but i really don’t want to waste my time with bureaucracy and will seek an excuse to avoid it if possible. I just want to concentrate on my research and teaching, and so far that’s going fine…
I have a PhD, publications, and a record of service to my field internationally.
I now work teaching content classes (e.g., Research Methods) in a graduate level teacher education program which transfers credit to universities in the US and Australia (and were negotiating an agreement with a British university). The program is at one of the universities noted in the article as being better in its treatment of foreign professors, and I believe that is so, compared to some of what I’ve read above. But it is far from what it could be if I and my colleagues were actually treated as equals.
First, on the language issue, I agree with Robert that Korean is a reasonable choice as the working language of departments in Korean universities. I have an American friend from my grad school days who is tenured at Waseda in Japan. She is expected to participate in faculty meetings and departmental and university committees in Japanese, which she does. Her ungrammaticalities and infelicities are forgiven in return. (She has noted to me that sometimes after she speaks in meetings, a Japanese colleague will speak after her, re-stating what she said in more appropriate form. As she puts it, “This is what the barbarian meant to say:”) I don’t see this condition as an outrageous requirement.
Obviously, if foreign professors are just expected to be here for three or five years, without hope of permanence, there is no incentive for them to learn Korean. Positions have to be open for them to receive tenure and move through the promotion system, and the conditions for this in terms of teaching, research, and service have to be clear. The conditions of work in terms of teaching hours and environment also need to be equal.
If Korean universities wish to achieve international status, the creation of positions like this in universities will be a necessity. Actually, the positions already exist; it is a matter of having an open hiring system, which is dedicated to hiring the best person for the job, and not merely the best person of local nationality (though, I note here, Canadian universities are obliged to give preference to Canadian applicants. I don’t why a similar position can’t be taken here, as long as it is understood that the goal is to hire the best person.)
With increasing demand for course work in English, both from external raters and from students themselves, there should be more openings available that qualified non-Korean speakers might be eligible for.
The benefit of all of this to Korean universities is the actual fulfillment of their claims to globalization. This will be one part of meeting the standards set by international raters for higher status.
Of course, there will be resistance from those whose position will be threatened by these changes. But the changes are necessary for Korean universities to meet their stated goals. And most of the young Korean PhDs that I have met at conferences locally and internationally understand and support this.
As for my own position, it has a number of advantages, such as housing off campus, not sure of the pyeong, but three-bedroom by western standards), and reduction of teaching hours by half every third cycle (1 cycle equals 2 terms, equals 5 months).
My pay is good, but not comparable to what a Korean professor of equivalent qualification would be getting if my job were a real departmental position. There is a small research stipend provided each year, but again, no real access to the many pots of research funds on campus beyond this.
But most negative is the lack of respect. I don’t see it as personal — I get on well with the Korean director of my program, but more programmatic in itself. The work in our program is called academic, but is viewed in a more mercenary way by the university. And, as appropriate for a profit-oriented program, it is not housed in a department, but in the hakwon. And the result is that my colleagues and I are often treated as hakwon teachers in a professional sense.
There is a kind of schizophrenia to it. We are in a respectable academic program and are valued for that, but at the same time, we are seen as glorified, well-paid, perhaps overpaid, hakwon teachers. We share an office (and fight over the aircon), are excluded from meetings that directly affect our work, learn things by accident, and are seen as people whose workloads can be expanded at will, but who still must perform their primary teaching function to a high academic standard.
I suspect that when the program was founded, there was no expectation that they would get someone like me, who works as a real academic and expects to be treated like one. Instead, I’m sure they envisioned getting temporary people or folks who got PhDs, but weren’t productive in a research sense… and since the whole thing was just as much about making money, let’s put it in the hakwon.
I’ve been pushing, gently, to change this, but my sense is not hard enough (things haven’t been bad enough to make me want to risk my contract, and I have some things I’m doing here - editing a professional journal that I’d like to continue), but having read the article, I think I should probably start pushing harder.
Sorry for the long post, especially since it is my first here, but this topic is close to my heart.
What I want to know is: if they really, really wrote their Ph.D. dissertations all by themselves, why didn’t they stay in America?
Bunch of phonies, all of them. They pay ghost-writers (like me) and then come back to Korea and act like kings. Kings of crap island. Well done.
Perhaps in a perfect world, academia would function like the diplomatic corps does.
In other words, usually between two countries enjoying diplomatic relations, there is a tit-for-tat insofar as things like visa fees, number of cars allowed for registration, number of persons allowed full diplomatic credentialling…
I can see a situation in which a visiting Korean professor at say, Berkley, is treated no better than a grad student TA, -and maybe worse, depending on how well his home institute treats foreign instructors.
I think this sort of treatment would be very fair.
Will never happen. Being a university professor is an outstanding way to make a living: very high social status, decent salaries, and very humane working hours relative to comparable occupations. With so many Korean applicants clawing for the brass ring, there is no need to increase competition by opening up to foreign nationals. Foreign faculty will never be more than globalization window dressing.
Interesting discussion. I wonder if foreign university professors working in any other country with relatively homogenous populations, or in any Asian country for that matter (with the possible exception of Hong Kong or Singapore), have made progress beyond that made in Korean universities.
I know of a case in Japan where the professor was quite fluent in Japanese, quite fluent in political manipulation, and generally aggressive all the way around. He made inroads, and eventually became a faculty chairperson, and maybe even an assistant dean, but I think he was an exception.
I and other teachers at many Japanese universities have been in similar situations. I have some questions about the situation there, like do the teachers know what their contracts say? If they are written in Korean, I would imagine it would be difficult to decipher for some teachers. We were given two contracts, one in Japanese and one in English. They were subtly different, but in important ways, which meant that legally the Japanese document was the only valid one.
What does “equal” mean in this case? If teachers are excluded from decision making organs of the university, like various types of committees, then that is wrong, but one cannot expect anything other than the national language to be used. Again, decisions made there are legally binding, and must be expressed in the local language. Are teaching loads the same? Salary?
I guess my question is what is legal and illegal there? There must be laws about discrimination and labor conditions. What are they? This shouldn’t be a discussion of fair or unfair. What do the laws say, and do the teachers have a leg to stand on. If not, then it is time to be honest about that, too. In the end it may not matter though. In the case of the teachers at my former employer who took the public university to court after a long process of community building, the teachers lost the case regardless of the fact that they were being illegally discriminated against. The judge just ruled that the state could do anything it wanted to as long as it was in the interests of the people.
5 Trackbacks
[...] interesting discussion is going on at the Marmot’s Hole about the treatment and high turnover rate of foreign [...]
[...] this is why expats in Korea find it very difficult to make relationships and often find themselves held at arms length by Korean organizations; because the relationship (or appearance thereof) is often more important [...]
[...] Marmot’s Hole has put up a lengthy translation of an article in which foreign professors and university lecturers complain of the unequal treatment th…compared to the Korean professors. Definitely good [...]
Foreign University Instructors want Equal Treatment…
Foreign University Instructors want Equal Treatment. Go read this Korean news article translated into English by The Marmot's Hole. Despite have tons I want to say about this, I'm too busy so all I can do is direct you to the article and the …
[...] and all the non-Korean professors working at Korean universities who can’t speak Korean but complain about unfair treatment learnt the language, as Burgeson rightly urges them to, then I find it very hard to believe that [...]