The establishment of international colleges has become a hot topic in Korean higher education. What was once attempted only by a handful of universities is now seen as a survival strategy by almost every institution. Across the country, schools are rushing to create “International Colleges” in the hope of attracting foreign students and ensuring financial stability. Yet, despite the enthusiasm, very few cases can be called truly successful.
The key question is: what differentiates the few international colleges that succeed from the many that fail? By examining common pitfalls, we can begin to understand why university internationalization is so challenging.
Ten Common Features of Failing International Colleges
1. Founded Without a Clear Vision
Many colleges are created simply to increase enrollment or to secure new funding streams, without any real educational philosophy or long-term identity. Often, departments struggling to attract Korean students are repurposed as international colleges, more as a way of offloading problems than as a strategic investment. Unsurprisingly, these cases rarely thrive.
2. Treated as Just Another Department
Without a differentiated strategy, international colleges are managed like any other faculty. For genuine impact, they need autonomy and distinct structures: presidential-level authority, differentiated tuition, English as the official language, or even foreign deans. Without such measures, they remain indistinguishable from existing units.
3. Built by Rearranging Existing Staff
Many universities simply reassign staff from other departments to run international programs. But international education requires specialized expertise rarely found in-house. Success demands bold recruitment of external experts. Without fresh talent, attempts at “patchwork” internationalization usually collapse.
4. Weak Leadership Selection
Leadership is critical. Too often, deans or directors of international affairs are appointed out of convenience rather than competence. Yet the dean of an international college and the head of international relations must collaborate seamlessly: one overseeing academic programs and faculty, the other managing student recruitment, partnerships, and external relations. Without carefully defined job descriptions and the right people in place, institutions cannot expect sustainable growth.
5. No Evaluation or Incentive Systems
Running classes in English, recruiting foreign faculty, and supporting international students all require more effort than traditional programs. Yet universities often fail to design differentiated evaluation metrics or compensation. Professors teaching in English should receive higher pay or bonuses; international office staff should have measurable targets tied to recruitment and retention. Without incentives, motivation and quality inevitably suffer.
6. Lack of Differentiation from Competitors
Simply offering English courses and hiring some foreign professors does not create a distinctive program. Most international colleges replicate the same majors—especially business administration—with little to set them apart. Differentiation could mean recruiting half the faculty from leading global corporations, dedicating 20% of courses to capstone projects, or assembling a uniquely international faculty team. Without bold moves, international colleges remain uninspiring.
7. Over-Reliance on Recruitment Agents
In the absence of branding, marketing, and outreach capacity, universities rely heavily on agents to bring in students. While agents can be valuable partners, dependence is dangerous. Universities must build in-house recruitment and marketing capabilities, possibly by hiring experienced professionals from the agency sector. Otherwise, they remain vulnerable and unable to control student quality or diversity.
8. Managed as a Cost, Not an Investment
Too often, international colleges are treated as budgetary burdens rather than growth engines. Once established, administrators focus on cost-cutting rather than strategic investment. Yet real results require at least three to four years of consistent funding and commitment. Without patience and investment, international colleges cannot flourish.
9. Applying Domestic Systems Without Adaptation
International students and faculty encounter numerous frustrations when universities impose domestic systems without modification. Examples include Korean-only online portals, enrollment procedures misaligned with visa timelines, or dormitory rules insensitive to cultural needs. Muslim students without halal food or prayer facilities, or international faculty delayed by bureaucratic hiring practices, are common cases. Such rigid attitudes—“You are in Korea, so follow Korean rules”—signal to global talent that they are not truly welcome.
10. Neglecting Career and Settlement Support
Higher education is not only about input (student selection) and throughput (teaching and services), but also output—employment. Yet most universities neglect structured career pathways for international students. Part-time jobs, internships, and local employment opportunities are rarely facilitated by the university, leaving students reliant on informal networks. Because employment outcomes for international students are not tracked in government statistics, universities often ignore this dimension altogether. This omission severely undermines long-term appeal.
The Real Meaning of Internationalization
Internationalization is not about headcount. It is about fundamentally reshaping the DNA of the university. It requires new governance, new pedagogies, new partnerships, and new student experiences. International colleges should serve as platforms for institutional transformation—not cosmetic additions to existing structures.
For universities willing to make bold changes, internationalization can become a powerful growth engine and global positioning tool. For those that cannot, “international colleges” risk becoming little more than signs on a building, with no real impact.
