30 medical schools panic over new enrollment evaluations and administrative overload

As the Korea Institute for Medical Educational and Evaluation (KIMEE) begins assessing major changes in 30 new medical schools with increased enrollment quota, universities preparing for the evaluation are literally in a state of panic.

Some have to prepare for the regular evaluation and assessment of major changes simultaneously next year amid a reduced workforce due to the government-doctor conflict.

Universities that attended KIMEE’s briefing session on Tuesday expressed frustration over the administrative burden. The 30 universities that have increased their medical school admissions by more than 10 percent are subject to the additional assessment.

They must undergo major change assessments for six years in addition to the regular assessments conducted every two, four, and six years.

“In August, we will submit an interim evaluation report in line with the 92 evaluation criteria of ‘ASK2019 (Accreditation Standards of KIMEE 2019),’” said an official from a national university. “However, if we implement the major change evaluation this year, the content will overlap in 51 criteria. It would waste administrative power for KIMEE and medical schools.” The criteria for applying the major change evaluation were also selected from ASK2019.

“We think KIMEE and the Ministry of Education should make a plan after collecting opinions,” the official said. “After expanding the enrollment quota, most universities will not pass in terms of facilities. In such a situation, they should give us two to three years of grace period before evaluation.”

However, KIMEE was adamant.

The institute said that the purpose of the major change evaluation is to establish a “basic framework” that can ensure quality based on the linkage of the entire six-year medical education program.

Responding to the criticism of duplicated evaluation, the institute said it is necessary to separate the regular and major change evaluations as they have different timing and evaluation purposes.

The regular evaluation deals with the quality of medical education for the past two years, while the major change evaluation focuses on the future educational environment, so the evaluations’ time and object are different, it explained.

“I fully understand the difficult situation of universities,” KIMEE President Ahn Duck-sun said. “One of KIMEE’s biggest duties and responsibilities is to inform the public so that they can fully understand whether medical schools provide a quality educational environment for students. Therefore, conducting a major change evaluation after two to three years is a dereliction of duty.”

Park Yoon-yeop, head of KIMEE’s Accreditation Management Committee, said, “What we want from evaluating major changes is targeted for next year. We want to ask whether they are sufficiently prepared for the expected change. Korean universities should also undergo a major change evaluation. It's just a validation that they must do this much to ensure their students receive quality medical education.”

There were also calls to consider a phased annual evaluation. Still, KIMEE said it would proceed with the original plan, saying it should check the linkage of medical education over the next six years.

“The basic skeleton of how students entering the class of 2025 will graduate in six years should be presented,” said Yang Eun-bae, senior vice president of KIMEE. “It is necessary to check the entire plan before starting the six-year process and establish a plan. We fully understand it is a difficult task.”

There were also complaints about the vagueness of the criteria for assessing significant change, citing the lack of quantitative indicators.

An official from a medical school in the Seoul metro region said, “The unfortunate and frustrating part of preparing (the evaluation) is that the authorities have failed to provide a guide to prevent conflicts due to unnecessary misunderstandings. They should have presented at least important parts, if not all, of the quantitative indicators. For example, there could be differences in accepting the criteria for ‘providing adequate space.’”

Jung-sik, head of KIMEE’s Accreditation Standards Committee, said, “Each university's situation is different. If we suggest one thing, all schools will follow it. For example, if we talk about evidence-based medicine, some universities create evidence-based medicine departments. It’s a regret that we cannot present the criteria more clearly. Still, we will do our best to present reasonable standards.

KIMEE President Ahn said, “KIMEE is also struggling with the situation. We are trying to come up with quantitative indicator values that universities can present convincingly.”