In a landmark change for higher education in South Korea, top national universities have for the first time rejected applicants with stellar academic records because of past bullying or school violence records.
According to data disclosed recently by lawmaker Kang Kyung‑sook, six of the country’s ten national flagship universities rejected a total of 45 applicants during the 2025 admissions cycle due to documented histories of school violence.
This move marks a significant shift away from a purely grade-based focus toward character and disciplinary history in university admissions.
The Reason Behind the Policy
South Korea’s university entrance system has traditionally prioritized academic excellence, with the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) playing a pivotal role.
For decades, students with top scores have been able to secure places at elite institutions even when other aspects of their background were less significant.
However, increasing public scrutiny of school violence and bullying has prompted educational authorities to reconsider the weight of discipline records in admissions.
Universities such as Kyungpook National University have already introduced a points-deduction system for applicants with school violence dispositions, with penalties ranging from 10 to 150 points depending on severity.
With the new changes, those with particularly serious records may be disqualified altogether—even if their academic scores would otherwise have qualified them.
Implementations at Major Institutions
The application of the new standard has been swift at several major schools. Kyungpook National University reported rejecting 22 applicants with disciplinary records in the 2025 cycle.
Meanwhile, Seoul National University is reported to have denied admission to two applicants who achieved high CSAT scores, but whose past involvement in school violence led to disqualification.
The scope of the policy is expanding: starting next year, all universities in South Korea will be required to apply mandatory deductions or disqualifications for applicants with school violence records, regardless of the admission track (early admission vs. regular admission).
Potential Benefits
Proponents of the policy argue that this development sends a strong signal that academic talent alone does not excuse past misconduct, and that universities are now placing greater emphasis on character, social responsibility and community values.
The move may help discourage bullying behavior at earlier educational levels if students know there are real consequences later in life.
By factoring in disciplinary history, universities aim to align admissions with broader social expectations of leadership and integrity, not just scholastic achievement.
Challenges and Controversies
However, the policy is not without its complications. One major concern is fairness: defining what constitutes a disqualifiable record and ensuring that all cases are evaluated consistently is difficult.
Critics fear that minor infractions may result in lifelong penalties, while more serious cases may go unreported or unrecorded.
Legal challenges are already emerging, with some students accused of bullying seeking to overturn school disciplinary decisions through administrative lawsuits.
There is also concern that socioeconomic factors may influence which disciplinary records are pursued or recorded, raising questions about equity in the admissions process.
Looking Ahead
As the policy becomes more widely applied, the coming admission cycles will test how effectively universities can balance academic merit with behavioral accountability.
Will the policy deter school violence? Will it lead to ever-stricter exclusion criteria and possibly unintended consequences for students who made mistakes in their youth?
Universities and policymakers will need to ensure transparent, fair processes and provide opportunities for rehabilitation and restorative measures.
For now, the rejection of 45 high-achieving applicants due to bullying records represents a major turning point in South Korean education—a shift that may ripple into how societies everywhere think about the relationship between academic success and personal conduct.
