We live in an age when over a million young people in Korea are unsuccessful in finding jobs.
The job market is struggling to meet the expectations of the unmanageable continuous influx of newcomers with freshly framed university diplomas. The chilling effects of the harsh economic reality are pervasively affecting the minds of university students as they eagerly yearn for better grades and qualifications. A staggering example of this is the recently formed negative perception of the B grade among university students.

In today's meritocratic society, only an A grade will suffice. Most major universities allow students to retake courses if they have received a grade lower than a C. This policy has produced the bizarre result of students preferring to receive a renewable F rather than a B. The former, albeit being the lowest grade, is regarded as a recoverable alternative with the potential of becoming an A. The latter, on the other hand, is seen as a permanent, inerasable mark of under-achieving mediocrity that will be critically detrimental to their chances of employment.

An increasing number of students are visiting confounded professors, asking them not to raise their grades but to lower them to below a C grade so that they can retake the course in the future. Some stricter professors are reluctant to adhere to this trend, finding it absurd as well as an insolent act which challenges their judgment concerning their grading. Most professors, however, sympathize with the students and give in to their demands. In some cases, if a student feels they have failed the mid-term exam, they either withdraw from the class or purposefully fail the class by not taking the final exam or deciding not to attend the classes. One professor even asked the students in advance to clarify whether they want a C grade or not before the final exam.

More extremely, students who have to retake popular classes are even offering money for a spot in the class. Posts can frequently be found on the SNU student webpage, with pleas to other students to hand over a spot for a class they need to retake. Classes that have absolute evaluation are gaining popularity, as other classes that evaluate relatively can only award 30% of the students an A grade. More students are taking courses that are lectured in English as well, as they are graded using absolute evaluation. This causes a motivational problem as students are prone to give up easily as they believe they have a second or third chance. Students no longer have the systematical impetus to force them to try their best.

Due to the cut-throat competitiveness of the employment market, retaking classes has become the new norm, and taking the same course three times is not an uncommon practice nowadays. So- called ‘grade-inflation’ is now a tangible problem as nearly everybody in the job market has a nearly perfect GPA. Clearly, retaking the same courses two or three times is a waste of time and effort for the student, and it also strips the opportunity of other students who wish to take the class for the first time. It seems, however, this trend will continue as long as the mass unemployment of young people continues and employers use applicants’ grades as one of the most important criteria in recruitment.

The policy of allowing the retaking of courses probably started as a bona fide attempt to give students a second chance in an extremely competitive society. It is nearly impossible to displace a system that is so beneficial to a wide range of students, especially when most of the major universities are using similar policies so that their students can raise their GPAs. There are, however, several ways in which the system could be improved. Currently, there is no limit to the number of times a student can retake a course and the number of courses one can retake. Giving a second chance is great, but should students really be taking the same course 3 or 4 times? Limiting the number of courses one can retake to a certain number could prevent students from abusing the system.

Moreover, the retake option should be available only to students who have at least attempted to do well in the course. Students should not be allowed to intentionally flunk a course by deliberately failing their remaining exams or not attending the remainder of the course. Such willful disregard is disrespectful to the professors and should not be rewarded with another chance to take the course.

The practice of ranking and listing is so deeply embedded in Korean society that most people find it awkward if a group of people are not esteemed and ranked in ascending order. A deep breath and a step back are often required to view the present state objectively. Presently, not many people find fault with the retaking of courses, as most students participate in the act and some even take it to the extreme. The course retaking policy, however, could be improved if the school takes a firm and educational stance to this problem by making some adjustments to leave no space for blatant abuse of the system. If the word gets out that SNU allows a second chance only in a limited number of responsible cases, then SNU graduates will have a better chance at getting the jobs they want.

Written by YU Minseok, SNU English Editor
Revised by Eli Park Sorensen, Professor of Liberal Studies
Proofread by Brett Johnson, SNU English Editor