Most enrolled students at Seoul National University are using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in their coursework. Although AI is spreading rapidly across higher education in Korea, many universities still have not established concrete standards for use or response systems.
According to a Seoul National University internal survey on the 3rd, more than 97% of enrolled students use AI in their studies. It was reported that AI use has become routine in the pre-learning stages, such as writing reports, drafting papers, and preparing presentation scripts. Reflecting this trend, Seoul National University is working to build an AI system that all members can use starting in the spring semester next year.
This change is not unique to Seoul National University. Nationwide, reliance on AI across campuses is rising rapidly, and students already accept AI as an essential learning tool. In a survey conducted late last year by the job platform "Albamon" of 372 college students in Korea, 78% of respondents said they had used AI for their studies. The most common purpose was assignments and report writing at 88.6%.
Institutional responses, however, are lagging. According to a survey by the Korean Council for University Education last year, 77.1% of universities nationwide had not prepared guidelines related to Generative AI. Among 131 university presidents, only 22.9% said they had adopted AI policies. In many cases, use is decided at the discretion of individual professors, leading to different allowances even within the same department.
Some universities are responding, but it is insufficient to be seen as a sweeping change. Kookmin University established "Generative AI utilization guidelines" and an "AI code of ethics" to present principles for AI use to students and faculty. Korea University announced Generative AI guidelines and recommends indicating sources when using AI. Chung-Ang University and Sungkyunkwan University have also prepared similar guidelines and are piloting them by college. In contrast, most universities rely on individual professors' judgment amid confusion between "prohibition" and "permission."
The spread of AI on campuses is accelerating. OpenAI unveiled the university-only service "ChatGPT Edu" last year, and Google is offering the "Google AI Pro" plan, worth 29,000 won per month, free for one year to college students worldwide, including in Korea. As big tech corporations expand AI accessibility at the campus level, the digital transformation of university education has effectively become unavoidable.
Concerns are also growing that AI reliance could lead to a decline in students' thinking skills. As AI replaces the thinking process in assignment writing, there are warnings that students' critical thinking and creativity could weaken. MIT researchers noted that when students use AI to write essays, brain connectivity decreases and they tend not to remember the content as well as when they write on their own.
Some overseas universities are also overhauling their evaluation methods. Canada is abolishing online exams and expanding handwritten and oral tests, while the University of Sydney in Australia has introduced a "two-stage evaluation system" that combines AI-based assignments with in-person exams. Despite such institutional responses, cheating remains a problem. According to the Guardian, there were about 7,000 cases of AI-related cheating detected in the United Kingdom last year, but AI detection accuracy remained at around 6%.
Education experts advise that the question is no longer "whether to use AI" but "how to use it." They say AI should be used only as a tool to supplement capability, institutional standards should require specifying purpose and sources, and curricula should shift to improve students' literacy through AI ethics liberal arts courses.
Former Gwangju National University of Education President Park Nam-gi said, "It is desirable to use AI like a teaching assistant, but if it is used for 'outsourcing learning,' such as having it do assignments in one's place, thinking skills and creativity will not develop," adding, "Responses by domestic universities are generally late, and they should not stop at simply creating guidelines but link them to each professor's course management and ethics education for students."