On September 2024, the U. S. Department of Commerce proposed a ban, which will be effective from 2027, on key Chinese software in ‘connected vehicles’—a legal term used to describe vehicles that are equipped with extraneous technology such as the Internet and external devices—in the United States to address national security concerns. This regulation also includes a hardware ban taking effect in 2030.  This initiative is intended to prevent Chinese intelligence agencies from monitoring and collecting information on American drivers from their connected personal devices. “When foreign adversaries build software to make a vehicle that means it can be used for surveillance, can be remotely controlled, which threatens the privacy and safety of Americans on the road,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said. Depending on the strictness of these regulations, Korean car manufacturers will have to work out a strategy accordingly, as they rely heavily on exports to the U. S. In fact, the U. S. is the largest automobile export destination for Korea, making up 42. 9% of their global automobile exports according to KIET (Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade). Therefore, the Korean automotive industry has a vested interest in the U. S. ’s new prohibition plan. In fact, this measure could have severe consequences for the Korean automotive industry, posing a significant dilemma to Korean automakers. The first issue related to such a prohibition is that the definition of connected vehicles is excessively broad, which makes it difficult to discern the potential effects on manufacturers. Currently, the U. S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security proposes to define the ‘connected vehicle’ as an on-road vehicle that “integrates onboard networked hardware with automotive software systems to communicate via dedicated short-range communication, cellular telecommunication connectivity, satellite communication, or other wireless spectrum connectivity with any other network or device. ” Thus, regulations could potentially include even smaller Chinese parts such as bolts. In this case, most of the recently released vehicles would become subject to U. S. export regulations. Hence, in late April, the Korean government expressed the Korean automotive industry’s concerns over the U. S. ’s envisioned rule on connected vehicles and called for a “precise definition” of the term ‘connected vehicles’. Moreover, such initiatives take a toll on price competitiveness for Korean automakers, as China has long been a cost efficient source for auto parts. Regardless of the exact scope of the regulations, as long as the ban is in effect, automakers will have to localize and diversify the supply chain for auto parts outside of China, resulting in an inevitable loss of price competitiveness as well as an uptick in related costs.  The dilemma is clear: adhering to the ban could strain Korea's trade relations with China, yet ignoring it may result in losing critical benefits from the U. S. , whether it be security or economic benefits. There are observations that the U. S. ’s actions may block Chinese automotive competitors from entering the U. S. market, which could be beneficial in the long term; however, the issue seems to result in a net loss for Korea for now. The U. S. -China trade conflict is not a bipartite issue, but a multilateral issue affecting an array of interrelated countries especially in terms of economic interests and political relations. This case in particular highlights how interconnected global markets have become ever since free trade has gained presence worldwide. South Korea has not been immune from it: it is caught in the middle, forced to balance its economic interests and political alliances. For Korea, solutions may lie in continued behind-the-scenes negotiations to secure more precise regulations, and minimize disruption to the auto industry.  

Public holidays are welcomed by most people, as they provide them with a brief relief from their responsibilities, such as studies or work. They certainly seem harmless—even beneficial to many, as most workers still get paid as usual despite the day off. However, what most people tend to miss is that when there is a public holiday, necessary services still must continue to be operated, but under extremely tight conditions as the amount of clients surges despite the limited workforce and higher cost of operation. Korea currently has a total of 15 public holidays annually and is in the higher quartile among other OECD countries like Japan (16 days), US (11 days), UK (8 days). It must be noted that public holidays are usually divided into two types: the statutory public holidays, which have been gazetted by the government and are fixed, and temporary holidays, which are spontaneous holidays that are decided by the government on a case-by-case basis. Since most public holidays are fixed, they allow in-advanced planning with more flexibility; however, temporary holidays are often dedicated for sudden events,  and their spontaneity has the potential to make situations worse. One may claim that since public holidays can help to stimulate the economy, they are greatly beneficial to the country. On one hand, this is true, as they provide opportunities for people to consume more in various ways, bringing enormous cash flow to various industries. People are encouraged to go on shopping sprees, have a luxurious date night, or even travel domestically, all of which can greatly contribute to the nation’s economy. According to research conducted by the Hyundai Research Institute in 2023 regarding temporary public holidays, a temporary public holiday can bring consumers’ expenses up to 2. 4 trillion KRW and the total production volume can hit 4. 8 trillion KRW. As such, the Korean government has announced temporary public holidays on multiple occasions, citing the need to revitalize the domestic economy as a major factor. However, public holidays are not always benign to everyone. For example, during a public holiday, businesses like retailers will be burdened immensely due to the surge of customers. Furthermore, despite a potential leap in revenue, the cost of human resources will also inevitably rise. This is because during a public holiday, many employees are absent, and employers are required to pay increased wages to retain the necessary workforce. A temporary holiday may make the situation even worse, as it could be more difficult to secure sufficient resources within the limited planning time. Labor-intensive manufacturing industries are not an exception. The Korea Enterprises Federation has raised the concern that during temporary holidays, businesses can experience a decline in productivity and an increase in the labor cost. Therefore, the manufacturing industry may experience great losses due to the lack of labor, and consequent shutting down of factory operations. It remains questionable whether the potential loss will outweigh the gain from the public holidays, as this is hardly to be quantified accurately due to the innumerable factors. Still, it must always be aware that the economic benefits of a public holiday are not simply complimentary. The Hyundai Research Institute mentioned that supportive measures should be taken to encourage domestic rather than international travel in order to maximize the effect of domestic demand stimulation when there is a long holiday. So, to fully enjoy the reward from public holidays and relieve stress from many economic sectors, related policies and actions should be pre-emptively prepared. Overall, currently available public holidays as well as the decision-making process for temporary holidays should continue to be revised so that the benefits can be fully maximized, and the potential losses—which can harm the economy and even the competency of the nation—can be minimized.

Imagine making a life-changing career choice at the age of ten, unsure if the years of effort will pay off. On top of that, there is the pressure of knowing that once you choose this path, there is little room for switching directions later, unless you give up on your dream and start all over again.   That is the reality of most student athletes in South Korea. The extensive hours practicing sports along with lower academic expectations, narrow their future options to either fulfilling the nigh-impossible dream of becoming an elite athlete, or pursuing a limited range of sports-related college majors. The system pushes children to make critical decisions at elementary school ages. Lim Se-Eun, a Korean national rhythmic gymnastics athlete, exemplifies the risks and sacrifices involved in pursuing an athletic career. She committed to becoming an athlete at the young age of 10, focusing all her efforts on making it to the national team. “I had to dedicate many hours to practice because a career as a rhythm gymnast is short,” she reflects. “I needed good results in competitions to reach the national level. That was my only chance to fulfill my dream of becoming a professional athlete. ”According to the 2022 sports white paper provided by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, over 71,391 students from elementary to high school participate in sports programs. To maintain eligibility, the Korean government declared that student-athletes must adhere to the minimum academic requirements, with a GPA of 50% for elementary school students, 40% for middle schoolers, and 30% for high schoolers. The Ministry of Education also launched online compensatory programs (E-school) to help students who miss classes or fail to meet the academic requirements. However, balancing sports and school remains a significant challenge for many athletes. Lee Gi-soo, a university rugby athlete, explained that the Korean society generally does not expect student-athletes to excel in both, instead influencing to prioritize athletic excellence over academic achievement. “I was told to skip studying because of training or games. Our coach said that being an athlete was our main role,” Lee recalled, reflecting on his middle school years. Even when athletes attend class, they often fall behind due to frequent absences for competitions. The E-school program, designed to help, is frequently neglected under coaches’ pressure, with many students merely turning on online classes, leaving their phones in lockers, and heading to practice. Lee also highlighted the limitations of public education within Korea’s hyper-competitive system, noting that he had to rely on private tutoring to keep up with regular students. Se-Eun shared similar struggles. Her typical day started at 7:40 am, finishing class at 3:30 pm, and heading to practice for eight hours, six days a week. Competitions forced her to miss classes regularly, and the exhausting routine left little time to rest, causing her to miss out on core childhood experiences, such as hanging out with her friends, or going on school field trips. Beyond academic challenges, student-athletes also face limited opportunities for professional careers in less popular sports. While the government does provide support for development in sports, the more popular sports such as baseball, soccer, basketball, and volleyball receive significantly more attention and resources than less mainstream sports like rugby and rhythm gymnastics, which makes it even harder to pursue a professional career as an athlete. The underlying issue lies in the system and cultural attitudes. Instead of offering broad career support, the current approach limits young athletes’ futures. Coaches often impose long hours of practice, discourage attending class, and push students toward a goal without a backup plan–a risky path given the slim odds of becoming a professional athlete. When weighing the pros and cons of becoming an athlete in Korea, it is easy to wonder if the sacrifices are truly worth it. Why not focus on studies like everyone else, aiming for a more secure future? Yet, some students persist, chasing their dream of becoming a professional athlete. Which raises the question – what drives these student-athletes? What motivates them to choose such a demanding path? How do they feel about the crossroads they are presented with–to continue to pursue such a daunting goal, or to compromise for the security of their future?These questions will be further explored in the second part of this series of articles, which will dive into the aspirations, motivations, and personal choices that shape the lives of Korea’s student-athletes.   This article is the first in a trilogy of short articles.

The number of on-campus traffic accidents have continuously increased over time, with an increase of 59. 8% in terms of the number of cases, and 51. 4% in terms of injuries over the past three years. The fact that university campuses are classified as "off-road areas" and thus remain a blind spot for safety management regulations has been a major reason for this sharp increase. Campus roads are considered “private property” and lack the supervision of public management; therefore, their level of safety highly depends on the interest of the facility owner. Oftentimes, this private management is subpar at best, meaning that drivers are likely to have lower levels of compliance regarding traffic laws—such as crosswalks and speed limits—on campus roads than on public roads. Campuses being classified as “off-road areas” also significantly affects the psychology of campus users, leading to less caution. It is more likely for both drivers and pedestrians to let their guard down on campus than on public roads. While drivers think that students will avoid them, students expect cars to avoid them since the campus is ‘their space’. Moreover, since campuses usually lack road safety equipment such as traffic lights, their safety highly depends on the caution of the users. When considered in tandem with the aforementioned fact that most pedestrians are less alert on campus roads, this becomes a deadly combination. In June of 2024, a tragic incident occurred where a Pusan National University student in her 20s was hit by a forklift while crossing a crosswalk inside the campus. Being seriously injured, she was transported to a hospital but passed two days later. Due to the area’s classification as being “off-road,” the case was not subject to public administrative measures under the Traffic Safety Act such as the 12 gross negligence laws (12대 중과실), resulting in a lower level of criminal punishment. These laws enable the immediate revocation or suspension of the aggressor’s driver’s license; however, as campus roads are not protected under the Traffic Safety Act, such necessary punishments could not be enacted. Thankfully, there are solutions in the works. In the case of roads in apartment complexes, another "off-road area," the roads became included in “roads within complexes,” resulting in specific safety management regulations being included in the Traffic Safety Act from 2020 onwards. Similarly, following the revision of the Traffic Safety Act in August of 2024, roads within university campuses are now also included in the scope of “roads within complexes. ” These specific regulations include the need for school deans to manage campus roads and enforce traffic regulations, with failure to comply resulting in a fine of up to 10 million won. Moreover, governors and city/provincial officials are required to publicize the ‘Regional Traffic Safety Basic Plan’ and gather opinions from both residents and experts. However, although the Traffic Safety Act has been reformed, many still have concerns that the countermeasure is insufficient to reduce the high risk of on-campus traffic accidents. Cars are still driving on risky downhill roads; cars are still parked on the side of the roads, blocking pedestrian view; and many students continue to jaywalk. Speed bumps are still much lower than the necessary height to properly function, resulting in many cars exceeding the speed limit of 30 km/h and making the roads more dangerous. Thus, to effectively reduce the risk, more explicit countermeasures must be taken: for instance, putting reflectors in places with poor visibility, and putting more effective speed control facilities on downhill roads.  Moreover, it is crucial to provide safety education for both drivers and students, especially with regards to the new laws. Campus users should be informed about all changes so that they can issue complaints when the safety management at campus is not being executed as required. Also, students should be instructed to use crosswalks, and drivers to limit their speed—especially on slopes and curves. Campuses have remained in the blind spot for safety regulations for many years, only recently being revised due to the tragic loss of a university student. Although it should not have taken such a traumatic event for changes to occur, now is the right time to make campuses the safe spaces they should have been, to prevent further incidents from occurring. The second part of this duology of articles will contain a deeper insight into the personal experiences and opinions of Seoul National University students on this matter, as well as a look into why SNU’s Gwanak Campus is more at risk than other college campuses.

Han Kang, this year’s winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, held a lecture titled Light and Thread at the Nobel Prize ceremony on Saturday, December 7, in Stockholm, Sweden. Passionately addressing the profound questions that drove the creation of her works, she delivered personal anecdotes of her life from the past forty years.  “The lines penned by my eight-year-old self were suitably innocent and unpolished, but one poem from April caught my eyes. It opened with the following stanzas: Where is love? It is inside my thump-thumping beating chest.  What is love? It is the gold thread connecting between our hearts.  In a flash I was transported back forty years, as memories of that afternoon spent putting the pamphlet together came back to me,” she said.  She reflected on the change she goes through as she “endure[s] the questions” that underlie her works, experiencing the genuine essence of “liv[ing] inside them” during her process of writing. Han said, “I am no longer as I was when I began,” ultimately meeting another self at the end. Going through this transformative process “like links in a chain, or like dominoes, overlapping and continuing,” Han states that she is moved to write something new time and time again. Han delved in chronological order through the questions she endured with each piece of writing, going through concepts of “remaining human”, violence and love, revealing her inner struggles and transformations as a writer.  Writing The Vegetarian — her third novel — from 2003 to 2005, she dealt with the following  “painful questions”: Can a person ever be completely innocent? To what depths can we reject violence? What happens to one who refuses to belong to the species called human? In Greek Lessons, she sought to more deeply explore the  moments that make life bearable amidst its chaos, looking into the fundamental aspects of humanity. The question Han wanted to ask here was this: Could it be that by regarding the softest aspects of humanity, by caressing the irrefutable warmth that resides there, we can go on living after all in this brief, violent world? Reflecting on how Human Acts started, Han took the audience back to a time long past. She revisited  her childhood experiences, examining photographs of Gwangju residents and students “killed with clubs, bayonets and guns while resisting the new military powers that had orchestrated the coup. ” Despite not understanding the political situation of the time, as a child, Han stated that even then she had a significant question in mind: “Is this the act of one human towards another?” During her research for the novel, Han recognized that the questions she had in mind — “Can the present help the past? Can the living save the dead?” — were impossible questions in the first place. After reading diary entries of a young-night school educator, Han came to the conclusion that her two questions had to be reversed — “Can the past help the present? Can the dead save the living?” After the publication of Human Acts, it came to her surprise in learning of the pained reactions of her readers to the novel, noting the interconnected relationship she has with them. “I had to take some time to think about how the pain I had felt throughout the writing process and the distress that my readers had expressed to me were connected,” she said.  Writing We Do Not Part, Han questioned: To what extent can we love? Where is our limit? To what degree must we love in order to remain human to the end? This wondrous and curious attitude of Han continues even after her multiple publications. In the autumn of 2021, after We Do Not Part was published, Han identified two core questions that inspire her novels and her many contemplations:   Why is the world so violent and painful? And yet how can the world be this beautiful? As she reexamines the past, Han reflects not only upon her writing career but also on genuine human existence and life. Han also spoke on how she involves all of her senses in her creative process: “When I write, I use my body. ” She also recognizes the significance of these senses, giving a profound explanation on how she tries to blow the sensations into her words and sentences. “I use all the sensory details of seeing, of listening, of smelling, of tasting, of experiencing tenderness and warmth and cold and pain, of noticing my heart racing and my body needing food and water, of walking and running, of feeling the wind and rain and snow on my skin, of holding hands,” Han said. Han concluded the lecture by emphasizing the “thread” that exists amongst people; amongst us readers and herself. She said, “I try to infuse those vivid sensations that I feel as a mortal being with blood coursing through the body into my sentences, as if I am sending out an electric current. And when I sense this current being transmitted to the reader, I am astonished and moved. ” Perhaps through this electric current, and the “thread of language that connects us,” Han provides us the opportunity to reflect on our own standards of “remaining human. ”  Although the lecture was delivered in Korean, the transcript of the text and translations in English and Swedish are available on the Nobel Prize Website.  

“I am always two steps ahead…”Nicholas Perry (known as Nikocado Avocado, with 4. 5 million subscribers as of Oct. 2024) shocked the world with his transformation. Famous for his explicit mukbang content and provocative persona, the YouTuber went viral for his weight loss transformation through his video titled “Two Steps Ahead” after being inactive for 7 months. In the video, unlike his usual superficial, bombastic demeanor, Nicholas Perry gives a distinctly profound speech of his experience, where he leaves the question: who is the real villain? Through taking a closer look at Perry’s transformation, the dangers of unethical content consumption and the dehumanisation of content creators by the viewers will be explored. The following is a part of Perry’s speech:“This has been the greatest social experiment of my entire life. It’s alluring, it’s compelling, it’s gripping to observe all these unwell, disoriented beings roam the internet and search of stories, ideas, rivalries, where they feel encouraged and engaged, where they involve themselves with the stories and become a product of influence thirsty for distraction from time unspent, spoiling their minds yet stimulating them at the same time. It’s brilliant and it’s dangerous. I feel as if I’m monitoring ants on an ant farm: one follows another, follows another, follows another. (…) All these little consumers, all of these lost and bored people. People consuming anything that they’re told to. ”In his speech, Perry constantly likens viewers to “ants” in his “social experiment” who are “thirsty for distraction from time unspent”. His speculation causes us to think about the negative reciprocation between the content creator and the content consumer. Perry’s succinct speech is followed by a mukbang video, and the uncanny discrepancy between the break in Perry’s Youtube façade, and his direct transition into his usual mukbang content seems to prove his message: “People consuming anything that they’re told to”. Unethical content consumption leads to the unconscious dehumanisation of content creators, as they are viewed as a simple means of entertainment. From time to time, I would visit Nicholas Perry’s YouTube channel before his transformation. Although I never left any hate comments, I am proud to say that I would heavily judge him, thinking about the extent of human downfall. Despite his curated  toxic persona, my perception changed when I discovered his earlier videos. His early videos touch on his experience with veganism, and this is done through a soft-spoken, vulnerable manner. Perry also shares his life with his parrot, his partner and his love for violin. In his earlier vegan days, Perry expressed his distress regarding the constant criticism and hate he received for the way he eats, and the toxic vegan community. Perry then denounced his veganism and fell into a spiral of unhealthy eating. The premise of my criticism towards Perry ironically prolonged his regression. I would frequently come across content from Nikocado Avocado’s YouTube channel or read explicit headlines on his obesity, which caused him to wear an oxygen mask and commute by scooter as he could not walk. These would fill me with a disturbing combination of emotions: pity, disgust, awe, and horror. The single view, the internalisation of his hate-filled comment section, and the passive manner in which I consumed all his content— while seemingly harmless— all heavily feeds into the toxic circulation of ‘unhealthy’ content and feedback. While everyone openly berated Nicholas Perry, no one was willing to actually help him. It is true that the regression of Nicholas Perry into Nikocado Avocado can partly be blamed on himself, as he creates a superficial image for himself for quick views. However, I would argue that the responsibility lies more heavily on the viewers. We have viewed the individual called Nicholas Perry as a simple spectacle and dehumanised him into the hated ‘Nikocado Avocado’. “You are what you eat”. If all that we are ‘consuming’ is toxic and explicit content that makes us numb to individual thinking, what are we doing to ourselves and the content creators? If our social media addiction has amounted to an obsessive, unfiltered viewing of human degradation and disaster, what does that say about our social media obsession or excessive content consumption?  If Nicholas Perry was able to gain millions and millions of subscribers through exceedingly unhealthy content, what does that say about us? We live in an era where we create villains with our eyes, with a single view or a click of a button. The case of Nikocado Avocado calls for the urgent need of ethical media consumption.

In March 2023, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly passed a resolution to request the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to outline each country’s obligations in regard to combatting climate change. Advocated for since 2021 by the Pacific island state Vanuatu, the initial campaign for the resolution was led by Pacific Island Students Fight Climate Change (PISFCC) and gained greater traction from there. The students aimed to raise awareness of the plights faced by the Pacific Island states and to emphasize the necessity of each country fulfilling its climate obligations. This marks the beginning of a historical moment, as it is the first time that the ICJ is going to advise countries on their legal obligations concerning climate change. Though the advisory opinion given is not legally binding, it does indeed have legal significance on an international scale. The ICJ is to clarify the climate obligations and rights of each state in black-and-white terms, based on the binding international laws of today, which provides legal backing to the climate obligations of each state. The advisory opinion is to be rendered in accordance with the following question:(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations;(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:(i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?(ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?If we take those majorly industrialized and densely populated countries as one extreme, the other is some of the island states spread across the different oceans. Examples include the island nations in the Pacific such as Palau, Micronesia, and Vanuatu. These Pacific island states are extremely vulnerable to the worst effects of climate change, especially the rising of sea levels, as most of them are low-lying. The lives of island inhabitants are increasingly threatened by the diminishing amount of land available for housing and farming. Climate change is not just something that is worrying for such people but is an ongoing crisis that is challenging their survival and eroding their basic rights to life. Ironically, these islands are also only responsible for 0. 03% of greenhouse gas emissions, in contrast to the top 10 emitters that contribute to more than 60% of the emissions globally. In simple terms, these developing countries are the smallest contributors to climate change yet are suffering its worst consequences brought on by the major emitters. This is the definition of climate injustice. In the past, the Paris Agreement declared a global effort to limit the rise of global surface temperatures to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. However, this global agreement does not come with legal obligations that clarify the consequences a country will face if it neglects the actions required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a national level or even engages in activities that are actively harmful to the environment. In contrast, bringing the issue of climate change, in such a manner, to the ICJ signifies formal acknowledgment of the existing climate injustice in countries around the world. This opens up the possibility of better defining what a fair share is for each country’s climate obligations and the corresponding mechanisms in place to ensure that every country is fully committed to global climate action. This makes climate action more an achievable necessity than an afterthought. That’s the reason why Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau of Vanuatu stated the following in a statement for the UN: “Vanuatu sees [the] historic resolution as the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding the rule of international law and an era that places human rights and intergenerational equity at the forefront of climate decision-making. ”The concept of “saving our planet together” should not just be a hollow slogan but a sentiment that is reflected in our actual actions. “The more you pollute, the more you pay” is a basic principle that everyone can understand. The issues caused by the major emitters should at no point become a heavy and unreasonable burden on struggling nations, particularly to the extent that their people’s well-being and basic survival are compromised. Major polluters should pay more instead of expecting minor emitters to share the cost equally. Referring the issue to the ICJ is not the final solution to the global threat of climate change. Nonetheless, the ICJ’s advisory opinion should give a clear definition of each country’s legal obligations and how international law can play its role in supervising each country’s progress under this collaborative climate campaign. The advisory opinion is expected to be delivered in 2025, and the dedication of each country toward the stated obligations will then ultimately determine the success of our fight against climate change.

The University of Zurich (UZH) announced on March 13 this year that it would no longer provide data for the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Ranking. As the alma mater of the well-known physicist Albert Einstein and with its association with 12 Nobel Prize laureates, UZH’s decision to quit the THE ranking was like a bomb dropped on the realm of academia. According to the news released, UZH withdrew from the THE World University Ranking as “the ranking is not able to reflect the wide range of activities in teaching and research undertaken by universities. ” UZH emphasized that the rankings “generally focus on measurable output, which can have unintended consequences. ”The possible consequences a global university ranking can bring about have been a topic of enduring discussion. Many claim that these rankings push universities to pursue measurable outputs that help boost their ranking. This may lead to a concentration of resources being invested into certain fields and disciplines that are able to churn out considerable amounts of research, intensifying the unfairness of resource allocation. Moreover, the quality of teaching and research may be compromised if universities focus too much on publishing. At the same time, universities using their rankings as one of the main means of attracting potential students is becoming an increasingly common practice, as apparent from taking a look at universities’ official websites and social media accounts. One should always be reminded that university rankings do not necessarily reflect the realities of a student’s experience on campus. Take our many undergraduate students as an example. Most spend a large amount of their time in university attending lectures given by notable professors in high-tech lecture halls, gathering with friends in meeting rooms, and preparing for examinations at huge tables in the library. All of these experiences are impossible to evaluate based on a quantitative measure like university rankings. Nonetheless, such a quantitative measure can give us a brief insight into the reputation of academic institutions, making the selection process easier for students when they apply to university. One can identify renowned universities—on a regional or local scale—just by looking at university rankings. Imagine that there are no rankings published. How can students narrow down the potential universities that they will apply to out of a huge pool of options? As an international student myself, I was able to easily identify the renowned universities and departments in Korea, that offer the courses I was looking for, by looking at various rankings. At the same time, some other indicators used by university rankings, like the international members ratio, gave me a hint into how accommodating different programs are towards international students. No matter what your stance is regarding university ranking systems, one cannot deny that looking at rankings is the most reliable way to assess and compare universities, as non-quantitative factors are almost impossible to standardize for comparison. When we look at university rankings, we should always try and find out what the evaluation methods are for deciding them. Moreover, examining the different rankings of a single university might give us insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a university and a better understanding of the evaluation criterion of ranking systems. As an example, Seoul National University is ranked 41st in the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Ranking and 2nd in the THE World University Ranking, while Yonsei University is ranked 76th in both. One can thus look into why the rankings appear so different for these institutions. The extra work of cross-analysis is necessary as it is not enough to rely on a single ranking system to get the insight that we are looking for. We may never reach a consensus on whether or not university ranking systems should exist in our society. It seems that there is no better and more efficient way of comparing universities than through the currently available rankings. Despite this, we should always think about what we can learn from these rankings. If a ranking can effectively point out the shortcomings of a university, it can be used as a reference for students to find alternative universities to avoid those drawbacks. At the same time, a university may also identify and be motivated to improve upon its shortcomings, as evident through its ranking. According to the 2024 QS World University Ranking, many Korean universities saw a drop in their ranking. SNU was not an exception and scored only 36. 9 out of 100 for the criterion of international research network, 11. 5 out of 100 for the criterion of international faculty, and 14. 5 out of 100 for the international students ratio criteria. These results are particularly relevant to many international students including myself. This criterion doesn’t necessarily mean that a particular university is not performing well in its teaching or research activities but can give a hint of the perspective of international students on whether or not the university is a good choice for them. A low ratio of international members may mean less accessibility to university facilities and services as well as classes for students who don’t know Korean. If international students want to fully immerse themselves in their academic environment, they must know if they need to pick up the language or attend a different institution. While I admit that the existence of university rankings can pose several dilemmas, I personally feel that SNU having a favorable rank is of no harm; in fact, it fulfills one of my qualifications for choosing a university. I believe that other members of our university may feel the same way. While some people may solely focus on the rankings of universities when deciding where to apply, others may simply want to know how various universities are performing according to their ranks. Regardless, we should always be reminded that rankings are just a quantitative measure that cannot paint a complete picture of one's academic experience.

Two planes fell out of the sky. Hundreds of aircraft once grounded, now fly free. And yet, the scandal goes on. Boeing was a company once associated with engineering excellence. However, the 737 MAX, its latest model, is causing controversy surrounding its safety. Just what is going on with Boeing and its 737 MAX, and is it something we should be worried about?To understand why Boeing’s 737 MAX is facing so many problems, we must first look into the reason it was developed. The 737 MAX was not a plane Boeing had always anticipated to build. Instead, its creation was heavily motivated by the development of a rival’s plane – the Airbus A320neo. Introduced in 2010, the A320neo was an upgrade of Airbus’s older A320s. And it was a major hit, which Boeing did not like. The company followed suit in making its own upgrade just a year later, with its best-selling 737s—the 737 MAX. The 737 MAX turned out to be highly successful, outselling the A320neo. However, hidden behind its rapid success was an imperfect product born from rushed development—driven by competition rather than innovation—which would soon come back at Boeing to bite. The date was October 29, 2018. Lion Air Flight 610, an Indonesian domestic flight, had just taken off when the brand-new 737 MAX inexplicably started hurling itself towards the ground. It seemed that it had a mind of its own. Just 13 minutes after takeoff, the plane crashed into the ocean, and all 189 passengers aboard were lost. Five months later, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, another MAX 8, experienced an almost identical scenario during take-off. Despite the pilots’ best efforts, it also crashed, taking with it 157 more lives. Subsequently, countries worldwide banned the planes from flying until the problem could be determined. In Korea, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) banned the only Korean operator of the fleet—Eastar Jet—from operating their 737 MAX 8s. Korean Air also volunteered to postpone the introduction of their MAXs, originally scheduled to be delivered in May of 2019. It would not be until March 1, 2022—three years after the accidents—that Korean Air would begin operations with their delivered MAX 8s. Investigators quickly found that a new software Boeing had implemented on the MAX was to blame for the accidents that had occurred. This software, called MCAS, was implemented to fix an instability in the aircraft pitch caused by the upgraded engines. Boeing’s oversight was that MCAS relied on a single sensor to signal if it should activate. On the two fatal flights, this sensor malfunctioned, and MCAS activated incorrectly, pushing the planes into the ground. But more important than this oversight was the fact that the MCAS system was not properly documented. Pilots simply did not know that this system existed. In fact, it was revealed that Boeing intentionally withheld information about MCAS. This was because a new system as substantial as MCAS would require greater investment into pilots’ training, which Boeing felt would lessen the 737 MAX’s competitive edge against the A320neo. Eventually, the MCAS problem was fixed, and the MAX flew the skies once more. But that did not signal the end of the MAX’s scandal. In January of this year, a door plug (a device used to secure unused exits) of an Alaskan Airlines 737 MAX 9 was ripped from the plane during its climb. This time, it was revealed that Boeing had simply forgotten to install the bolts needed to keep the plug in place. Numerous whistleblowers now share their accounts of safety violations at Boeing, where engineers are encouraged to cut corners as much as possible. There is fear that this may not be the end of the MAX’s tale of controversy. As of April 2024, five Korean operators—Korean Air, Eastar Jet, Jeju Air, Jin Air, and T’way Air —operate the 737 MAX 8, with Korean Air possessing the largest fleet of five aircraft. This number is expected to rise as the older models phase out. Then, does this mean the skies will soon be filled with unsafe planes? A positive note is that Boeing does seem to be changing as a result of this scandal. The company is in a difficult financial situation, and it knows further incidents will only cause more groundings and order cancellations. During the investigation into MCAS, Boeing chose a closed response and refused to reveal company information. However, during the Alaskan Airlines incident, the corporation openly acknowledged its mistake, agreeing to cooperate fully with the investigation. Outside of Boeing, the scandal has also prompted the FAA, the US federal agency responsible for certifying planes, to revise its certification process. Previously, some parts of the process were outsourced to employees at Boeing, leading to a lack of supervision by the organization. But what is often overlooked is the fact that it is the passengers who have contributed most significantly to making Boeing change. It is only because of public interest, extensive media coverage, and ensuing pressure that Boeing is forced to acknowledge its need for transparency. Think of this: when we book flights, how often do we consider the models of the planes that we fly on? Compared to the airline, time of take-off and arrival, and transfers among other factors, the model of an aircraft is rarely taken into consideration. But this attitude may have allowed Boeing to relax its quality control, knowing that passengers don’t care, as long as their planes get them to their destinations. After the accidents involving the 737 MAX, some booking sites have introduced an option to filter out flights via the MAX aircraft. While this new feature may sound small, it hints at how the public can make flying safe once again. By allowing passengers to be more informed on which aircraft they travel on, their preferences can have a greater impact on shaping the practices and decisions of the aviation industry. If a certain model is boycotted, airlines will lose profit and choose to operate alternative aircraft. Aircraft manufacturers like Boeing are then likely to realize that such aspects of passenger preference absolutely cannot be ignored. It was pressure from passengers that pushed this issue forward and revealed the truth once kept hidden within Boeing. Perhaps it is time to raise our voices further: let the manufacturers know that our safety isn’t something that they can neglect.

No society in the real world can be considered a utopia. If anything, I would imagine that each one is more dystopian than utopian. In that sense, I think of Korea as being “cyberpunk,” a term referring to the futuristic sub genre of dystopian science fiction. Upon hearing the term “cyberpunk,” you may think of flickering neon signs in shabby streets as well as urban jungles of skyscrapers with vivid 3D images projected all over them. These collective images of cyberpunk we share are largely influenced by sci-fi movies. The Blade Runner franchise and Akira, a highly commended anime classic, have given us ideas of the aesthetic features of cyberpunk. However, what makes a society cyberpunk is more than just surface-level visuals. Often defined as “high tech, low life,” cyberpunk is fundamentally about sacrificing the quality of human life for technological advancement. Then how can it be that cyberpunk is our reality right now? It seems that we might be living “low lives” after all that we’ve gone through to galvanize the economy and develop cutting-edge technologies. Some societal features highlighted in the cyberpunk films are hardwired in Korea, which thus suggests that Korean society is quintessentially cyberpunk. First of all, unresolved post-apocalyptic chaos is an important quality of a cyberpunk society. Take Neo-Tokyo in the anime Akira as an example. Built in the aftermath of the explosion of Tokyo and the subsequent World War III, it looks like a high-tech utopian city. But in actuality, the splendors of the cityscape are merely veneers. The city carries a series of ills derived from this calamity: the citizens are exposed to violence and drugs, and anti-government rallies prevail due to distrust and corruption. Just as the disorders from disaster linger in Neo-Tokyo, so do those of post-division polarization in South Korea. The country’s colonial legacy under Japanese rule, authoritarian past, and the Korean War have left bruises on the integrity of Korea’s democracy. A core idea of democracy is the embrace of diverse opinions. Ironically, the hard-won democracy in Korea has, in a sense, backfired; it’s often used as a justification for the brutal crushing of others’ opinions. In fact, the National Assembly Futures Institute claims in its Futures Brief, Vol. 23-08 that “Korea has distinctive patterns of polarization in politics. ” While “political polarization elsewhere is more centered on specific points in policy and ideology, Korea's polarization in politics is characterized by the fierce fight for a moral high ground, with the tendency to blindly dismiss opponents’ voices as an attempt to disgrace or denigrate them. ” It’s hard to have genuinely democratic debates under such circumstances. Out of 28 different countries surveyed by King’s College in 2021, Korea ranked the highest in 6 out of 11 kinds of polarization, making it the nation with the most prevalent culture wars. Another attribute of cyberpunk is isolation. K, the protagonist of Blade Runner 2049, represents the lonely figure of cyberpunk societies; he finds no true meaning in life nor has any dependable social relationships. His only connection is that with Joi, an AI-powered, customized girlfriend, with whom he seeks love. But in fact, they’re just feigning love. Deep down, K also seems to know this relationship doesn’t resolve the real loneliness within him. Korea also has its own signs of escalating isolation. As of 2023, about one-third of Korean households are single-person households, which are vulnerable to the loneliness epidemic. There’s also been a rise in godoksa; which means “dying alone,” with its rate increasing by 8. 8% over the last 5 years. To lull their depression, many people engage with pop culture, watching or interacting with idols, streamers, and influencers. However, this is but a getaway, just like K’s girlfriend. Such parasocial relationships with online entities cannot entirely replace real human bonds. Worse, they may detach people from reality and even exacerbate their loneliness. Lastly, dehumanization through evaluation is an integral part of cyberpunk. When human life becomes something to evaluate and label, its essence is corrupted. “Nosedive,” an episode of the Black Mirror series, presents a future where people are constantly rated on a scale of 1 to 5—as if they are commodities. People are obsessed with maintaining high ratings since these ratings impact every aspect of their lives, such as their access to housing or employment. Overly fixated on improving their evaluations, they force themselves to “enhance their value. ” Human identity is at stake as one’s worth is defined by ratings. Similar dehumanization happens in Korean society. We are constantly being evaluated and a common purpose in life—the possession of a diploma from a high-ranking university, goods of great monetary value, and social prestige—is defined for us. According to Lee Chul Seung’s “Rice, Catastrophe, Nation”(2021), this phenomenon is partly a result of the collectivist culture derived from our society’s agricultural origins. It also has something to do with our post-war sufferings and subsequent rapid economic growth, which have led people to grow obsessed with materialism for survival. In internalizing the uniform goals imposed by our society, our identities are in danger of becoming a series of achievements or boxes we’ve ticked off. We measure and evaluate our happiness almost solely based upon them and our humanity withers. Legacies of disasters, isolation, and dehumanization are deeply rooted in the nation today. This may prove that technological advancement is not an absolute solution for a healthy society. Thus, for a brighter future, there needs to be a renaissance to awaken our sense of humanity. There aren’t perfect, straightforward solutions to fixing all societal problems, but still, the value of meaningful change through individual contemplation and community participation must not be overlooked. We need to remind ourselves that we don’t have to label ourselves by our tangible achievements. We should also reach out to those struggling with loneliness and offer our support. Moreover, we should engage in lively discussions to share diverse opinions in a respectful manner, instead of pointing fingers at one another. This would lead us to actually hear others’ opinions, which is important to building a genuinely stable democracy. Following these steps, we may be able to take the first initiative to re-humanize ourselves and escape from a “low-life” society.