“Ms. Kim, can I do my hagwon homework during recess?”
This is a question I heard countless times while working as an elementary school teacher in South Korea. “Hagwon” is a private after-school institution that students attend after their regular school day, offering subjects such as math, English, and science. They asked me this question because they would have to stay up all night if they did not finish it that day.
Korean students spend a significant amount of time and energy at hagwons, and the social consequences are serious. One example is the so-called “Exam for four-year-olds.” Children attend a hagwon to prepare for admission to English-immersion kindergartens — and to get into that hagwon, they must first pass an entrance exam for an even earlier one. This system has led to about 270,000 young children receiving psychiatric treatment each year (Kyunghyang Shinmun, 2025). In addition, high school students typically leave school around 5 p.m., then spend more than six hours studying at hagwons to prepare for the Korean SAT, often returning home around midnight (Financial Times, 2013). This shows that Korea's education system relies heavily on private education to augment public education.
Ironically, students sometimes ask school exam questions to their hagwon instructors, not their schoolteachers, even though schoolteachers are the ones who write the exams that decide students' grades. Why do Korean students rely so heavily on hagwons? One key reason is the strong belief that attending a prestigious university can determine one’s future (Sorensen, 1994). Because performing well on the SAT is considered more important than anything else, students become obsessed with test scores. This suggests that the expansion of private education reflects Korea's college-entrance competition system.
From an economic perspective, the growth of Korea's private education market reflects Adam Smith's idea of the “invisible hand.” Each parent spends on hagwons intending only their own child's advantage, yet in doing so they are, in Smith's words, “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention” (Smith, 1937). The hagwon industry has expanded rapidly and taken on many different forms. For example, there are residential hagwons where students live, eat, and study for an entire year, preparing to retake the SAT. In addition, families are spending more on private education, and this private household spending stimulates domestic consumption. As of 2025, total spending on private education stood at about 27.5 trillion won (roughly $19 billion), creating more jobs in instruction and curriculum development, and increasing overall economic activity (Ministry of Data and Statistics, 2026).
At the same time, the growth of the online lecture market also exposes potential worker exploitation, which evokes Karl Marx’s theory that “capitalists accumulate wealth by exploiting workers, leading to conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat” (Marx, 1976). One top online instructor stated in a lecture that her revenue exceeded 30 billion won (about $23 million) in a single year (JoongAng Ilbo, 2023). However, a friend of mine once worked for one of the top instructors and was paid only about $5 for an hour of creating exam questions. In addition, students who cannot afford expensive books from instructors sometimes turn to illegal sharing platforms, such as large Telegram groups where book copies are distributed for free. Although the organizer of one such group was arrested, some people still argue that these actions were justified to reduce educational inequality (NoCut News, 2024). The hagwon system, which involves worker exploitation for the benefit of the highest earning instructors and richest students, is not sustainable.
Private education becomes such a serious issue not only because of the stress on students, but also because it deepens educational inequality, which in turn widens economic inequalities. In addition, a controversy arose last year when it was revealed that nominee for Minister of Education—who had argued that “economic inequality should not lead to educational inequality”—had spent thousands of dollars on studying in the United States to educate their children. This sparked public backlash in Korea, where fairness is highly valued, and the nominee ultimately withdrew from consideration (JoongAng Ilbo, 2024).
Because educational inequality cannot be solved all at once, it requires continuous discussion, experimentation, and gradual refinement based on outcomes. This is where Charles Lindblom’s idea of “muddling through” becomes relevant. According to Lindblom, policymaking cannot rely on fully rational, comprehensive analysis but instead proceeds through incremental adjustments to existing policies (Lindblom, 2001).
These three perspectives point in different directions, and that tension is insightful. Adam Smith's view suggests that when individuals freely pursue their own interests — such as parents investing in their children's education — the market benefits. Yet Marx reminds us that, left unchecked, this same pursuit hardens into structural inequality that incremental fixes cannot reach. Charles Lindblom, by contrast, describes how policy is actually made: not through fully rational, comprehensive design, but through incremental adjustments to existing arrangements (Lindblom, 2001). Systemic reforms have certainly been attempted, yet in practice, educational policy tends to proceed step by step, which may be precisely why deep inequalities prove so persistent. The real challenge, then, is to strike a balance — preserving individuals' freedom to pursue their own interests while also working toward educational policies that reduce inequality. This process takes time. Even if it takes a long time, I hope that one day all students around the world will have equal access to educational opportunities.
References
Sorensen, C. W. (1994). Success and education in South Korea. Comparative Education Review, 38(1), 10–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/447223
Financial Times. (2013, October 22). Education in South Korea: system must change to satisfy country’s and pupils’ needs https://www.ft.com/content/7bd4a52a-3b06-11e3-a7ec-00144feab7de?syn-25a6b1a6=1
JoongAng Ilbo. (2023). Top online instructor earns over $23 million annually amid growing private education market. https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25145045
JoongAng Ilbo. (2024). Education minister nominee withdraws after controversy over children’s expensive study abroad. https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25352034
Kyunghyang Shinmun. (2006, February 8). Student suicide linked to academic pressure highlights severe education stress in Korea. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/200602081333061
Kyunghyang Shinmun. (2025, May 5). Young children pushed into “exam for four-year-olds”: The reality of early private education in Korea. https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202505050600091
Lindblom, C. E. (2001). The market system: What it is, how it works, and what to make of it. Yale University Press.
Marx, K. (1976). Preface to a contribution to the critique of political economy. In J. Joseph (Ed.), Social theory: A reader. Edinburgh University Press.
Ministry of Data and Statistics. (2026, March 12). Results of the 2025 survey of private education expenditures of elementary, middle, and high school students. https://mods.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10301010000&bid=245&act=view&list_no=443953
NoCut News. (2024). Illegal sharing of private education materials spreads amid rising education inequality concerns. https://www.nocutnews.co.kr/news/6384375
Smith, A. (1937). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Modern Library.
