- Redefining the status of lifelong education as  vocational education that continues across the entire life cycle 
- Opinions gathered on the need for flexible academic reform towards the establishment of LiFE (Lifelong Education at Universities for the Future of Education) 

 

A forum called ‘Converging Universities and Lifelong Education: University Lifelong Education Revitalization Plan’ was held at the Member’s Office Building of the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul on September 14. It was co-hosted by Seoul National University of Science and Technology (SeoulTech), LiFE Council (Lifelong Education at Universities for the Future of Education), Democratic Party member Deukgu Kang, and People Power Party member Byungwook Kim of the National Assembly Education Committee.

Conventionally, local government has been the primary driver of lifelong education, but the view that higher education institutions should play a more central role is gaining traction. Participants at the forum agreed that lifelong learning should be viewed as vocational education that continues throughout individuals’ lives, departing from the existing notion that lifelong education is a subset of education. Discussions also touched on revitalizing lifelong education functions centered around universities.

During the discussion, it was suggested that reform was needed to promote a flexible university education system in order for LiFE to be soundly established at current universities,. It was said that LiFE (Lifelong Education at Universities for the Future of Education)’s recruitment of students is mired in the existing college admissions format of school-age students, causing confusion in the field.

"We are giving a lot of thought to establishing LiFE (Lifelong Education at Universities for the Future of Education) centered around lifelong and vocational education,” said Sungbu Choi, director general of the Lifelong & Vocational Education Bureau at the Ministry of Education. He added that, "The Ministry of Education is well aware of the differences between the needs of Seoul and other regions. We intend to lead institutional improvement to meet the demands of universities, local governments, and industry.”