National Graduate Medical School

A concept for graduate medical schools operated by national universities, referring to medical education policy discussions aimed at training public and regional healthcare personnel.

National Graduate Medical School

Overview

National Graduate Medical School (Korean: 국립의전원; Hanja: 國立醫專院) refers to a graduate medical school (uijeonwon) system operated by national universities. Unlike the current undergraduate-centered medical school system, it denotes an institutional concept that trains physicians through four years of professional education for holders of bachelor's degrees. Beyond a mere institutional name, the term is used as an umbrella designation for policy discussions advocating the strengthening of quota allocation and educational responsibility based on national university hospitals in order to address the shortage of public healthcare and regional essential healthcare personnel.

Main Content

Background: Introduction and Abolition of the Graduate Medical School System

Following discussions on medical education reform in the late 1990s, South Korea introduced the graduate medical school system starting in 2005 and gradually reduced undergraduate medical school quotas. However, as problems were raised—such as increased educational costs resulting from the reorganization of the academic system, controversies over fairness relative to the undergraduate system, and the contraction of basic medical research—abolition was decided in the early 2010s, and the system subsequently reverted to an undergraduate-centered medical school structure. The concept of the National Graduate Medical School emerged in this process amid an alternative current of opinion holding that "at least national universities should maintain and experiment with the professional graduate school system."

Core Elements of the National Graduate Medical School Concept

Education Linked to National University Hospitals: Using national university hospitals at the level of tertiary general hospitals as bases for clinical education, it combines the functions of regional responsible medical institutions with education.
Training of Public and Essential Healthcare Personnel: A key issue is the allocation of quotas conditioned on avoided specialties—such as pediatrics, surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, emergency medicine, and thoracic surgery—and on service in regional areas.
Inflow of People from Diverse Majors: The logic is to increase the diversity of backgrounds among healthcare personnel by permitting entry by those from non-STEM fields such as the humanities, natural sciences, and engineering.
Reduction of Tuition Burden: As national universities, their tuition burden is lower than that of private medical schools, raising expectations that economic barriers can be lowered.

Arguments For and Against

Proponents hold that regional national universities can serve as stable suppliers of regional healthcare personnel, can select talent with a professional calling for public healthcare, and can structurally alleviate the problem of medically underserved areas.

Opponents point to the problem of overlap with undergraduate medical school quotas, the lack of clinical skills training in four-year education compared with the six-year system, the undermining of policy consistency given the earlier decision to abolish graduate medical schools, and the fact that, fundamentally, unless the total quota issue is resolved, the effect of settling physicians in regional areas will be limited.

Key Issues

1. Relationship with the Total Quota: The biggest issue is how the policy of expanding medical school quotas and the establishment of national graduate medical schools can be harmonized.

2. Mandatory Service Requirements: Mandatory regional service is intertwined with controversies over the constitutional freedom of occupation and forced labor.

3. Linkage with the Training System: Consistency with the specialist training system (interns and residents) and the establishment of relationships with the military physician and public health doctor systems are needed.

4. Governance: Issues also remain regarding the division of roles between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and the allocation of authority between national university presidents and national university hospital directors.

Recent Developments

Triggered by the mass resignation of resident physicians and the resulting medical care gap in 2024, measures to secure essential and regional healthcare personnel have emerged as the foremost policy task. The government is emphasizing educational responsibility centered on national universities while pursuing special admissions for training regional physicians, a pilot program for the regional physician system, expansion of quotas at national university medical schools, and strengthening of regional responsible medical institutions.

As of 2025, key variables remain: whether the pilot program for the regional physician system takes hold, the results of national university hospitals' expansion of essential healthcare personnel, and whether the expansion of existing medical school quotas satisfies educational conditions. A policy that puts the name "National Graduate Medical School" itself at the forefront has not yet been officially adopted, but assessments suggest that the concept is being partially institutionalized within the policy direction of "training public healthcare personnel centered on national universities."