There are 3S that characterize the Korean Academic Job Market, especially in comparison to the US one: Speed, (Small) Size, and Standardization
Speed: The Fast-Paced Hiring Timeline (and beyond)
The most striking difference between the Korean and American academic job markets is their pace. The American market operates on an annual cycle that feels almost glacial in comparison to its Korean counterpart. In the U.S., the process typically spans an entire academic year: job announcements appear in late August or early September (sometime later, of course), first-round interviews occur in December or January, and campus visits stretch into March. The entire process can take six to eight months from announcement to offer.
The Korean market, by contrast, moves at a dramatically different speed. Most institutions operate on a semester-based schedule, and sometimes, the entire hiring process—from initial announcement to final decision—can be completed in less than two months. While some very few prestigious institutions like my current employer, Yonsei University, maintain an annual schedule similar to American universities, they are the exception rather than the rule.
The compressed timeline manifests at every stage of the process. Job advertisements typically run for only two weeks, with submission windows often limited to just one week. The turnaround between stages can be breathtakingly quick. Candidates might receive notice that they’ve passed the first round with just ten days to prepare and submit supplementary materials. Final round notifications can be even more abrupt—I once received an interview invitation with just three days’ notice. “Hi Wonhee, congrats for being selected for the final round interview. Today is Wednesday, show up on Saturday at this time.”
Even the campus visits bear little resemblance to their American counterparts. Gone are the marathon three-day campus visits common in U.S. universities. Even the half-day interviews typical in British and European universities would be considered lengthy in Korea. Here, candidates typically get just one hour for their entire campus interview. I mean, one hour might even be generous.
This remarkable speed is made possible, in part, by another distinctive feature of the Korean academic market: its (small) size (another “s”!).
Size: A Remarkably Compact Market
The size difference between the American and Korean academic job markets is stark, and I can illustrate this with some concrete numbers from my own experience. In the U.S., a typical Research 1 (R1) university position attracted over 200 applications in “Chinese history.” Even a late-posted position at a teaching-intensive institution I applied to drew 80 candidates. A top-five liberal arts college position I encountered had just under 200 applicants. I got these numbers from either rejection letters, campus interviews, and insider information.
The Korean market presents a dramatically different picture. When positions are narrowly defined (for example, Department of History, “Medieval China”), application numbers often drop to single digits—sometimes even fewer than five candidates. Even broadly defined positions attract relatively few applicants. For instance, when I applied to the Academy of Korean Studies in 2020 for a “History of East Asian Civilization (thus Korea, China, Japan and etc). position, there were only 55 applicants. A year later, their “Sociology (field open)” position drew similar numbers. This smaller applicant pool doesn’t necessarily mean less competition—often, it reflects the highly specific nature of positions and the preliminary filtering that occurs through informal networks.
Standardization: The Metric-Driven Evaluation
Perhaps the most fundamental difference lies in how candidates are evaluated. American academic job postings are typically paragraph length documents with detailed descriptions about the department, institution, and role expectations. Korean postings, in contrast, are strikingly brief—usually just a few lines stating the field, required qualifications, and quantitative requirements for publications. This brevity is standard practice in Korean academia, where position expectations are largely assumed to be understood.
A particularly distinctive feature is the quantification of research productivity. Korean universities often express publication requirements in percentage terms—for example, “600% in publications over the last three years.” This system assigns different percentage values to different types of publications: an international journal article as 200% (or more), and a domestic journal article as 100%. Of course, this can vary institution to institution. This standardized approach stands in sharp contrast to the more holistic (is it?), qualitative evaluation typical in American academia.
Understanding these three characteristics—speed, size, and standardization—is crucial for anyone approaching the Korean academic job market. They don’t just shape how positions are advertised and filled; they fundamentally determine how candidates should prepare and position themselves. In the next section, we’ll explore specific strategies for navigating these unique features of the Korean academic market.
Wonhee Cho 