Search Page

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission’s investigation reveals that 10 national universities in South Korea allegedly misappropriated KRW9.4 billion of students’ tuition fees. The funds were intended to cover student guidance programmes and safety activities carried out by professors and staff during lunch hours, after work or on weekends. Employees at one of the national universities overstated the number of such activities by changing locations and clothes earning KRW1.2 billion.

The position of Director of the International Human Rights Programme at the University of Toronto was offered to an "academically unworthy" individual after US$8 million was donated to the university's medical schools. A US banking company, which reportedly made large donations through its foundation to at least 60 universities, demanded to teach a course from a particular political perspective. As a result, colleges and universities in North America are developing written policies to prevent undue influence from donors.

An audit conducted at Yonsei University In Seoul revealed 86 cases of irregularities including unfair admissions, evaluations, and recruitment issues, as well as allegations of misappropriation of university funds by professors who used the university ‘corporate cards’ to pay for nightclub entertainment and golf. Twenty-six staff and faculty members are subject to disciplinary action, and eight cases have been filed for violations of regulations including allegations of misconduct or embezzlement and violations of private school laws.

The head of South Australia's Independent Commissioner against Corruption launched an investigation into allegations of misconduct and malpractice on the part of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide after he resigned for health reasons. The university had previously projected revenues of more than A$1 billion (US$705 million) for this year, but these have been replaced by projected losses of A$100 million.

Many institutions in Australia provide training programmes for their Ph.D. students but these programmes vary in quality, content and reach. The temptation to judge a researcher’s performance for grant funding by the number of published research papers and the focus on the quantity over quality is very strong. They are not just driving bad behaviour for researchers but are also creating a market for criminals to enter scholarly publishing.