80% of Korean students failed at SIAI not due to lack of intelligence but due to deep-rooted cultural conditioning that discourages independent thought and risk-taking
The Confucian, exam-based education system promotes rote memorization over problem-solving, making students struggle in an environment that requires deep, abstract thinking
Korea’s broader economic and corporate structure reinforces a ‘safe thinking’ mindset, making it unlikely that Western-style innovation will thrive here without significant systemic change

Before going into details, please allow me to emphasize that I am well aware that this article is an unfiltered critique, but this also comes from our team's painful 4 years experience in Korea while running a pilot program for MBA AI/BigData and MSc Data Science (PreMSc in AI/Data Science) under our research lead, Keith Lee, a Korean national, whose academic background lies in Mathematical Finance along with Investment banking and Data Science industry experience. Together with below two earlier articles, our analysis so far helps us to conclude that most East Asian countries, except China, are not our target market. For China, we have another mention at the end of this article.

• 3 types of 'Math Genius', 2 of which will be replaced by AI | Global Institute of Artificial Intelligence
• Why SIAI failed 80% of Asian students: A Cognitive, Not Mathematical, Problem | Global Institute of Artificial Intelligence

SIAI was never designed to be an easy program. It is built around problem-first learning, where students must struggle through difficult challenges before being given answers. The idea is that true expertise comes not from memorization but from direct engagement with problems. However, Korean students have failed at a disproportionately high rate, often not because of a lack of intelligence but because they simply could not adapt to this mode of learning.

The failure of Korean students at SIAI is not an isolated incident. It mirrors Korea’s broader struggles in fostering high-risk, innovation-driven industries like AI startups. The same traits that lead to failure at SIAI—risk aversion, hierarchical thinking, and an over-reliance on structured answers—are the same factors that limit Korea’s ability to compete in global high-tech industries.

This raises an important question: If intelligence is not the issue, why do Korean students fail at SIAI at such high rates? The answer lies in deeply ingrained cultural conditioning, reinforced by Korea’s education system and work culture.

The Education System Teaches Memorization, Not Thinking

Korea’s education system is one of the most intense in the world, yet it produces students who struggle with independent problem-solving. Why?

• The National Exam Mentality – Success in Korea is defined by performance on standardized exams like the CSAT (Suneung). These tests reward students who can memorize massive amounts of information and reproduce it under time pressure.
• Lack of Open-Ended Problem-Solving – Korean students are rarely taught how to deal with ill-defined problems where multiple solutions exist. They are conditioned to expect one correct answer.
• Fear of Making Mistakes – The Korean school system does not encourage risk-taking. Making a mistake is seen as a failure, not a learning opportunity. As a result, Korean students are reluctant to explore ideas that might not lead to immediate success.

At SIAI, students are deliberately given incomplete information and forced to struggle through uncertainty—something the Korean education system has trained them to avoid at all costs. The result?

Mental shutdown, frustration, and high dropout rates.

Students Have a Passive Learning Mentality

A key observation from SIAI’s Korean students is their tendency to:
✅ Wait for direct explanations instead of exploring solutions themselves
✅ Copy existing solutions rather than develop their own
✅ Give up when confronted with open-ended questions

This passive learning mentality is not their fault—it’s a survival strategy that works in Korea’s academic and corporate environments.

• In schools, students are rewarded for following the teacher’s guidance exactly, rather than questioning the material.
• In companies, employees are expected to obey superiors rather than challenge ideas or propose new solutions.
• In social interactions, independent thinking can be seen as arrogance or defiance rather than intelligence.

At SIAI, these habits become a liability. When students are told to figure out a problem before receiving a solution, many experience anxiety and paralysis, as this goes against everything they have been trained to do.

Culture of Risk Aversion Prevents Deep Thinking

Deep, abstract thinking requires a willingness to take intellectual risks—to explore different possibilities, challenge assumptions, and tolerate uncertainty. However, Korea’s society is structured around minimizing risk, not embracing it.

• Corporate & Social Hierarchy – Questioning authority or challenging ideas is discouraged. Instead of debating ideas critically, Koreans are expected to align with the dominant view.
• High-Stakes Consequences for Failure – In Korea, failing an exam or business venture can have lifelong social and economic consequences, making risk-taking too dangerous for most people.
• Short-Term Thinking – Success is measured by immediate results, whether it’s exam scores, company profits, or startup funding. Long-term strategic thinking and foundational research are undervalued.

This cultural mindset clashes directly with the Western-style, research-driven, exploratory approach that SIAI promotes. Students who have spent their whole lives avoiding intellectual risk struggle to suddenly embrace it.

Hierarchical Thinking Limits Creativity & Initiative

Korea’s Confucian-influenced hierarchy impacts how students approach learning and problem-solving:

• Respect for authority over logic – Many students hesitate to challenge assumptions, even when they recognize flaws in a solution.
• Preference for pre-existing formulas – Instead of inventing new methods, students tend to rely on what has already been written or accepted.
• Fear of standing out – Independent thinkers often get labeled as "weird" or "difficult," discouraging students from expressing unique perspectives.

At SIAI, students must develop their own methodologies to solve complex problems. Korean students, conditioned to seek pre-approved frameworks, often struggle with this level of intellectual freedom.

Even if a Korean student somehow overcomes these limitations, their society does not reward them for it.

• Korean corporations hire based on university ranking, not problem-solving skills.
• AI startups struggle because investors prefer “safe” business models over high-risk innovation.
• Government-funded AI projects focus on applications, not fundamental research.

As a result, even Koreans who succeed at Western-style deep thinking often find themselves with no place in Korea’s economy. This reinforces the idea that memorization and safe thinking are the only viable survival strategies.

Korea Is Not Built for Western-Style Innovation

Korea’s failure at producing high-level AI researchers and independent thinkers is not due to a lack of intelligence but rather a fundamental mismatch between its cultural/economic system and the traits required for deep, abstract thinking.

• SIAI’s teaching model aligns with Western academic traditions of independent problem-solving, but Korea’s students are conditioned to avoid risk, challenge, and deep exploration.
• Korean society does not reward the type of intelligence that SIAI promotes. Even students who do well at SIAI may find that Korea has no place for them.
• As a result, Korea is not just failing to produce AI experts—it is failing to cultivate the kind of innovative minds that could drive long-term global competitiveness.

In the end, SIAI was never going to succeed in Korea, because Korea is not built for this kind of education. Raising independent, abstract thinkers here requires enormous effort, but the country itself does not value or support such minds.

For Korea to truly change, it would need to:

1. Replace its rote-learning, exam-based education system with research-based learning.
2. Encourage intellectual risk-taking and debate at all levels of society.
3. Redefine success beyond standardized test scores and corporate hierarchy.

But given the country’s historical patterns, such change is unlikely to happen anytime soon. That is why SIAI has shifted focus to the global market, where its philosophy is more likely to be understood and valued.

For Koreans who wish to truly think independently and engage in deep research, the best path may not be to change Korea—but to leave it altogether.

Why I think Korea, once a tech leader, will soon be China's tech colony

As mentioned at the beginning, I am fully aware that it’s an unfiltered critique, but it reflects exactly what I’ve observed over the years together with Keith Lee. He has seen irsthand how these structural barriers prevent not just our students at SIAI, but the entire country, from evolving into a true deep-tech and innovation powerhouse.

This is not about attacking Korea just for the sake of criticism—it’s about identifying why certain types of high-level intellectual pursuits simply don’t thrive there. We tried to break the cycle with SIAI, but the overwhelming response confirmed that Korea isn’t ready, and perhaps never will be. The country is optimized for exam-driven intelligence, corporate hierarchy, and predictable business models—not for nurturing independent, abstract thinkers.

We ’re not alone in this realization. Many of Korea’s most brilliant minds either left the country or had to work under constraints that killed their full potential. That’s why even Korea’s so-called "AI industry" is largely just AWS and OpenAI API integrations rather than real algorithmic breakthroughs.

However, we have witnessed the similar East Asian background but distinctly different stories from China. (Before going any further, please allow me to emphasize that we are not pro-China. We just lay facts and analyses that we have found on the table.)

Despite a similar cultural background, China is making massive strides in AI, semiconductors, and electric vehicles, while Korea seems stuck in safe, incremental improvements. We earlier thought Confucian-structured social system is one of the fundamental cultural influences for Korea's debacle in tech innovation, but we had to change our earlier theory.

Here’s why China is breaking ahead:

1.Massive Long-Term State Investment in Deep Tech

• The Chinese government is willing to pour billions into AI, quantum computing, and electric vehicles, even with no immediate return.
• Korea, on the other hand, only funds projects that have predictable, short-term success—which is why most Korean AI companies just build applications using OpenAI’s APIs rather than actual models.

2.Tolerating Experimentation & Failure

• Chinese tech firms (like Tencent, Baidu, and Huawei) allow moonshot projects to fail because they have strong state backing and long investment cycles.
• Korea’s corporate culture punishes failure harshly, which forces companies to play it safe rather than push technological boundaries.

3.Government-Backed Industrial Policy vs. Market-Driven Hesitation

• China strategically subsidizes key industries (like batteries, EVs, and AI models) to ensure global dominance.
• Korea’s companies, despite having world-class battery tech, have to compete without meaningful government protection.

4.Better Retention of Top Talent

• Many of China’s best AI and deep tech researchers return home from the U.S., thanks to both government incentives and nationalism - Chinese universities' research papers are phenomenal these days.
• Korean researchers, on the other hand, often prefer to stay abroad because they know Korea’s rigid corporate culture won’t let them do meaningful work.

Keith is the best example for this point #4. After years of hopeless trial, he has completely turned his back to his own country and leading our research team here at GIAI. We are glad to have his full attention to GIAI's research and SIAI's Euro operation, but what a loss to his home country.

Among many tech sectors, we admit that there still is Korea's marginal tech lead in EV batteries to China. None of us are EV battery experts, but tracking what they publish in academic (and not-so-academic) journals, we are almost certain that Korea’s battery dominance (LG Energy Solution, Samsung SDI, SK On) is also under threat from China, and it is highly likely that China could soon overtake both Korea and Tesla in EV battery tech.

China’s advantages:
✅ Cheaper production due to massive economies of scale
✅ Aggressive government subsidies that lower manufacturing costs
✅ Faster innovation cycles due to high tolerance for risk

If Korea’s battery makers don’t shift to long-term, high-risk research, they will lose their lead within 5-10 years. And knowing Korea’s business culture, they will likely just play defense rather than take bold steps forward, which will only delay, not prevent, China’s takeover.

My final thought: Korea Is Losing, But It’s a Choice

The key difference between Korea and China is that China is willing to take long-term risks, while Korea isn’t. China sacrifices short-term efficiency for long-term dominance, whereas Korea only funds safe bets with immediate ROI. If Korea wants to stay competitive, it must change how it approaches innovation:

• Fund actual AI research, not just API-based applications.
• Encourage experimental, high-risk tech startups instead of just supporting chaebol-driven projects.
• Give top researchers a reason to stay in Korea instead of moving abroad.

But given Korea’s deeply ingrained corporate and academic structure, I don’t think this change will happen. Instead, Korea will likely continue doing incremental improvements while China overtakes in every major deep-tech sector.

For other East Asian countries, we see that Japan, Mongolia, Vietnam, and other Southern Eastern Asian countries are still in infant stage in AI/Data Science. SIAI's hard training may not have chances to blossom in there, as we already have seen in Korea, for a different reason. If we go to Asia, it will mainly be South Asia and Middle East.