Times Higher Education Responds to Nine Cases of Korean University Partnership Fraud — In Three Sentences

March 25, 2026 — Gender Watchdog

On March 24, 2026, the Times Higher Education Data Team replied to our most recent submission — an extensive March 13 email detailing a 27% reciprocity audit of Chung-Ang University, silent database deletions by CAU and Sogang, the death of Tu Anh, the Stanford Ioannidis "addiction" assessment, and a documented pattern of partnership fraud across nine Korean universities.12 (That count has since risen to eleven).

Their response, in its entirety:

"Please note that inclusion in the rankings is based on the proviso that a university is deemed to be in good standing by its relevant local regulatory body for higher education. Complaints about the conduct of universities should be addressed to the relevant regulatory body. Should the status of any university change, THE will act in an appropriate manner."

— THE Data Team, March 24, 20263

A three-sentence email is not a non-response. It is a documented position.

This Was Not THE's First Answer

Before parsing what THE said on March 24, it matters to note what they said before.

On January 13, 2026 — responding to our initial submission of partnership discrepancy data — THE told Gender Watchdog that the documented misrepresentations do not "materially influence" the ranking metrics.4

That claim did not survive scrutiny. Our subsequent analysis of THE's own published 2026 Subject Rankings found that institutions with the highest documented fraud counts also carried anomalously high "International Outlook" scores: Pusan National University scored 75.7, Hanyang University 71.1, Konkuk University 73.1 — the last higher than Seoul National University's score in several engineering fields.4 The correlation between inflated partnership claims and inflated "International Outlook" scores is documented with published THE numerical data.

When we submitted that analysis — alongside the Ioannidis chain, the CAU 27% reciprocity audit, and Tu Anh's documented death — THE's posture changed. The March 24 response does not argue that the fraud doesn't matter. It argues: go to the regulator.

The retreat from a substantive defence to a procedural redirect is itself a finding.

What THE Actually Said: Three Sentences, Parsed

Sentence 1: "inclusion in the rankings is based on the proviso that a university is deemed to be in good standing by its relevant local regulatory body for higher education"

THE has formally stated that its due-diligence framework for Korean universities is not independent verification. It is a pass-through: if a Korean university holds accreditation from its domestic regulatory body, THE treats it as ranking-eligible. That regulatory body is the Ministry of Education (교육부). The accreditation system THE is deferring to is IEQAS — the International Education Quality Assurance System.

IEQAS accreditation does not require reciprocal verification of international partnership claims. This is not an allegation — it is a documented structural gap.5 PNU's own admissions brochure explicitly features "IEQAS Accreditation — The Best University" as a recruitment claim for international students.5 The same accreditation that tells THE a university is "in good standing" does nothing to verify whether the partner universities listed in that institution's international recruitment materials exist as described.

Sentence 2: "Complaints about the conduct of universities should be addressed to the relevant regulatory body."

THE has now officially redirected nine documented cases of partnership fraud to the Korean Ministry of Education.

The Ministry of Education was formally notified by Gender Watchdog on April 10, 2025. As of March 25, 2026 — eleven months and fifteen days later — no public corrective action has been taken.6

THE told us to go to the regulator. We notified the regulator more than nine months before our first documented contact with THE. Both have done nothing.

Sentence 3: "Should the status of any university change, THE will act in an appropriate manner."

Standard legal boilerplate. "Appropriate" is defined entirely at THE's discretion. This sentence creates no obligation and specifies no timeline, threshold, or process. Operationally: nothing.

The Prestige Loop, Now Confirmed in Writing

THE's response does something more useful than silence would have: it documents the exact mechanism by which inflated rankings are sustained.

STEP 1: THE ranks Korean universities using "International Outlook" metrics
STEP 2: International partnership claims feed "International Outlook" scores
STEP 3: THE's basis for trusting those claims = MOE's IEQAS accreditation
STEP 4: IEQAS accreditation does not require verification of partnership claims
STEP 5: Fabricated partnerships inflate "International Outlook" scores
STEP 6: Inflated scores elevate THE ranking position
STEP 7: THE ranking position is used to recruit international students
STEP 8: International students enroll under inflated credentials
→ THE has now confirmed Steps 3 and 4 in its own words

This is not a theory. Steps 1–2 are THE's published methodology. Steps 3–4 are confirmed by THE's March 24 response combined with the documented IEQAS structural gap.5 Steps 5–8 follow by logical necessity — which is precisely why the correlation in Step 5 appears in the actual published score data.4

The prestige loop does not require anyone at THE, MOE, or the universities themselves to have made a single dishonest statement. It is a structural failure in which each actor defers to the next, and no actor is ever responsible for verifying the underlying claim.

THE has now handed us the documentary evidence that the loop exists.

What THE Was Responding To

Readers should understand the scope of what THE received before replying in three sentences.

Chung-Ang University: Of 49 claimed partner universities with publicly accessible directories, only 13 confirmed a partnership — a 27% reciprocity rate. The prestige gap between verified and unverified claims averages −40 QS ranks. Nine confirmed perpetrators of sexual violence across seven departments over 21 years. Zero received the harshest available sanction.7

Dongguk University: On January 19, 2026, Dongguk silently deleted UBC from its partners page following OIPC intervention in a Freedom of Information request. In the same update, they reverted "Toronto Metropolitan University" back to its dead name "Ryerson University" — revealing they were copying from databases four or more years out of date, not from active institutional relationships. Dongguk still lists the University of Manitoba despite Manitoba's public database confirming only a non-binding MOU, not a student exchange agreement.8 Administrative errors are fixed with announcements. Fraud is fixed with silence and deletion.

CAU + Sogang: Both universities pulled their partner databases offline simultaneously on February 11, 2026 — the same day. Neither disputed the methodology. Sogang's remained offline for weeks. CAU's was restored after 65 hours with no corrections.

Tu Anh: On October 28, 2025, Tu Anh — a 25-year-old graduate of Keimyung University — fell to her death fleeing an immigration raid at a car parts factory in Daegu. Keimyung falsely lists Fudan, BFSU, Sun Yat-sen, and East China Normal as partners — none confirmed. Korea Herald data: only 10% of foreign bachelor's degree holders in Korea obtain an E-7 professional visa. Tu Anh is not a hypothetical. She is the documented end-state of the prestige loop.9

Pusan National University: A major Korean national university (국립대학교), directly funded and accredited by the Ministry of Education. We publicly exposed PNU's false Harvard University claim on January 7, 2026. In the same 24-hour window that THE issued its March 24 response telling us to defer to the regulator, PNU deleted its entire international partner page.10 THE defers to MOE. MOE funds PNU directly.

Stanford Professor Ioannidis: Assessed Korean university ranking manipulation as an "addiction" in January 2026 email correspondence. That chain was forwarded to THE.11

THE received this record. Three sentences.

Why THE's Response Is More Useful Than Silence

Silence gives advocates nothing to quote. A documented position is an evidentiary asset.

To embassies and accreditation bodies: THE has confirmed in writing that it does not independently verify the partnership claims driving "International Outlook" scores. THE has confirmed in writing that it defers all due diligence on Korean institutions to MOE. MOE has been formally notified since April 10, 2025 and taken no action. THE's rankings of these institutions have not changed. The circular logic is now documented in THE's own words — not our characterisation.

To QS: Times Higher Education and QS are the two dominant global university ranking systems. Both are cited by Korean universities in international student recruitment. THE's explicit deflection to MOE is now on the public record. QS has not been given the same opportunity to take that posture publicly. The question — will QS also defer all due diligence on Korean partnership claims to MOE? — now has to be answered.

To international employers and graduate recruiters: The world's leading university ranking body has confirmed it does not independently verify the partnership claims that drive "International Outlook" scores. A ranking issued under a framework the ranking body itself acknowledges depends entirely on MOE accreditation — and MOE accreditation that does not verify partnerships — is not a measure of verified international standing. It is a measure of administrative compliance with a system that does not check.

The Harvard Precision Test

There is a specific case against which THE's deference to MOE is hardest to defend.

PNU is a national university. The Ministry of Education funds it, accredits it, and oversees it directly. THE has told Gender Watchdog to take our complaint to MOE. MOE is the direct institutional supervisor of the university that listed Harvard as a partner while Harvard's own Office of International Education does not list PNU.10

We publicly documented PNU's false Harvard claim on January 7, 2026. THE's response was sent on March 24, telling us to rely on the regulator. Practically coinciding in the exact same 24-hour window, PNU's entire international partners page was deleted from the internet. THE referred us to MOE. MOE has known about the underlying structural fraud since April 2025.

Harvard can confirm or deny a PNU partnership in a single email. THE has not sent that email. MOE has not sent that email. THE says MOE is responsible. MOE says nothing.

A One-Sentence Test

The mechanism THE acknowledges can be tested immediately with a single action:

THE should ask MOE to confirm, in writing, that IEQAS-accredited institutions' international partnership claims have been reciprocally verified with the named foreign institutions. MOE should publish that confirmation — or explain why it cannot.

If THE acts: the structural gap in the prestige loop gets closed.

If THE does not act: the non-action joins the documented record alongside the January 13, 2026 response, the March 24, 2026 response, and the April 10, 2025 MOE notification.

When a private university fabricates partnerships, it misleads students. When a national university does the same thing — and the ranking body defers to the regulator, and the regulator says nothing — the fraud becomes infrastructure.

Gender Watchdog is supported by End Rape On Campus (EROC).

Follow the evidence: https://x.com/Gender_Watchdog

Footnotes

  1. Gender Watchdog, email to THE and education bodies (March 13, 2026) — subject line: "UPDATE: Nine Korean Universities, Zero Rebuttals — CAU at 27%, Top 1,500 QS Partners Now Being Notified." Nine Korean universities with documented partnership discrepancies; Tu Anh's death; CAU 27% reciprocity rate; Ioannidis chain; notification campaign to top 1,500 QS institutions. ↩

  2. Gender Watchdog, "Nine Korean Universities, Zero Rebuttals: The Partnership Fraud Map Keeps Expanding" (March 11, 2026). Nine institutions documented; zero rebuttals; consistent silent-removal pattern: https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/nine-universities-zero-rebuttals-korea-partnership-fraud/ ↩

  3. Times Higher Education, Response from THE Data Team to Gender Watchdog (March 24, 2026). Archived .eml: https://github.com/Gender-Watchdog/evidence_repository/blob/master/email-eml/THE-ranking-responses/decoded_Re_%20UPDATE_%20Nine%20Korean%20Universities%2C%20Zero%20Rebuttals%20%E2%80%94%20CAU%20at%2027%25%2C%20Top%201%2C500%20QS%20Partners%20Now%20Being%20Notified%202026-03-24T10_05_04-07_00.eml ↩

  4. Gender Watchdog, "The Metric Bubble: Did 'Semantic Fraud' Inflate Korea's 2026 Subject Rankings?" (January 23, 2026). THE 2026 International Outlook scores: PNU 75.7, Hanyang 71.1, Konkuk 73.1. THE Data Team January 13, 2026 correspondence: discrepancies do not "materially influence" metrics. Korea absent from THE Awards Asia 2026 "International Strategy of the Year" shortlist: https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/metric-bubble-semantic-fraud/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Gender Watchdog, "The Alleged Predatory Appointment and Government Cover-Up: How IEQAS Certification Enables Systematic Corporate-Academic Exploitation at Dongguk University." Documents the structural gap in IEQAS accreditation — IEQAS does not require reciprocal verification of international partnership claims: https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/the-alleged-predatory-appointment-and-government-cover-up-how-ieqas-certification-enables-systematic-corporate-academic-exploitation-at-dongguk-university PNU admissions brochure explicitly claiming "IEQAS Accreditation – The Best University," archived March 18, 2025: https://web.archive.org/web/20250318170952/https://his.pusan.ac.kr/sites/international/download/brochure/005-Admissons%20For%20International%20Student(English).pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Korean Ministry of Education (교육부) — formally notified by Gender Watchdog, April 10, 2025. As of March 25, 2026: no public corrective action in eleven months and fifteen days. ↩

  7. Gender Watchdog, "Chung-Ang University: Partnership Fraud, Sexual Violence, and the Doosan Connection" (2026). CAU reciprocity audit: 27% (13 confirmed of 49 checked); prestige gap −40 QS ranks; nine confirmed perpetrators, zero highest sanctions: https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/chung-ang-university-partnership-fraud-sexual-violence-doosan/ ↩

  8. Gender Watchdog, "The 'Panic Scrub': Dongguk University Deletes UBC Partners, Reverts to 'Dead Names' in Failed Cover-Up" (January 19, 2026). Visualping Forensic Evidence; Ryerson dead-name blunder; Manitoba MOU vs. partnership distinction. Archive snapshot: https://archive.md/jZsL9 Blog: https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/panic-scrub-dongguk-deletes-ubc-reverts-to-dead-names/ ↩

  9. Gender Watchdog, "Deadly Fraud: Did Ranking Inflation Kill Tu Anh?" Tu Anh, 25, graduate of Keimyung University, fell to her death fleeing an immigration raid in Daegu, October 28, 2025: https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/deadly-fraud-did-ranking-inflation-kill-tu-anh/ ↩

  10. Gender Watchdog, "Pusan National University Deletes Its Partner Page — After We Documented a Fake Harvard Partnership" (March 25, 2026). PNU partners page deleted; Harvard College OIE Korea search; IEQAS accreditation as recruitment claim: https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/pusan-national-university-deletes-harvard-partner-page/ ↩ ↩2

  11. Stanford Professor John Ioannidis email chain (January 17, 2026) — assessed Korean university ranking manipulation as an "addiction." Verified .eml: https://github.com/Gender-Watchdog/genderwatchdog_metookorea2025/blob/master/email_emls/decoded/ionnadis-ranking-orgs-chain/decoded_RE_%20China%20%E2%80%98marked%20down%E2%80%99%20in%20retraction-adjusted%20rankings%20_%20The%20Input%20Side%20of%20Ranking%20Fraud%20(Case%20Study)%202026-01-17T02_29_40%2B09_00.eml ↩