The Korean section of the 2026 College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) largely adhered to the 2015 revised national curriculum, reflecting core competencies and textbook concepts with consistency. The Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE) appears to have maintained the overall direction of last year’s CSAT and the September mock exam, while adjusting difficulty distribution to secure appropriate discrimination.
One of the most notable characteristics of this year’s test is that questions requiring excessive inference were intentionally excluded, ensuring that answers could be determined solely through information explicitly stated in the passages. As a result, students with solid reading comprehension skills developed through regular school instruction were sufficiently equipped to handle the exam. So-called “killer questions” were absent.
Another defining feature was the high degree of perceived EBS linkage, which remained above the mandated 50 percent threshold. All four reading passages incorporated core information from EBS CSAT preparation materials, and three of the eight literature selections were directly sourced from EBS textbooks. The optional subjects—Speech & Composition and Language & Media—also drew upon key concepts and question ideas from EBS materials, further reducing students’ preparation burden.
Core Subjects and Electives Align Closely With the National Curriculum
The Korean section once again consisted of common subjects (Reading and Literature) and elective subjects (Speech & Composition, Language & Media). Across both areas, the exam was designed around curriculum achievement standards, textbook content, and EBS linkage principles. The overarching philosophy—that the CSAT should be solvable through school education—was clearly upheld.
In the reading section, discrimination was achieved by requiring students to synthesize relationships between multiple pieces of information before evaluating the answer choices. However, the passages themselves were structured so that all necessary information was explicitly identifiable, meaning well-trained comprehension skills were sufficient for successful problem-solving.
Analysis of Key Questions
● Reading: Legal and scientific application questions raised difficulty
Among the reading questions, Question 8, which required applying legal principles on collateral and surety contracts to the scenario presented in the <Example>, was likely challenging for many students. Still, because the passage clearly defined each legal requirement, distinguishing between conditions that were met or unmet enabled students to determine the correct choice.
Question 12, covering concepts related to thermal expansion, also served as a high-discrimination item. It asked students to analyze relationships among linear expansion coefficients, curvature, maximum displacement, and radius of curvature. Yet the passage thoroughly explained all essential concepts, allowing students to locate the necessary rationale within the text.
● Literature: Interpretation based on provided criteria increased difficulty
In literature, Question 34 was considered one of the more demanding items. Students had to use the evaluative criteria provided in the <Example> to interpret three different works, identifying how poetic experiences and external objects were represented. The difficulty would have varied depending on how rigorously a student had practiced literature analysis in class.
● Speech & Composition: Tracking cross-textual reflection required precision
In the Speech & Composition elective, Question 40 was relatively complex. Students had to identify how opinions expressed by “students” in discourse (B), referencing the “expert” in discourse (A), were reflected in the critique presented in discourse (C). This required tracking multiple information flows in sequence. Even so, such discourse-based writing tasks are regularly practiced in class, allowing well-prepared students to solve the question.
● Language & Media: Comparing 15th-century and modern Korean
In the Language & Media elective, Question 36 served as a key discriminating question. To answer it, students needed to integrate the passage’s explanation of the relationship between letters and sounds, the <Example>’s description of linguistic features of 15th-century Korean, and the linguistic data provided in the <Data> section. Students with a strong grammatical foundation from school would have been able to reach the correct answer.
EBS Linkage Rate: 53.3% and Broadly Felt
The overall EBS linkage rate was 53.3%, covering 24 questions, maintaining the policy of linking at least half of all items. More importantly, linkage occurred in diverse forms—materials, concepts, textual structures, and question formats—suggesting that students’ perceived linkage would have been even higher than the numerical percentage.
Linked questions included:
-
Common subjects (Reading & Literature): 1–3, 5–6, 8, 10–12, 14, 16–17, 18–21, 22–23, 25, 31–32, 34
-
Speech & Composition: 40, 42
-
Language & Media: 36, 39
Overall Assessment
- The exam upheld recent trends while distributing difficulty levels to ensure discrimination.
- High-discrimination reading questions focused on synthesizing relationships between pieces of information.
- All four reading passages and 3 of the 8 literature works were sourced from EBS CSAT preparation materials.
- The EBS linkage rate exceeded 50%, and actual perceived linkage was likely even higher.
- Ultimately, the exam reaffirmed that consistent reading practice within school education and thorough study of EBS materials (CSAT Special Lectures, CSAT Completion) remain the most effective preparation strategies.
