<p>This study examined the performance evaluation indicators for full-time faculty, focusing on education and student guidance practices across nine Regional National Universities in South Korea. Situated within the theoretical frameworks of new public management and audit culture, publicly available data from 2023, including school rules and regulations, were analyzed to construct a comparative framework suited to the Korean academic context. The analysis identified key similarities and differences in evaluation criteria, weighting structures, and regulatory policies. The findings reveal a significant structural bias toward quantitative metrics and institutional convergence, which can be interpreted as a manifestation of institutional isomorphism and the intensification of academic labor. These results lead to overlaps among education, research, administration, and service activities, potentially undermining the qualitative depth of faculty roles. Crucially, this study argues that such standardized, metric-heavy evaluation systems fail to capture the unique regional contributions of faculty, thereby threatening the long-term sustainability and specialized mission of regional higher education. The study underscores the urgent need for institutional reforms that move beyond metric-accountability to incorporate qualitative and region-specific performance indicators to ensure the adaptive resilience of universities in the era of academic capitalism.</p>