This study aims to suggest ways of improving the quality of confirmation hearings for the Secretary of Education in South Korea by: 1) comparing the confirmation process by the presidents in South Korea and the United States; and 2) contrasting procedures and contents of hearings for Education Secretary nominee in South Korea and the United States. As the process of selecting a nominee to be the Secretary of Education started, the Blue House Office of Secretary conducted an investigation on the nominee's personal details, family matters, and etc within a week. The investigation, with very limited time frame, led the selection process to be a mere verification on the nominee's morality. On the other hand, the White House Office of Presidential Personnel carried out a thorough investigation on the nominee collectively with the White House Council, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Internal Revenue Service, taking from two to three months. In terms of contents of the hearings, the members of the ruling party mainly asked the nominee for clarification, and his ideas on certain policies, whereas the opposition party focused mostly on verifying his morality. In addition, the committee members led the hearing whilst strongly expressing their own political ideologies. However, in the case of the hearings in the United States, the committee members did not ask any questions to verify the nominee's morality but questions that could help them to get an understanding of the nominee's experience, professionalism, and perspective on nation- wide issues regarding education and federal education policy. As for the procedural characteristics of South Korean hearings, the Committee on Education conducted the hearing with a week of advanced preparation. However, submission of required reports by the nominee, performing confirmation hearings, and reports on the hearing were not mandatory in order to appoint the nominee as the Secretary of Education. On the contrary, in the United States, the members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension spent about a month preparing for the confirmation hearing. For the nominee to be appointed, submission of reports and the committee's approval on the President's nomination were required. Based on the results, this research suggests that it is important to develop a policy that can strengthen the substantiality of the nomination process, to establish a professional agency for personnel investigation, to make a mandatory submission of personal reports before hearings, to extend the time frame for hearing preparation, to secure enough time slot for nominees to respond, and to increase the member's autonomy.