In the draft circular amending admission regulations, the Ministry of Education and Training proposes that higher education institutions will be permitted to utilize a maximum of five admission methods; each specific major and training program will employ three admission methods applying from 2027 and just one method applying from 2028.
This specific information is currently garnering significant public attention, accompanied by a myriad of divergent opinions.
While some voices agree with the Ministry’s move to restrict admission screening methods, numerous opposing opinions argue it’ll inherently reduce candidates’ chances while simultaneously crippling the autonomy of educational facilities. For many frustrated parents, constant policy shifts create a palpable sense of anxiety; they complain that relentless changes will simply leave candidates bewildered.
On the evening of September 17, Director Nguyen Tien Thao of the Higher Education Department (under the Ministry of Education and Training) formally responded to this pressing matter.
Accordingly, the Ministry’s aforementioned proposed modifications aim to perfectly fine-tune the main scheme of reforming examinations, testing, and admissions toward a more substantive, streamlined, and cost-effective approach.
“We’re simplifying procedures and elevating quality through synchronizing admission screening methods. The proposed adjustments woven into the draft aren’t designed to shrink candidates’ opportunities or erode the autonomy of training institutions. The ultimate goal is to bring candidates applying for the same major or program under a unified evaluation standard; it trims procedures, slashes costs, boosts verifiability, and steadfastly guarantees fairness.”
Director Nguyen Tien Thao of the Higher Education Department
He also shared that during the 2022-2026 period, sweeping admission adjustments like abolishing early admissions, implementing equivalent conversions, capping the number of options, stipulating input thresholds, and regulating maximum bonus points have reportedly generated positive transformations.
Notably, for exams possessing an official conversion table, the score discrepancy compared to the high school graduation exam channel has successfully plummeted from 2.6 to 1.2 points. However, this equivalence hasn’t been entirely uniform; alarming statistics reveal that over 40 percent of total training programs utilizing two or more methods still exhibit score margins of 3 points or higher.
It’s anticipated that three methods will be applied in 2027, subsequently dropping to just one registered admission method for each specific major and training program starting in 2028; direct admissions alongside nominated admissions aren’t factored into this strict limit.
At the institutional level, the draft still formally stipulates a maximum of five utilizable methods. “This is fundamentally a roadmap allowing each major to select its most optimal evaluation approach; it isn’t a rigid policy forcing every university or every major nationwide to rely on a single, solitary result,” Director Nguyen Tien Thao firmly emphasized.
Slashing methods is meant to broaden equal opportunities, not to diminish candidates’ accessibility. Each method must guarantee that all eligible candidates can comfortably participate, explicitly publicize its criteria, and utilize a universal grading scale.
Training institutions bear the absolute responsibility of selecting methods that perfectly align with their program’s input requirements. Independent exam results, high school transcripts, or specialized certificates can still be actively utilized, provided they’re transparently structured within the publicized method.
Furthermore, the draft robustly proposes prohibiting the use of bonus points arbitrarily prescribed by training institutions for supplementary achievements, certificates, or additional criteria.
The Director of the Higher Education Department argued that, in reality, bonus points can inherently breed inequality. For the exact same certificate type, the conversion rates, bonus levels, or applied subject combinations vary drastically across different universities.
Concurrently, a single competency could be unfairly recognized twice, both as a constituent admission score or as an extra bonus, thereby severely distorting candidates’ rankings.
Thus, the guiding principle dictates that a specific competency is exclusively recognized once, following the exact same rules for all candidates. Candidates possessing foreign language proficiency certificates can still have them converted into the foreign language subject within their admission combination; in this scenario, the certificate is pragmatically utilized as direct evidence of relevant competency, rather than morphing into an off-the-charts bonus point allowance.
Beyond the aforementioned adjustments, the Ministry also intends to explicitly pinpoint admission sources or input thresholds, mandate standardized deviations among different subject combinations, and stop requiring candidates to resubmit paperwork or certificates already uploaded to its database.
“The draft is currently in the public consultation phase; the Ministry will persistently evaluate its impacts, genuinely listening to candidates, training institutions, or seasoned experts before officially promulgating it,” Director Nguyen Tien Thao stressed.
