Vietnam's 2025 University Admissions Changes Put Fairness to the Test

A new exam system brings a difficult admissions test

More than 223,000 candidates took part in the 2025 competency assessment testing organised by major universities such as Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCM), with the second round producing an average score more than 100 points above the first. That unprecedented gap has become a central concern in Vietnam's university admissions debate: how can students compete fairly when the routes into higher education produce results that are difficult to compare?

As of June 16, 2025, universities and applicants are navigating the first admissions cycle for students graduating under the 2018 General Education Program. Changes reach across the national high school graduation examination, university selection methods, online applications and the way different kinds of achievement are converted into admissions scores.

The reforms seek to modernise admissions, broaden students' opportunities and give universities greater freedom to select candidates. Universities can draw on national examination results, school records, competency and thinking assessments, international certificates and direct admission for outstanding achievements. Each route offers a different way for applicants to demonstrate their abilities.

Fairness depends on how those routes work together. Students taking different tests or applying through different methods need to understand how their results will be compared. Universities must also make sure that wider choice does not leave applicants facing unclear formulas, unsuitable subject combinations or changes announced after years of preparation.

The main developments and their timing are:

• 2018: The General Education Program established the curriculum under which the 2025 graduating cohort has studied.
• 2025: The first cohort graduating under that programme enters a revised examination and university admissions system.
• Weeks before the 2025 national examination: The University of Social Sciences and Humanities under Vietnam National University, Hanoi removed the C00 subject combination from admissions for 17 majors.
• June 16, 2025: Score differences, conversion rules and changes to subject combinations are central concerns in the admissions cycle.

Four exam subjects and several routes into university

Students will take four subjects in the national high school graduation examination: Mathematics and Literature are compulsory, while the other two are electives. In previous years, students often took more subjects. The reduced examination package accompanies a broader range of university selection methods.

Universities increasingly use high school examination results alongside academic transcripts, competency assessments, thinking assessments, international certificates and direct admission for exceptional achievements. Students therefore have more ways to compete for places, but they also face more decisions about preparation and applications.

All admissions methods must be converted to a common scoring scale, typically based on the high school graduation examination. The purpose is to make results from different routes comparable when universities select students. Doing so requires more than simply placing different numbers beside one another: each method evaluates applicants in a different way.

Applications are conducted online, with strict deadlines and transparency requirements covering selection criteria and score conversions. Universities are expected to explain how they will assess applicants, while students must follow the application process closely enough to avoid missing a required step.

Why a gap of more than 100 points matters

VNU-HCM's competency assessment results illustrate the difficulty of comparing candidates even within the same testing system. Across the two rounds in 2025, participation exceeded 223,000 candidates, and the second round's average score was more than 100 points higher than the first.

Experts have questioned whether better preparation and the presence of candidates taking the test again can fully explain such a large difference. Their concern is that differences in test difficulty or in the process used to make results comparable between rounds may also be involved.

For a student who took only the first round, the practical issue is direct: a university using results from both rounds interchangeably could place that student at a disadvantage if the scores have not been properly standardised. Standardisation means making results comparable so that a candidate's position does not depend unfairly on which round they attended.

The size of the gap has made equal opportunity a pressing issue. Universities need a defensible basis for comparing results before those scores determine access to a limited number of places.

Can different measures of ability share one scale?

Universities must also compare results across admissions methods that serve different purposes. A school transcript records academic performance, while competency and thinking assessments evaluate other aspects of a candidate's ability. International certificates add another form of evidence to the selection process.

Conversion methods include percentile ranking, z-scores and linear regression. In simple terms, these approaches use a candidate's position among other candidates, their distance from an average, or a statistical relationship between results to help compare scores. Each approach has limitations.

Percentile conversion, for example, assumes the underlying tests are equivalent in purpose and difficulty, which is rarely the case. A formula can provide a common number, but the fairness of that number depends on how well the comparison fits the examinations and candidates involved.

Dr. Nguyen Quoc Chinh, Director of the Center for Educational Testing and Quality Assessment at VNU-HCM, cautioned against forcing different selection methods into a single measure:

It is fundamentally incorrect to force all admissions methods onto a single evaluation scale, as each method measures different competencies and serves different purposes.

Without careful calibration, conversion can introduce bias. Candidates from particular backgrounds, or those able to access particular preparation resources and admissions routes, may gain an advantage from the way a university translates their results.

University autonomy meets common admissions rules

The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has stressed both university autonomy and the need for standardised, transparent admissions. Universities have room to choose how they recruit, but the new regulations require them to publish detailed conversion formulas, statistical data and selection criteria well in advance.

Some experts consider the guidance too vague, leaving universities room to apply it inconsistently. If institutions interpret the requirements differently, students may face another layer of complexity when comparing programmes and deciding where to apply.

Dr. Hoang Ngoc Vinh, former Director of the Department of Professional Education at MOET, described the concern about preserving the purpose of each selection method:

Converting scores between different admissions methods can dilute the original intent of each method and may reduce fairness in the selection process. Each test or method has its own objectives and measures different aspects of student ability.

Dr. Sai Cong Hong, former Deputy Director of the Quality Management Department, stressed the need for robust statistical analysis and continuing adjustments to conversion formulas using data from actual admissions. The aim is to reduce bias and keep the selection process fair as universities learn how the new arrangements work.

When more subject combinations create more uncertainty

Some university programmes offer as many as 42 admissions subject combinations. The expansion gives more students a route to compete, including applicants whose strongest subjects differ from those traditionally used for a particular programme.

Too many combinations can also make admissions harder to understand. Students must work out which combinations a university accepts, how their results will be assessed and whether their chosen subjects provide suitable preparation for the degree they want to study.

The concern described as combination inflation arises when the number of accepted combinations grows without a clear connection to the knowledge a major requires. Some combinations may omit core subjects relevant to the programme, allowing students to enter without adequate preparation.

The resulting lottery effect connects access with academic quality. A wider entrance route may help a student secure a place, yet the university must still ensure that the subjects used for selection match the abilities needed for study. Universities are being encouraged to restrict the number of combinations and keep them aligned with the core competencies of each major.

Early admissions face a 20% limit

Early admissions, often based on school transcripts or international certificates, are limited to 20% of total enrolment quotas. The minimum score for early admission cannot be lower than the cutoff in the main admissions round.

The limit aims to contain the rush for places before national examination results are available. That rush previously disadvantaged candidates who depended solely on the national examination and had to wait for their results before competing.

Universities face a practical challenge in applying the rule. They must manage early offers while ensuring that the standards used for those offers remain consistent with the main round. Lower requirements for early applicants could create an unfair advantage over students applying later through national examination scores.

The quota and score requirement therefore address connected concerns: how many places are allocated early, and whether students entering through different routes face comparable expectations. Both affect the opportunities available to candidates who rely on the main examination.

A late C00 change leaves students exposed

The University of Social Sciences and Humanities under Vietnam National University, Hanoi abruptly removed the C00 combination from admissions for 17 majors just weeks before the national examination. C00 consists of Literature, History and Geography.

Many students had spent years preparing those subjects with particular university programmes in mind. The change left them unable to apply through the combination they had planned to use, showing how the timing of an admissions decision can affect access as directly as a score or quota.

MOET has called on universities to avoid last minute changes to admissions criteria or subject combinations. Students make study choices long before they submit applications, so information needs to be clear, early and stable enough for them to plan around it.

The C00 controversy also highlights the need for stricter rules on when universities can change their requirements and how those changes are communicated. Legal safeguards against arbitrary changes are among the measures needed to protect candidates' interests.

Students face unequal access to information and preparation

Students have more choices in 2025, but understanding those choices takes time and access to reliable information. Applicants must research selection methods, accepted subject combinations, conversion rules and deadlines. A misunderstanding can cost them an opportunity even when they have suitable academic results.

Students in urban areas, or those with better information and resources, may be better placed to navigate the process. Candidates in rural or disadvantaged areas risk being left behind when guidance is harder to obtain or several admissions routes demand different kinds of preparation.

University competency and thinking assessments can add to that burden. Preparing for multiple examinations increases pressure on students and can raise costs for families. The opportunity to compete through several routes may therefore be easier to use for some applicants than for others.

Online applications make timing another decisive factor. Missing a single deadline can mean losing the chance to compete. Students need timely updates on regulations and procedures, while targeted information campaigns and counselling services are proposed for rural and remote areas to improve access to guidance.

What universities and the ministry need to address

MOET and educational experts have proposed scientifically validated conversion methods that universities publish in advance. Students need to understand how their results will be evaluated before they commit to an application strategy.

Universities are also encouraged to limit subject combinations to those suited to each major, maintain stable admissions requirements and provide clearer information. Support for disadvantaged applicants is part of the same effort: a transparent formula is most useful when students can find and understand it.

Annual analysis of admissions data is proposed to identify emerging bias and unfair practices. Conversion formulas and admissions policies would then be adjusted where necessary. The effectiveness of these measures will depend on how policymakers, universities and students adapt, communicate and improve the process during this first cycle under the new programme.

The immediate task is to make wider choice work alongside comparable standards. Vietnam's 2025 admissions cycle tests whether greater university autonomy and more selection routes can give students from different backgrounds a fair opportunity to enter higher education and contribute to the country's development.

Key Points

• Vietnam's 2025 graduating cohort is the first under the 2018 General Education Program, with four national examination subjects: Mathematics, Literature and two electives.
• University admissions use several selection methods, with results required to be converted to a common scoring scale.
• More than 223,000 candidates participated in competency assessment testing, with the second round's average more than 100 points above the first.
• Some programmes offer up to 42 subject combinations, prompting concerns about clarity and preparation for degree study.
• Early admissions are capped at 20% of enrolment quotas, and their minimum score cannot be below the main round's cutoff.
• The removal of C00 from 17 majors at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities under Vietnam National University, Hanoi exposed the risks of late changes.
• Proposed responses include published conversion formulas, stable criteria, counselling for disadvantaged students and annual checks for bias.