A key new point is that the Circular stipulates that doctoral degrees, associate professorships, and professorships are used as benchmarks with a coefficient of 1; lecturers with master's degrees only have a coefficient of 0.75. In contrast, the previous regulations used master's degrees as the benchmark, while doctoral degrees, associate professorships, and professorships were given very high coefficients, 2, 3, and 5 respectively.
This represents a significant shift in the mindset regarding university admissions management. Previously, enrollment quotas were primarily determined by the number of faculty members, aiming for "enough to expand," but now there is a strong emphasis on improving the academic standards of faculty.
This sends a very clear message that a doctoral degree is gradually being seen as the minimum standard for university lecturers, which is more in line with international trends and the direction of improving the quality of higher education in Vietnam.
The new mechanism will first and foremost put pressure on universities to invest more heavily in developing highly qualified faculty, especially those with doctoral degrees. This change will not only impact training activities but also promote scientific research, international publications, and improve the overall academic quality.
At the same time, the new calculation method helps to limit the practice of "using academic titles to boost enrollment." Previously, one professor could be equivalent to five lecturers with master's degrees, causing some training institutions to rely heavily on high-ranking academic staff to expand their enrollment. Now, with professors, associate professors, and doctors all having the same coefficient of 1, enrollment quotas will more accurately reflect the actual training capacity per capita.
Another positive aspect is that standardizing the conversion rate to 40 students per coefficient makes the calculation formula simpler, more transparent, and easier to predict, replacing the old mechanism with multiple conversion rates based on subject groups.
However, the new policy also puts considerable pressure on many local universities, small-scale private universities, or application-oriented training institutions.
In reality, not all universities find it easy to attract and retain PhD holders, especially in fields where it's difficult to recruit high-quality personnel. When PhDs become the "core criterion" for determining enrollment targets, many training institutions will be forced to restructure their human resource strategies and enrollment scales.
Furthermore, the risk of a "PhD race" must also be considered if the post-examination review mechanism is not sufficiently rigorous. When quotas are directly linked to the number of PhD holders, it can lead to a situation where personnel ownership is merely symbolic or recruitment competition among universities is unsustainable.
Another problem is that this approach doesn't fully reflect the specific characteristics of some highly practical training fields such as arts, sports , applied technology, or medicine. In these fields, experts with extensive practical experience are sometimes extremely valuable even without a doctoral degree.
Nevertheless, in the long term, this is still a necessary adjustment to raise the standards of higher education and bring it closer to international practices. The new policy forces universities to focus more on the quality of their faculty, research capabilities, and academic development, rather than just focusing on expanding enrollment.
For the policy to be effective, a suitable roadmap and flexible mechanisms are needed for each industry group and type of training institution. Post-auditing of full-time faculty must be carried out rigorously to ensure the ultimate goal is to genuinely improve quality, rather than merely standardizing qualifications.
Source: https://giaoducthoidai.vn/thay-doi-tu-duy-quan-ly-tuyen-sinh-dai-hoc-post777754.html
Comment (0)