Vietnam’s plans to slim down its public higher education sector by 20 per cent are not guaranteed to deliver the “world-class” university the country craves, experts warn.

Several public institutions in the same geographical area will be merged by April next year as the country tries to reduce fragmentation, concentrate research resources and strengthen the quality of the sector.

The reforms aim to support Vietnam’s ambition to develop three to five elite universities that are globally renowned for teaching quality and research, a pledge made in September 2025.

According to the Ministry of Education, Vietnam has 291 higher education institutions, of which 228 are public.

ɫ��ֱ��

Ly Tran, professor in the School of Education at Deakin University and founder of the Australia-Vietnam International Education Centre, said that “the potential impact is substantial”.

Tran said there is “broad public support” for the plan, because it could “limit the rapid growth of programmes that do not match institutional strengths, and make investment more effective”.

ɫ��ֱ��

Yerbol Suleimenov, an international higher education consultant, said that the rationalisation of the sector represents a shift from quantity to quality for Vietnamese institutions.

He saw the plan as part of an evolution of Vietnam’s national higher education system, stating that “many higher education systems go through a similar evolution: first expanding access, then diversifying institutions, and later consolidating them to strengthen quality and performance”.

The success of such reforms, he continued, “depends much less on the number of universities than on how the process is designed and implemented”.

Experts highlighted that reducing the number of universities in Vietnam should not be an objective in itself, while emphasising that geography alone should not be the only criterion for a merger.

Dang Tin, languages lecturer at Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Engineering, said: “A merger may increase the reported volume of publications and resources but it will not automatically improve research quality, academic culture or global reputation.”

ɫ��ֱ��

Mergers needed to be accompanied “by effective governance, adequate funding, institutional autonomy and a clear strategic vision,” echoed Suleimenov.

Tin said that the first institutions considered for restructuring are “likely to be those that do not meet national standards, have persistent problems with enrolment or financial sustainability, duplicate provision offered by nearby institutions or lack the staff, facilities and research capacity required to fulfil their stated mission”.

It is unclear what the implications of combining institutions could be for international competitiveness.

ɫ��ֱ��

Larger and better-resourced universities could be better positioned to compete internationally but Tran also highlighted concerns that “stronger universities could be weakened if they are expected to absorb institutions with much lower capacity”, resulting in “the potential loss of distinctive disciplinary identities”.

“Smaller specialist institutions, particularly in areas such as the basic sciences, arts and teacher education, may have important missions that could be diluted within larger multidisciplinary universities,” she said.

Tin said that combining institutions could improve international competitiveness “by creating institutions with greater academic and research capabilities” and that larger institutions may help to attract student and faculty talent, and to build stronger academic partnerships.

“Larger institutions may be better positioned to pool research funding, establish multidisciplinary teams, support doctoral and postdoctoral researchers, invest in major infrastructure and participate in international research networks,” he added.

ɫ��ֱ��

rosalind.skillen@timeshighereducation.com