A draft decree guiding the implementation of several articles of the Law on Higher Education states that universities would not be allowed to arbitrarily adopt names that imply special status such as “international,” “national,” “Vietnam,” “Ho Chi Minh,” or equivalent English terms.

Pham Thai Son, Director of Admissions at HCMC University of Industry and Trade, said the draft regulation on naming higher education institutions has a reasonable basis, as it aims to promote transparency and avoid misleading or deceiving students. Applicants and parents can be strongly influenced by school names and brands.

However, he expressed concern about applying this regulation uniformly to long-established universities with stable brands.

Citing Saigon International University as an example, Son said that forcing the removal of the word “international” could result in a new name that is both confusing and unreasonable. In his view, a university’s name is not only a legal issue but also closely tied to its history and brand identity.

‘Ghost’ universities 

On the positive side, he noted that the draft could help limit the phenomenon of “ghost universities,” institutions that use grand-sounding names without sufficient training capacity or degree-awarding authority, thereby reducing the risk of misleading learners.

Nevertheless, if the regulation is too rigid, it could reduce creativity in building education brands and cause many universities to lose their unique identity. He emphasized that protecting learners does not lie in the name itself, but in the substance of training quality.

So, he suggested that management agencies should focus on tightening quality accreditation, with clear and transparent criteria that are implemented seriously, rather than placing excessive emphasis on university names.

Associate Prof Do Van Dung, former President of HCMC University of Technology and Education, said that based on international experience, regulations restricting the use of terms such as “national,” “international,” or “state” in university names are rigid and carry many limitations in terms of flexibility, global competitiveness, and education brand development.

Dung said that in many countries, universities are encouraged to freely choose their names to reflect their mission, status, and international appeal. Worldwide, hundreds of universities use terms like “National,” “International,” or “State” to emphasize scale, national role, or global orientation, without needing special approval from the government.

For example, the National University of Singapore (NUS) is one of Asia’s leading universities and is currently ranked in the global top 10 according to QS Rankings 2025. The use of the word “National” reflects its status as Singapore’s leading national university. Although strongly supported by the government, NUS is not constrained by prohibitive regulations related to its name.

In the US, universities such as Florida International University or Alliant International University freely use the term “International” in their names to build brand identity, helping increase the proportion of international students to around 20–30 percent. Meanwhile, public universities such as Ohio State University or California State University use the word “State” to reflect public funding sources and state-level roles, without needing special approval or facing restrictions.

According to Dung, if Vietnam applies a ban on these terms, it could reduce the competitiveness of domestic universities compared to those in the region. While Singapore and Malaysia encourage the use of nationally or internationally oriented terms to build education brands, improve global rankings, and attract investment capital, restrictions in Vietnam could create clear disadvantages.

He noted that if the regulation is applied rigidly, some universities such as “International University – Vietnam National University, HCMC” could be forced to change their names, weakening their image, brand, and ability to attract international students.

He said in most developed countries, university naming is managed in a relatively “loose” manner, mainly to avoid duplication or false advertising, rather than banning specific terms like “National” or “International.”

In the US and Canada, university names are freely chosen as long as trademarks are registered and geographic duplication is avoided. Even two universities may have similar names if they are located in different states or provinces. In Canada, universities named after provinces or major cities, such as the University of Toronto, are often considered prestigious, but are not restricted from using nationally oriented terms.

He believes that risks of name misuse can be fully controlled through reputation assessment and quality accreditation mechanisms, rather than absolute bans.

Thanh Hung