VietNamNet Bridge – A lot of education experts have suggested removing the “floor mark mechanism” from the 2014 exam season because it is “unreasonable” and “unscientific.”

Dr. Tran Xuan Nhi, former Deputy Minister of Education and Training, asserted that the currently applied method of defining floor marks is unreasonable.

Floor marks are the minimum marks students must have from the national university entrance exams to be eligible for registering to study at any universities in Vietnam.

The floor marks for different groups of exams are defined and announced by MOET every year after considering the exams’ results.

The floor mark mechanism has been applied since 2003. All Vietnamese students attend the national university entrance exams, while their exam results are recognized nationwide, to which schools would refer when enrolling students.

There are numerous training majors provided by training establishments, while there is limited number of the exam groups and exam subjects. Philology is a required exam subject for the students who want to enter arts schools. Meanwhile, no one can say for sure that the students good at literature all can become good artists.

Nhi commented that MOET should give schools the rights to select students themselves based on their conditions and the input students’ quality, not based on the floor marks. If so, the schools would be able to select the most suitable students for specific training majors and not miss capable learners.

For example, if student A registers to study mathematics and gets 9 marks at math, 1 mark at physics and 2 at chemistry, he would fail the exams, if the required floor mark is 13.

Student, who also registers to study mathematics and gets 2 marks at math, 9 mark at physics and 2 at chemistry, would pass the exams because his total mark is 13.

Meanwhile, student A must be the better choice than student B, because A gets higher mark at math and both A and B want to study math.

Dr. Dang Huu, former Head of the Central Science & Education Committee, commented that there is no convincing scientific reason for the application of the floor mark mechanism.

“Examinees get different marks depending on the difficulty levels of exam questions. Therefore, the mark spectrum is not clear,” he noted.

If MOET agrees to remove the floor mark mechanism, it would give more “autonomy” to schools. If so, students would still have to attend the national university entrance exams with the same exam questions for all examinees, but the requirements set by schools would be different.

MOET has been urged to remove the floor mark mechanism right from the 2014 exam season, saying that the change would not cause any problems to the enrolment plans.

Dr. Le Viet Khuyen noted that once MOET decides to give autonomy to schools, it should not make intervention to the schools’ plans, while it should let the schools decide what they need to do.

Khuyen said he does not think that the removal of the floor mark mechanism would lend a hand to schools to enroll low quality students. MOET sets enrolment quotas for every school after considering the schools’ capability. Therefore, schools will not be able to enroll students in masses.

Chi Mai