At a recent seminar on modernizing higher education, Do Phu Tran Tinh, Director of the Institute for Policy Development under Vietnam National University HCMC, said the limit to only three vice presidents is an issue in governance.

Though Party policies and national laws affirm that university autonomy is a statutory right that comes with accountability, in reality, institutions are still constrained by many general regulations, causing difficulties in organizational management and task execution, he said.

For example, aside from the three-vice-president limit, a university may establish a department or division only when it has at least two functional areas and a minimum of seven staff members. 

Meanwhile, member universities under Vietnam National University HCMC have large-scale training activities and need more vice presidents to handle and share the workload, improving governance efficiency. However, they are restricted by these regulations.

Many other public universities also have very large training scales, with tens of thousands of students, hundreds of lecturers, subordinate units, and academic programs. 

Examples include University of Industry and Trade HCMC, University of Technology and Education HCMC, Industrial University of HCMC, University of Technology HCMC, University of Social Sciences and Humanities HCMC, University of Medicine and Pharmacy HCMC, University of Finance and Marketing. 

The limit on vice presidents places pressure on administrative teams in assigning, managing, and supervising tasks. Some institutions still have not appointed all three vice presidents due to personnel issues.

Autonomy is the key

In the case of the University of Industry and Trade HCMC, its Rector Nguyen Xuan Hoan said the institution currently has only two appointed vice presidents, missing one position, and plans to complete the personnel structure soon.

He explained that with a large student population, expanding academic programs, and increasingly complex governance demands, the university needs four vice presidents to handle the workload, maintain administrative quality, and meet development requirements. Therefore, it has requested permission to add one more vice president.

As universities move toward full autonomy, especially in organizational structure and personnel, allowing each institution to decide the number of vice presidents is necessary. 

“Universities differ in scale, training fields, and operational models. Therefore, fixing the number of vice presidents under a single regulation is impractical. Institutions should identify their personnel needs based on actual operational requirements,” he said.

The leader of another university said that personnel autonomy should be based on a classification system tied to the financial autonomy level of each higher-education institution. For universities achieving financial autonomy at level 2 and above, i.e., those capable of covering their recurrent expenditures, giving them authority to decide the number of vice presidents and leadership personnel is necessary.

He emphasized that only when the administrative structure fits the scale of students, academic programs, partnerships, and actual workload can the institution operate effectively, flexibly, and take direct responsibility for its performance. 

In contrast, for universities at autonomy levels 3 and 4, i.e., those still dependent on the state budget for salaries, allowances, and certain policies, the government should continue to strictly control and supervise administrative staffing. This ensures efficient use of public funds and prevents unnecessarily large bureaucratic structures or avoidable costs while salaries remain subsidized.

Autonomy is not just a right, but also a responsibility. In institutions that are financially capable, granting the power to decide the number of vice presidents is reasonable, correctly reflecting the spirit of autonomy and self-accountability. But in units that are not yet autonomous, personnel control is not just a matter of organizational structure, but also a requirement for budget discipline and financial responsibility

Tinh proposed piloting an autonomy mechanism at some universities regarding organizational structure and personnel apparatus, allowing these universities to independently decide the number of vice presidents and the structure of departments and divisions based on their scale, operational specifics, and practical needs.

The pilot results will be summarized and lessons learned will serve as the basis for building a comprehensive autonomous university governance mechanism suitable for the scale, function, and development strategy of each institution.

Le Huyen