Explaining why the ministry is reviewing the use of certificates and bonus points, Thao said each academic program should have consistent admission criteria, while entry scores across different admission methods should be comparable.

"Since 2023, the ministry has required universities to establish equivalencies to reduce disparities, and in 2026 it further capped bonus points at 10% of the total admission score," Thao said.

"However, substantial differences remain when each university determines its own conversion rules and bonus points. The proposal to eliminate these bonuses is therefore not a sudden change in direction, but the next step in a process of greater control and standardization."

Admissions data for 2026 show that more than 37,300 applicants used English-language certificates to receive bonus points, including more than 35,900 who used IELTS certificates.

IELTS 6.0 was the most common score, held by 8,318 applicants, yet universities converted it into 26 different levels of bonus points.

Among the 5% of university programs with the highest admission cutoffs - using 26.09 out of 30 as the reference threshold - more than 30% of enrolled students received bonus points. Outside the top 25% of programs, the figure was 9.51%.

Across three admission methods that do not separately assess foreign-language proficiency - national high school graduation exam scores, high school academic records, and a combination of the two - 51.42% of applicants receiving bonus points had original scores below their program's admission cutoff.

"These figures cannot identify individual cases in which one candidate displaced another, but they show that bonus points can become a deciding factor in highly competitive programs, creating inequality in university admissions," Thao said.

According to Thao, fairness in admissions does not mean giving every applicant the same advantages. It means ensuring that candidates applying to the same program are assessed using the same criteria.

He identified two practices that are creating unfairness and should be addressed immediately.

First, applicants can receive bonus points for English-language certificates even when foreign-language proficiency is not an admission requirement for their chosen program.

For example, if a program considers only mathematics, physics and chemistry, an applicant with higher scores in all three subjects could still be rejected while another with lower academic scores is admitted after receiving bonus points for an English certificate.

"One person's right to use a certificate cannot come at the expense of another person's right to be assessed fairly," Thao said.

Second, some admission combinations already include English as one of the assessed subjects, yet applicants can receive additional points for an English-language certificate.

In such cases, the same foreign-language ability is effectively counted twice: once in the applicant's subject scores and again as an advantage outside the standard scoring scale.

Counting the same competency twice can distort admission rankings, particularly in highly competitive programs where even a fraction of a point can determine whether an applicant is accepted.

Thao noted that many university programs currently have admission cutoffs of around 28 points on Vietnam's 30-point scale, while allowing applicants to receive up to 1.5 bonus points.

As a result, thousands of candidates scoring between 26.5 and 28 may still fail to secure admission simply because they cannot afford to take costly international certificate examinations, he said.

"This is an urgent issue that directly concerns fairness and needs to be addressed immediately," Thao said. "University autonomy in admissions must come with accountability and cannot be used to legitimize criteria that distort competition among applicants."

The ministry understands the concerns of parents and students who have invested significant time and effort in learning foreign languages, Thao said.

Students would still be able to use certificates to demonstrate their language proficiency, and the value of learning English would not diminish because of the proposed change.

Under the proposal, foreign-language certificates could still be converted to replace a foreign-language subject score in an admission combination under publicly disclosed rules, or be used to demonstrate that applicants meet language requirements for programs taught in a foreign language.

English also remains important for university study and future careers, meaning the time and effort spent learning the language should not be considered wasted, Thao said.

"'No bonus points' should not be equated with 'foreign-language learning no longer has value,'" he said.

"If certificates are pursued primarily to gain an advantage in admission scores, the focus of learning can shift away from developing genuine communication, academic and workplace skills toward exam preparation aimed at reaching a particular score. Policy should redirect the motivation for learning foreign languages toward its proper purpose: genuine proficiency, practical use and long-term benefits for learners."

Thao said the latest revision of the draft university admissions regulations was based on a clear principle: abilities required for a particular field of study should be assessed directly, transparently and equally, while abilities that are not part of the entry requirements should not generate bonus points that alter candidates' rankings.

"University admissions should select the right students for the right programs based on genuine ability," Thao said. "The draft does not eliminate foreign-language certificates, but seeks to use them for their proper purpose. Nor does it diminish the achievements of high-performing students, but recognizes them through the appropriate mechanism. This does not restrict opportunities. It places applicants to the same program on the same fair, transparent and verifiable scale. Removing inappropriate bonus points is necessary to protect that principle."

Thanh Hung