Private higher education (PHE) in Vietnam emerged from the state’s political and economic reform called Đổi Mới, which was initiated in 1986. The adaptation of the market economy gradually penetrated into higher education and indirectly helped PHE to emerge. Initially, the state’s regulations for PHE were highly interventionist, but generally spontaneous — largely due to the state’s inexperience with the sector. Since the mid-2000s, these regulations have been continuously consolidated and institutionalised, and PHE (currently counting 65 universities and over 260,000 students) is an integral part of the national higher education system. Yet, private universities continue to claim that they are treated unfavourably compared to their public counterparts.

Public-Private Sectors: Complement or Competition?
In general, discrepancies between the public and private sectors (intersectoral distinctiveness) are key to understanding debates about Vietnam’s PHE. During the early years of PHE, intersectoral distinctiveness was remarkable: Private universities were generally considered the avenue for less academically competent students. To enter private universities, students only needed to get the baseline score in the nationally administered entrance exam. That score was set by the Ministry of Education & Training (MOET) for quality assurance purposes. In contrast, public universities were highly selective: The acceptance ratio was extremely low, and the admission score was generally far above the baseline. Furthermore, most faculty members at private universities were adjunct, while faculty at public universities held tenured positions. In sum, while most supporting arguments for PHE cantered on access, the sector was simultaneously vulnerable to quality criticism.

Since the mid-2000s, when intersectoral distinctiveness started to decline, competition between the two sectors has increased. Public universities were established in many provinces, including economically peripheral ones, usually from upgrading existing colleges that delivered short-cycle tertiary education programmes. These universities focused largely on offering low-investment programmes and enrolled students who were academically less competent than those at traditional public institutions. This expansion policy raised numerous debates. Faced with direct competition from new public universities, private university administrators argued that the state should concentrate their investment on improving the quality of “key” programmes benefiting the larger population, such as medical education, engineering, biological technology — while leaving other programmes to private universities. This argument was, however, thwarted by provincial governments claiming that new public universities would contribute enormously to the provincial economy. Eventually, as public universities were established one after another in many provinces, they attracted students who would otherwise migrate to major cities and enrol in private universities. As a result, enrolment dropped at many private universities, which faced serious financial crises.

The recent involvement of private corporations in PHE has, however, significantly revived the sector. Several private universities are now owned by multi-sector corporations, and from acquiring many private universities, education conglomerates have also evolved. Some corporation-affiliated universities have opened capital-intensive programmes, attracting high-performing students, and have therefore become a counterbalance to major public universities. In general, PHE is believed to have indirectly forced the public sector to innovate and operate more effectively. There is now a flow of senior faculty members and staff leaving public universities to work at private universities, because the latter not only pay higher salaries, but also allow more space for experiments, innovations, and entrepreneurial spirit.