Obstacles from internal factors to the transition to university autonomy in Vietnam

ablished) First, in universities that have not been autonomous yet but have established the university Council, in general, the opinions of the university representatives all believe that the university council has not really existed as a part of the university organisational structure. The university council has no real power, not be ensured operating conditions such as finance and personnel. Activities of the university council are not effective. University council members have no obligation to bind. The university council has not yet played a supervisory role, there is no regulation on the relationship between the university council - the Party executive committee - the university board. As commented by a representative from Quy Nhon University: “The activities of the University Council so far are not many, not clearly showing the results to the outside. University councils are not granted their own annual funding. The members of the university have not seen the supervising role of the university council in the activities of the university ... The relationship between the university council and the party committee is currently unclear ... The role of the Party in the university is now decisive determined in all aspects ... the role of the university council is not yet promoted and is like a second union, there is no real power." Comments of representatives of Kien Giang University: “The chairman of the university council has no real power. The current university council is only formal and inefficient because it has not clearly defined the role of the chairman of the university council, party committee, board of directors, the functions and duties of the university council are not clear, no specific rights and responsibilities of the chairman and members of the majority are involved in management at the units in the university. The chairman of the university council is currently a manager under the Principal's authority so the administration is also difficult." Comments of representatives of HCM city University of Agriculture and Forestry: “The university council has organized several meetings since its establishment, not focusing on the details of the university. Activities so far are not strong enough, have not played a monitoring role. No regulations have been established regarding the relationship between the university council and the Party Committee, even with the university board.” Secondly, for the universities that have not yet established the university council, the awareness of the role and power of the university council is not correct, leading to hesitation and embarrassment in preparing the conditions for establishing 800 the university council. The main obstacles are: determining the role of the university council and the council members, seeking qualified candidates under the provisions of the higher education Law and the operation mechanism of the university council. As a representative of Northwestern University commented: “There is no regulation on who will pay for the activities of the university council. If the permanent members operate inefficiently, it will cause waste. Although prepared from 2015 and recommended many times from the governing body, the establishment of the university council still stumbles on the spot because it cannot find human resources to meet the requirements for university council members. There has not been specific guidance on the establishment of the university council. There is no experience in setting up university councils while reference to experiences from other universities in the country has not been conducted properly and in sufficient detail.” Remark from the representative of the Banking Academy: “The establishment of university council was proposed in 2003, but the number of universities with university councils is very small. This practice shows that the organization and effectiveness of university council are not really good and entangled, leading to irrational in operation of university council; Selecting members who are willing to participate in the school council is not easy, will create conflict between 3 powerful apparatuses: the school council - the party committee - the board of directors." 4. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation From the research results mentioned above, some comments can be drawn about the impact of internal factors on the transition to university autonomy of the public universities as following. (1) Due to being nurtured in a subsidized mechanism that lasts for decades, public universities seem to be aware that university autonomy means that universities must "self-swim", be alone and have not any help from the government. With the awareness of university autonomy are quite unilateral and inaccurate, public universities recognize that the autonomy process will make the university difficult in term of financial due to the loss of " budget milk" and must do by themselves to take care of the input while the system of policy institutions on autonomy has not been completely established. Misperceptions about university autonomy are not without cause. Firstly, university autonomy is only piloted in a small number of public universities while lacking the conditions to ensure true autonomy. Secondly, the results achieved in the autonomous pilot universities have not really persuaded the universities to be autonomous and not yet practiced as good evidence of autonomy. Thirdly, communication about university autonomy has not been given adequate attention both on the general level and in the universities. In autonomous universities, 801 learners seem to be worried about the increase in tuition due to autonomy, the workers are worried about rearranging the organization leading to job loss or being converted to non-preferred jobs. In un-autonomous universities, the communication about autonomy is even more limited or made unprofessional, unplanned and ineffective. (2) Public universities located in disadvantaged regions are even more reluctant to transition to university autonomy because they can not see any advantages in terms of resources. The biggest problem here is that universities themselves do not want to do autonomy so they do not actively create conditions for transition to autonomy. According the rule of law, universities need to develop and issue a system of documents to serve as a basis for the autonomy of the university, to set up and operate the university council and reorganize the personnel apparatus before transferring to operate under the autonomy mechanism. Although instructed and directed very early on establishing university councils, majority of universities are nor ready to establish university councils, do not ensure the conditions for the university council to have real power. (3) The lack of tuition revenues due to reduced enrollment scale when schools do not attract learners, with limitations in research and advice capacity and technology application transfer making the financial situation of most universities to be worse. If switching to full autonomy, universities will face more severe financial shortcomings. The paradox is that to improve the financial situation, the school needs to recruit more learners but lacking the resources to build new programs, recruit high professional lecturers and implementing communication. On the one hand, public universities must cut costs when the government cuts down funding and needs additional investment to improve resources. (4) In this context, the pressure from the government is not strong enough. As a result, universities have more reason to delay the transition of university autonomy. In addition, the general environmental conditions of university autonomy still have many shortcomings, which makes universities not ready to be autonomous. The education market in general and higher education have not been formed properly. Along with it, the state management for the system of public universities is currently not renewed to motivate universities to shift to autonomy. To promote the transition to university autonomy of Vietnamese public universities, there is a need for synchronous solutions from both the government (macro-level) and solutions from the universities themselves (inside university). Some solutions are proposed as follows: (i) To classify and evaluate public universities that are un-autonomous, set up a roadmap and transition schedule for all universities, considering it a mandatory deadline. This must be chaired by the Ministry of Education and Training in 802 coordination with relevant ministries. Sanctioning measures should be issued in conjunction with universities that do not undertake university autonomy without rational reasons. At the same time, consider applying financial measures such as cutting funding from the government and issuing financial and investment policies associated with the performance of universities. (ii) Converting financial allocation methods to ordering and biding methods on training funded by the state budget for all universities. The government places orders on the number of students as planned and applies only to specific industries. (iii) Develop and complete a system of legal documents on implementing autonomy of universities related to finance, organisational, human resources and academic autonomy (iv) Completing the organizational structure of the university, ensuring that the university council has real power; establishing the relationship between the university council, the party committee and the board of directors, which should ensure the independent role of the university council in making important decisions such as university development strategies and early strategies. private, human resources, ... (v) Internal communication activities should be strengthened and focused on university autonomy and the need to transition to autonomy; Diversifying communication activities such as organizing seminars, discussions and so on. In conclusion, the transition to university autonomy of public universities in Vietnam still faces many obstacles both inside and outside the university. Internal factors are emerging as the main barriers to this process. The paper has identified and evaluated the impact of factors including: awareness of leaders, lecturers and university staff on autonomy, restrictions on high-level personnel, limited resources financial resources and organizational structure are incomplete. Incorrect perception of autonomy and weakness of financial resources are two important factors that slow the transition to university autonomy. However, in conjunction with the above internal factors, there are other internal factors that the article has not mentioned and external factors. Therefore, further research can and should assess the impact of other factors in a more comprehensive and detailed way. In addition, the research sample should also be scaled up and supplemented with other representatives from non- autonomous public universities. Reference 1. A. Sursock & H. Smidt (2010), A decade of change in European Higher Education, European University Association 2. Ministry of Education & Training (2017), The summary report on piloting of renovating the operational mechanism for public higher education institutions under Resolution No. 77/NQ-CP dated October 24, 2014 of Government period 2014-2017” 803 3. Ministry of Education and Training, Statistics, 4. The Government, Resolution 77 / NQ-CP on Piloting the renewal of operational mechanisms for public higher education institutions established in the period 2014-2017 was issued on October 24, 2014, 4798.html 5. Vietnam National Assembly, 2012, Higher Education Law, No. 08/2012/QH13, d=1&_page=1&mode=detail&document_id=163054 6. Vietnam National Assembly, 2018, Law on amendments and supplements to some articles of the Higher Education Law, No. 34/2018 / QH14, https://luatvietnam.vn/giao-duc/luat-giao-duc-dai-hoc-sua-doi-nam-2018- 169346-d1.html#noidung