Vietnamese Professor Title: Administrative Designation or Academic Prowess?

Vietnam's system for appointing professors is increasingly criticized for prioritizing administrative procedures and seniority over genuine academic capability and international influence. Unlike the United Kingdom's model, where universities recruit professors based on demonstrated research quality, funding success, and strategic contributions, Vietnam's State Professorial Council appears to operate more like an administrative body. In 2025, it reviewed 100 candidates and officially appointed 93 professors, a process described as centralized and largely driven by administrative logic rather than academic rigor. This approach contrasts sharply with the UK, where around 150 professors were hired in 2025, with emphasis placed on the actual academic impact of research, not just publication counts.

The Vietnamese system places significant weight on procedural conditions, such as years of service, publication points, and the number of supervised doctoral students. A mandatory requirement includes having developed at least one training program that has been implemented. This "counting products" methodology can lead scientists to focus on accumulating "enough points" rather than pursuing breakthrough research, fragmenting studies to inflate publication numbers, or favoring easily publishable topics over long-term, foundational research. While quantitative criteria can help mitigate subjectivity in less transparent academic environments, an over-reliance on mechanical indicators without holistic assessment of academic influence can impede the development of world-class research.

Furthermore, the mechanism for identifying and nurturing young talent faces challenges. In the UK, scholars with outstanding research profiles and strong funding potential can be appointed professors at a relatively young age, even without extensive teaching contributions, fostering strong competition among the next generation of scientists. Conversely, Vietnam's system emphasizes a sequential progression through doctoral studies, associate professorship, and full professorship, often requiring a minimum of six years in training according to State Council standards. This rigid pathway means a young scientist with excellent international achievements might have to wait many years simply to meet the "seniority" requirements, while individuals meeting procedural criteria but lacking significant academic impact may advance.