Average Learning Area/1 University Student

SV). The construction density and land use coefficient of schools are too high, accounting for 50%÷60% (according to the standard of 20%÷25%). The area for planting trees and gardens is very small, even almost non-existent. The average area of the learning area/01 student is about 3.23m 2 ; very low compared to the standard of 6m 2 (Table 3.23) . There is a huge difference in land area/01 student between schools located in big cities such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and other provinces and cities; between different management levels. For example: 1) In Hanoi (except VNU), the average number of m 2 of land/01 student is about 13.0m 2 . Of which, about 40% of schools have a very low level of less than 5.0m 2 /01 student such as the University of Labor and Social Affairs: 0.65m 2 ; Hanoi Law University: 0.67m 2 ; Foreign Trade University: 1.08m 2 ; National Economics University: 2.97m 2 ; Hanoi University of Science and Technology: 4.9m 2 ... 2) In Ho Chi Minh City (except Ho Chi Minh City National University), the average m 2 of land/01 student is about 10.0m 2 . Of which, about 30% of schools have a very low level of less than 5.0m 2 /01 student such as University of Economics: 0.54m 2 ; University of Transport: 3.25m 2 ... 3) The average land area/01 student of schools under the Ministry of Education and Training is 24.2m 2 . Schools under other ministries and branches are about 23.0m 2 ; schools under the People's Committees of provinces and cities are about 67.0m 2 (table 3.24).

In addition, the average land area for building student housing and auxiliary works in the total land area of the whole school accounts for a very low proportion, only 3.7% (according to the standard of 15% ÷ 20%). The indicators of technical infrastructure are still lacking, outdated, not up to standard and not meeting the requirements of use...

Table 3.23: Average learning area used per university student

Criteria	Area (m 2 )
1	- Average/1 university student	3.23
2	- Average/1 student of Higher Education	3.6
3	- According to national standards	6.0

Maybe you are interested!

Source: [18, p.12].

Table 3.24: Average land area per student of the University of Civil Engineering

Governing body	Average land area/1 student	University of Economics (m 2 )
1	Ministry of Education and Training	24.2
2	Other Ministries and sectors	23.0
3	Provincial and municipal People's Committees	67.0

Source: [18, p. 10].

Second, the number of lecture halls, classrooms, conference rooms, laboratories, workshops, libraries, etc. in schools is still very lacking (Table 3.25 to Table 3.29). For example, the number of laboratories compared to classrooms is very low (7.8%), only 40% of the training needs; the rate of laboratories serving inter-schools is very low (7.1%); the remaining years of use of equipment is low (11.1 years); the rate of specialized management and operation staff is low (45.3%).

In terms of quality, the laboratory equipment technology of the schools is mainly at an average level (good, modern ones account for only 23.3% and 20.2%); the level compared to the world is 1.8%, compared to the region is 49.9% (Table 3.26) . Practice workshops, the rate of service for the faculty level is 47.2%, for the school level is 51.3%, inter-school is very little (accounting for 1.5%). Thus, the exploitation and shared use of laboratories and practice workshops within the school and between schools is still limited.

The data in the tables also show that many schools do not have enough minimum conditions for facilities and have to rent or borrow a lot, such as the rate of renting and borrowing classrooms is 10.61% ( Table 3.25 ). The area used for classrooms, laboratories, libraries/01 student is low, only reaching 1.15m 2 ; 0.53m 2 and 0.18m 2 ; according to the standard is 1.4m 2 ÷ 1.5m 2 and 0.5m 2. On average, 3.5 teachers/01 computer and 33.2 students/01 computer.

Regarding libraries, 16.3% of schools do not have traditional libraries. The average number of reading rooms/school; seating area/student are both low (3.7 rooms/school; 21 students/seat). The rate of libraries using software in management is at an average low level (49.4%). The investment cost for 1 library/year is very low (only 352.2 million VND/year). The rate of schools without electronic libraries is still very high (48.9%). The average number of reading rooms/school; the number of computers for users to access in the reading room/student are both low (1.3 rooms/school; 147 students/computer). The rate of libraries using software in management is quite high (72.3%). The investment cost for 1 library/year is very low (only 256.0 million VND/year). The database of shared textbooks among schools is still limited. Currently there is only about more than

1,000 textbooks from 24 schools were posted on the Ministry of Education and Training's website for shared use [41].

Table 3.25: Indicators of classrooms, lecture halls; laboratories; libraries/1 student

Target	Unit	Quantity
1	Classroom, lecture hall
	- Average classroom area/01 student	m 2	1.15
	- Ratio of classrooms/classrooms and lecture halls	%	92.16
	- Ratio of solid classrooms and lecture halls	%	84.28
	- Ratio of semi-permanent classrooms and lecture halls	%	5.11
	- Ratio of rented or borrowed classrooms and lecture halls	%	10.61
2	Laboratory
	- Average lab area used/1 student	m 2	0.53
	- Ratio of laboratories/classrooms and lecture halls	%	7.83
	- Solid laboratory ratio	%	92.69
	- Semi-permanent laboratory ratio	%	7.09
	- Rate of rented and borrowed laboratories	%	0.2
3	Library
	- Average/1 university student - According to national standards	m 2 m 2	0.18 0.5
	- Percentage of libraries built solidly	%	98.25
	- Percentage of libraries built semi-permanently	%	1.75
	- Traditional library ratio	%	69.07
	- Electronic library ratio	%	30.93

Source: [18, pp.12-13].

Table 3.26: Current status and quality indicators of the laboratory

Target	Unit	Quantity
I	Current status of the laboratory
1	Total number of laboratories	room	3.364
	- Average number of laboratories/1 school	room	36.6
	- Average remaining years of use of the equipment	year	11.1
2	Current device status
	- Rate of PTN in use	%	99.2
	- Rate of PTN awaiting liquidation	%	0.8
3	Management level
	- Rate of PTN managed by the school	%	89.1
	- Percentage of PTN managed by faculty	%	10.9
4	Service Range
	- Inter-school service ratio	%	7.1
	- Rate of PTN serving the school	%	44.7
	- Ratio of PTN serving the department	%	48.2
5	Number of staff managing and operating the PTN
	- Proportion of full-time staff	%	45.3
	- Proportion of part-time staff	%	54.7
	- Percentage of schools with plans to develop PTN human resources by 2015	%	13.4
6	Laboratory regulations

- Rate of PTN with regulations - Percentage of PTNs that are building regulations - Rate of PTN without regulations	% % %	83.2 12.7 4.1
II	Quality, laboratory suitability
1	Quality of equipment
	- Percentage of laboratories with good quality equipment	%	23.3
	- Percentage of PTNs with average equipment quality	%	63.1
	- Rate of PTN with low quality equipment	%	13.6
2	Technology of the device
	- Percentage of laboratories with modern technology	%	20.2
	- Rate of medium technology laboratories	%	61.9
	- Rate of low technology laboratories	%	17.9
3	PTN Equivalency Assessment
	- The PTN evaluation rate is equivalent to universities in the world.	%	1.8
	- The rate of PTN evaluation is equivalent to that of universities in the region.	%	49.9
	- The rate of PTN is assessed as backward level	%	48.2
4	Assess the suitability of laboratory equipment
	- Level of suitability for the training program	%	71.8
	- Clarity and ease of use	%	68.5
	- Level of effectiveness for preparing lectures, practice/experiment lessons	%	72.0
	- Level of suitability for the level of use of lecturers and students	%	75.3
	- Appropriate level of maintenance and management	%	68.5
	- Long-term use (durability)	%	63.5
5	Investment efficiency of PTN
	- The rate of PTN evaluated as highly effective investment	%	30.2
	- The rate of PTN evaluated as average investment efficiency	%	61.9
	- The rate of PTNs assessed as having low investment efficiency	%	7.8
6	Percentage of PTNs that are invested in additional, repaired, and upgraded annually	%	6.9
7	Propose a solution
	- Proposed new investment rate	%	16.2
	- Proposed upgrade rate of PTN	%	53.8
	- Proportion of PTNs recommended to add equipment	%	30.0
III	Level of response to the school's experimental and practical needs	%	40.0

Source: [18, pp. 18-19].

Table 3.27: Current status indicators; quality of practice workshop

Target	Unit	Quantity
I	Current status of the workshop (XTH)
1	Total XTH - Average area/1XTH	factory m2	248 3,872.8
	- Average remaining years of use of XTH	year	3.6
2	Current device status
	- XTH rate in use	%	99.0

- XTH rate pending liquidation	%	1.0
3	Management level
	- XTH rate managed by the school	%	93.4
	- XTH rate managed by the department	%	6.6
4	Service Range
	- Inter-school service rate	%	1.5
	- XTH rate serving the school	%	51.3
	- XTH rate serving the department	%	47.2
5	Number of staff managing and operating XTH
	- Proportion of full-time staff	%	54.9
	- Proportion of part-time staff	%	45.1
6	XTH Regulations
	- XTH rate has regulations	%	76.6
	- XTH rate is building regulations	%	19.6
	- XTH rate has no regulations	%	3.8
II	Quality, suitability of XTH
1	Quality of equipment
	- XTH rate is assessed as good quality equipment	%	30.2
	- XTH rate is rated as average device quality	%	51.8
	- XTH rate is assessed as low quality equipment	%	17.9
2	Technology of the device
	- XTH rate is evaluated with modern technology	%	22.8
	- The XTH ratio is assessed to have average technology	%	57.1
	- The XTH rate is assessed as having low technology	%	20.1
3	Equivalent assessment of XTH
	- The XTH evaluation rate is equivalent to universities around the world.	%	2.1
	- The XTH evaluation rate is equivalent to regional universities.	%	51.9
	- The XTH rate is considered backward.	%	46.0
4	Assess the suitability of equipment in XTH
	- Level of suitability for the training program	%	76.0
	- Clarity and ease of use	%	74.3
	- Level of effectiveness for preparing lectures, practice/experiment lessons	%	75.0
	- Level of suitability for the level of use of lecturers and students	%	80.0
	- Appropriate level of maintenance and management	%	70.3
	- Long-term use (durability)	%	70.4
5	Investment efficiency of XTH
	- XTH rate is assessed as high investment efficiency	%	45.2
	- XTH rate is evaluated as average investment efficiency	%	47.3
	- XTH rate is assessed as low investment efficiency	%	7.5
6	Rate of XTH added, repaired, upgraded, renovated annually	%	21.4
7	Propose a solution
	- Proposed new investment XTH ratio	%	16.3
	- Recommended XTH upgrade rate	%	38.0
	- Recommended XTH rate for additional equipment	%	45.7
III	Level of response to the school's experimental and practical needs	%	40.0

Source: [18, pp. 21-23].

Table 3.28: Information technology infrastructure indicators

Target	Unit	Average
1	Percentage of schools with sufficient staff to ensure the operation of IT systems	%	84.8
2	Average number of computers/01 lecturer	machine	0.29
3	Average number of computers/01 student	machine	0.42
4	Percentage of computers connected to internal networks	%	57.4
5	Percentage of computers connected to the internet	%	74.1
6	Number of computers connected to the internet serving students/01 student	machine	0.03
7	Percentage of schools with Wi-Fi	%	43.5
8	Percentage of schools with application software in management, teaching and scientific research	%	66.3
9	Percentage of schools with websites	%	67.4

Source: [18, p. 24].

Table 3.29: Library indicators

Target	Unit	Quantity
Target	Unit	Library traditional	Library Electronics
1	Total number of university libraries	library	77	47
2 3	Percentage of schools with libraries Average reading room area	% m 2	83.7 165.1	51.1 371.9
4	Average number of reading rooms/01 school	room	3.7	1.3
5	Number of seats (computers)/01 student	place	0.05	0.007
6	Number of books, documents/01 student	copy	11.1	1.2
7	Percentage of libraries with surveillance systems (magnetic gates, magnetic cards, etc.)	%		0.7
8	Number of visits (users)/01 student	user		0.032
9	Library Network
	- Percentage of libraries connected to LAN	%		76.6
	- Percentage of libraries connected to Wan network	%		17.0
	- Percentage of libraries connected to the internet	%		93.6
	- Percentage of libraries with Wi-Fi network	%		48.9
	- Percentage of libraries with interlibrary connections	%		25.5
10	Total number of library staff	People	870	538
	- Proportion of staff who are IT engineers	%	0	13.1
	- Percentage of staff with university degree or higher in library	%	53.4	51.3
	- Proportion of staff with college and intermediate library degrees	%	10.6	8.6
	- Short-term training rate	%	26.4	20.9
	- Proportion of part-time staff	%	9.6	6.1
11	Percentage of libraries using library management software	%	49.4	72.3
12	Average investment cost/01 library/01 year	million dong	352.2	256.0
13	Average number of readers and visitors is GV/year	People	6.660	22,875
14	Average number of readers and visitors are students and postgraduates/year	People	120,458	100,804
15	Percentage of libraries that apply library standards	%	55.8	57.4

Source: [18, pp. 26-28].

Third, sports facilities, dormitories, canteens, teachers' accommodation, and school health care facilities are still very limited, and are still invested in semi-permanent form and have to be rented (Table 3.30). For example, the rate of semi-permanent dormitories accounts for 10.35%; semi-permanent canteens accounts for 28.70%...

Table 3.30: Indicators for sports facilities, dormitories, canteens, teacher accommodation, and school health care

Target	Unit	Quantity
1	Sports house	home	65
	- Rate of solid sports house	%	72.30
	- Semi-permanent sports house ratio	%	21.50
	- Rate of sports houses rented and borrowed	%	6,160
2	Outdoor sports field	yard	212
	- Percentage of outdoor sports fields located on school grounds	%	84.43
	- Rate of rented or borrowed outdoor sports fields	%	15.57
3	Dormitory - Average living area/1 student	m 2	3.24
	- Rate of solid housing	%	88.44
	- Percentage of semi-permanent rooms	%	10.35
	- Rate of rented and borrowed rooms	%	1.21
4	Canteen	home	108
	- Percentage of solidly built dining rooms	%	65.74
	- Percentage of semi-permanently built dining halls	%	28.70
	- Rate of rented or borrowed restaurants	%	5.56
5	Number of rooms for lecturers Average area/room for 2 teachers and staff	room m2	249 33.00
	Number of accommodations for faculty and staff	place	843
	Rate of rented and borrowed rooms	%	1.21
6	School health work
	Percentage of schools with medical stations	%	83.7
	Number of hospital beds/01 student	bed	0.0006
	Number of medical staff/01 student	staff	0.0010
7	Other public works	project	65

Source: [18, pp. 14, 16, 29].

Fourth, the staff in charge of facilities and training equipment of schools is still weak and lacking in quantity (Table 3.31) . On average, there are 8 people/school; the proportion of staff holding concurrent positions and those without certificates related to the work they undertake is still high (27.2% and 73.6%, respectively). Many schools do not even have a separate department for facilities and equipment management. It is often arranged interspersed with the tasks of many functional departments, leading to difficulties in implementation. The qualifications of staff are mainly university degrees or lower (accounting for 83.7%); very few have doctoral degrees or higher (accounting for 3.48%).

Table 3.31: Team working on training facilities and equipment

Target	Unit	Quantity
1	Structure by level, degree, title
	- Professor	%	0.09
	- Doctor of Science	%	0.09
	- Dr.	%	3.3
	- Master	%	12.8
	- University	%	48.2
	- College degree or lower	%	35.5
2	Ratio of full-time staff/total	%	72.8
3	Ratio of part-time staff/total	%	27.2
4	Percentage of staff with certificates related to the job they are doing	%	26.4

Source: [18, p. 30].

The above results show that the impact of the TCTC mechanism on improving the quality of facilities for public universities is not high.

e. Additional income of staff

Since applying the TCTC mechanism (Decree 43/CP), the additional income of school staff has increased (Table 3.32), for example at Thuy Loi University it is 7.5 million VND/person/month, everyone feels secure in their work, and the spirit of solidarity is better.

Table 3.32: Additional income expenditure of some universities (2006÷2010)

Unit: Million VND

University name	Total revenue
University name	2006	2007	Year 2008	Year 2009	2010
1	Ho Chi Minh City University of Industry	22,266	25,720	30,123	40,429	54,518
2	Hanoi University of Industry	9,681	7,599	12,213	15,089	26,179
3	University of Economics and Technology	2,504	2,818	4.412	8,255	10,798
4	Quang Ninh University of Technology	2,291	2,098	2,681	2,727	2,179
5	Universities under the Ministry of Education and Training	85,229	146,460	168,679	224,862	*
6	Vietnam National University, Hanoi	*	7,407	3,539	31,127	*
7	Ho Chi Minh City National University	7.021	18,147	28,419	27,479	*

Source: Author's calculation from the audit report of the 2006÷2010 settlement [21÷34], [126÷145] and (*) is the part without data.

According to the survey results at 50 schools in 3 years, the average score used to evaluate the increase or decrease in additional income of staff is as follows:

Comment