University admission conversion: Need to join hands to solve the problem

However, the actual implementation shows the opposite: candidates and parents are confused and worried about the fact that "each school has its own way" in converting admission scores.

Why?

The main reason for this phenomenon is the lack of a mechanism from the Ministry of Education and Training and the application of many different conversion methods by schools, from linear interpolation to using old data or even self-built formulas that are not publicly announced.

In addition, the actual input data (high school exam scores, report cards, and competency assessment scores) have very different measurement and distribution characteristics, leading to errors and difficulties when bringing them to a common scale.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education and Training has only published the percentile table for some popular subject combinations, while dozens of other subject combinations still have no conversion data. The lack of a clear conversion mechanism from the ministry has caused schools to struggle to develop their own conversion methods, increasing confusion and making it difficult for candidates to compare, choose and adjust their wishes.

Need responsibility, joint effort

We cannot continue to have each school deal with things on its own, leading to injustice and great disadvantages for students. At this time, we need to clearly realize that the responsibility for solving the problem cannot only belong to the schools, nor can we rely on the Ministry of Education and Training alone. This is a shared responsibility, requiring close cooperation between state management agencies and higher education institutions.

On the part of the Ministry of Education and Training, the most important responsibility at this time is to issue a general mechanism guiding the conversion of admission scores. In which, the ministry needs to clearly require that schools when converting scores from one method to another must use easy-to-understand scientific statistical principles, such as: how to compare score rankings (ranking by percentile), average scores and score fluctuations must be equivalent between testing methods.

The Ministry also needs to clearly stipulate the maximum allowable difference in scores between schools, ensure that the number of scores used for calculation is large enough, the conversion data must be publicly transparent so that everyone can check it, and have a strict monitoring mechanism to avoid injustice or errors in the conversion process.

On the part of universities, in addition to building their own conversion tables according to the specific characteristics of their professions, they also need to commit to transparency in the entire process, data, and conversion formulas so that candidates can easily look up and compare. Schools must be accountable to society for the way they convert scores, avoiding creating a sense of ambiguity or causing misunderstandings and injustices for candidates.

More importantly, the Ministry of Education and Training and schools need to establish a close coordination mechanism, regular data exchange and an independent monitoring system to ensure that the conversion of scores is fair and in accordance with common standards.