Cooperating with German institutions is a direction with clear appeal: training quality is widely recognised, the cost of study at many institutions is significantly lower than in English-speaking systems, and there is a close link between training and industry.
However, this system operates on principles quite different from the model most education professionals in Vietnam are familiar with, and applying familiar working methods often leads to failure at the outset.
This article sets out the four most important features, the real barriers, and a suitable approach.
Feature one: authority devolved to each state
This is the fundamental point of difference and it affects every aspect of the cooperation.
Education falls under the authority of each state, not the federal level. Each state has its own regulations on programmes, entry requirements, and much else.
The practical consequence. An agreement or a practice that works in one state may not work in another. Assuming there is one common set of rules for the whole country is the most common mistake.
Requirements must be checked at the state level regarding degree recognition, entry requirements, and tuition fees.
A point to note in negotiation. The partner will refer to their own state’s regulations, and comparing them with an institution in another state is often meaningless.
Because of this feature, choosing a partner should start with understanding that state’s regulations, before looking into the specific institution.
Feature two: two types of institutions with different orientations
The German system has two groups of institutions at the higher level, and distinguishing between them matters for advising.
The research-oriented group. Programmes lean toward theory and research, and carry the right to award doctoral degrees.
The application-oriented group. Programmes are closely tied to professional practice, include a mandatory internship period, and lecturers usually have industry work experience.
Both award degrees of equivalent value, and this is a point that should be made clear to families, since many assume the first group is better by default.
For most Vietnamese learners, the application-oriented group is usually the better fit, since the main goal is to work after graduation rather than pursue research.
Advising incorrectly on this point is fairly common and leads to learners entering a programme that does not suit their goals.
Feature three: language requirements
This is the biggest real barrier and also the aspect most underestimated when planning.
Many programmes are still taught in German, especially at bachelor’s level. The number of English-taught programmes is rising but remains concentrated at higher levels and in certain fields.
The required language threshold is an academic one, far higher than an ordinary conversational level. For someone starting from scratch, the time needed to reach it is usually measured in years, not months.
Even with an English-taught programme, German is still needed for daily life, for the internship, and for job opportunities after graduation.
The implication for schools at home. If the aim is a substantive cooperation, building a German-language programme is a prerequisite, not a supplementary activity.
This is why many agreements signed with German partners end up with very few learners actually transferring over. The gap lies in language, not in the content of the agreement.
Feature four: academic background requirements
The German system has specific requirements for academic background before entering higher education, and these differ from many other systems.
A Vietnamese high school diploma is usually not enough for direct entry. Learners may need to complete a preparatory stage, or to have already completed a number of semesters at university level at home.
The specific conditions depend on the state and the field of study, so each case must be checked individually.
Consequence for transfer programs. Designing a programme where learners complete a number of semesters at home before transferring is a model well suited to this system.
The preparatory stage adds time and cost, and this needs to be made clear to families from the start.
This point should be verified at the official source for each field and each state, since general information is usually not precise enough for advising.
Approaching German partners
Four points about working practice make the initial phase go more smoothly.
Prepare a concrete, well-substantiated proposal. Communication in this environment tends to be content- and detail-oriented. A generic proposal expressing a general wish to cooperate rarely gets a response.
Accept a slower decision-making pace. Decisions usually pass through multiple levels and follow a clear process. Pushing for speed does not shorten it and can leave a poor impression.
Respect commitments on timing. If you have agreed to send a document by a certain date, sending it on time matters far more than sending an elaborate document late.
Prepare documents that are accurate in their figures. Every number cited may be questioned in detail, and an unsubstantiated figure undermines the credibility of the entire proposal.
In addition, direct and straightforward communication is the norm in this working environment. A partner pointing out weaknesses in a proposal is not a sign of rejection but a normal way of working.
Suitable cooperation models
Not every model is workable within this system. The four models below have a higher success rate.
Faculty and staff exchange. The fewest barriers, and it lays the groundwork for deeper forms of cooperation.
Joint research projects, especially in technical and technology fields.
Transfer programmes with a language-preparation phase. The most realistic model if the school can build up German-language training capacity.
Cooperation with application-oriented institutions in technical fields, where there is clear demand for labour and links with businesses.
The first model should be the starting point. It does not require solving the learner’s language problem, it builds a substantive relationship, and it serves as a basis for expansion later.
When cross-referencing education levels and programme workloads between the two systems, comparative data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a basis for building a comparison table.
For matters on degree recognition and admission requirements, the framework of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a reference worth citing in negotiations.
Preparation before cooperating with a German school
For a school with no existing relationship in this direction, the five tasks below should be completed before contacting a partner.
Assess the school’s existing German-language training capacity. The number of instructors, the number of learners currently enrolled, and the level achieved. This is the basis for determining a workable model.
Identify areas of strength. Cooperation usually starts from a specific field, not from the school as a whole. Stating clearly where the school is strong is far more effective than a broad, general proposal.
Prepare an introductory profile in English and German, with concrete figures on scale, programmes, and learner outcomes.
Learn the regulations of the state (Bundesland) the prospective partner belongs to, especially on degree recognition and admission requirements.
Designate a long-term person in charge. The process of building this kind of relationship is a long one, and changing the responsible person midway wastes most of the progress made.
The second task deserves emphasis. Training institutions in Germany, especially application-oriented ones, care more about specific professional capacity than about a partner’s overall scale or reputation.
Risks to anticipate
The time to results is long. The time from first contact to the first learner transferring is usually measured in years. The school needs to factor this in when planning, so as not to judge it a failure if there are no results after one year.
The language barrier on the learner’s side. If the language training programme is not of adequate quality, learners will not clear the admission threshold, and the entire agreement will have no effect.
Cost of living. Although tuition fees at many institutions are low, the cost of living in major cities is not, and this is an item families often underestimate.
The high requirement for learning autonomy. Learners accustomed to closely guided instruction often face significant difficulty in the first year.
The fourth risk is the one the school at home can address most effectively, by building self-study skills in learners during the preparation phase, rather than leaving them to adapt on their own after arrival.
It is also worth noting that building self-study skills benefits learners even if they do not go abroad, so this is a no-risk investment regardless of how the cooperation turns out.
Summary
Education in Germany falls under the authority of each state (Bundesland), so assuming the whole country follows one common set of rules is the most common mistake, and choosing a partner should start with learning that state’s regulations.
The language requirement is the biggest practical barrier: many agreements are signed but very few learners actually transfer, and the gap lies in German-language ability, not in the content of the agreement.
Faculty exchange should be the starting step, since it does not require solving the learner’s language problem while still building a substantive relationship that lays the groundwork for deeper forms of cooperation.
Next Steps
Realistically assess your school’s current German-language training capacity before discussing any transfer model.
If that capacity does not yet exist, the most workable direction in the early stage is faculty exchange and joint research projects, not programmes for learners.
