Rethinking Thailand’s University Admissions System

On 17 June 2025, the final round of Thai university admissions results was released, concluding a gruelling nine-month process involving students’ examinations, essays, and interviews. Despite efforts to improve the system over the past seven years, the Thai University Central Admission System (TCAS) still faces three major challenges: it remains overly complicated and inconsistent, it disadvantages students from vulnerable backgrounds, and its standardised tests are often marred by ambiguous questions and scoring disputes. Without urgent reforms, the system risks falling short of its goal to support all students fairly.

Introduced in 2018 under the Council of University Presidents of Thailand (CUPT), TCAS was created to address widespread concerns about the then examination-focused admissions system. This system reportedly caused intense stress on test days and pushed many students to neglect their regular schoolwork in favour of intense examination preparation. In response, TCAS adopted a more flexible approach, offering up to four rounds of admissions to help ease this pressure.

The first “Portfolio” round adopts a holistic approach like many North American university admissions, where students directly submit essays and extracurricular portfolios to their chosen programmes or departments. The second “Quota” round reserves places for local students applying to universities within their home regions. The third “Admissions” round requires students to submit scores from the Thai General Aptitude Test (TGAT), the Thai Professional Aptitude Test (TPAT), or A-level (administered by CUPT, different from the similarly named Singapore and UK Cambridge ‘Advanced-level’ examinations) – which are all standardised tests administered throughout the year. It is worth noting that each degree programme, faculty or department, and university specifies its own combination of these test requirements, meaning that applicants must carefully research them before taking the appropriate examinations. Applicants can rank up to ten programme preferences, with placements allocated based on their preferences and test performance. The fourth and final “Direct Admission” round allows students dissatisfied with their assigned programme – or those who failed to secure admission in earlier rounds – to compete for remaining spots.

If the above system seems confusing, that is because it is.

While well-intentioned, the shift to this system has introduced new problems. The multiple admission rounds, each with its own rules and requirements, are overwhelming for many students. Complicating matters, the requirements often change from year to year. Over its seven-year history, TCAS has undergone major revisions, usually in response to problems or criticisms that arose in the previous year. Originally launched with five admission rounds, it was streamlined to four in 2021. Previously, CUPT had also relied on scores from additional standardised tests, such as the Ordinary National Educational Test (O-NET) and “General Subjects” (Thai, English, social studies, mathematics, general science, physics, chemistry, and biology) examinations. Some of these were removed in 2021, only for the science component of the General Subjects to be reinstated the following year. Additionally, university programmes frequently adjust their test requirements, making it difficult for prospective applicants to plan their admissions strategy. Despite the CUPT’s promise to announce changes three years in advance, this commitment has not always been upheld.

At the very least, this involves stabilising admission rules and requirements, strengthening test development and quality control, and actively addressing inequalities in educational opportunity.

The structure, complexity, and inconsistencies of the TCAS disproportionately disadvantage students from vulnerable backgrounds. A 2024 report by the Thai government-affiliated non-profit Equitable Education Fund (EEF) found that over 85 per cent of nearly 150,000 underprivileged students in their study failed to secure university offers through TCAS. While income inequality, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, can affect educational opportunity in any university admissions process, certain features of the TCAS appear to intensify these disadvantages.

Indeed, many academics and researchers argue that adding more admission rounds may worsen inequality. For one, wealthier students can afford to apply multiple times, while their lower-income peers usually cannot. The EEF’s findings support this, showing that the application fees across different rounds discourage many economically disadvantaged students from applying. The “Portfolio” round, which evaluates extracurricular activities and personal essays, tends to favour affluent students who have the time, resources, and guidance with which to build strong applications. The system’s complexity and ever-changing requirements pose additional barriers for disadvantaged students, whose teachers and parents often lack familiarity with the TCAS and are unable to provide guidance.

In addition to these structural flaws, the execution of standardised tests in Thailand has frequently fallen short of true standardisation. Examinations like the TGAT, TPAT, A-levels, O-NET, and General Subjects have drawn numerous complaints from applicants, who criticise some questions for ambiguity or having multiple plausible answers. In 2022, as many as 39 questions were formally disputed. Last year’s examinations in mathematics, physics, biology, general science, and sociology faced formal complaints and affected nearly all applicants, regardless of their intended field of study.

Research indicates that when disputes arise, the CUPT accepts responsibility roughly half the time, typically responding by removing the contested question from scoring or awarding full points to all applicants. While these measures provide quick fixes, they ultimately undermine the hard work of students. Those who answer correctly deserve full credit, not to have their responses excluded or receive free points shared by everyone. In highly competitive fields such as medicine or law, getting even a single question right can significantly impact one’s admission outcomes. Consequently, such errors may cost applicants their place in desired programmes and invalidate years of dedicated preparation, as well as jeopardise future career paths.

The solution does not lie in entirely dismantling the TCAS. Rather, it calls for the CUPT to commit to meaningful and sustained reforms. At the very least, this would involve stabilising admission rules and requirements, strengthening test development and quality control, and actively addressing inequalities in educational opportunity. Ultimately, deserving Thai high school students should have a university admissions system that truly recognises and rewards their hard work and academic achievement.

2025/212