UNIVERSITIES AND

TERRITORIES

Public thematic report

February 2023

2

Executive Summary

In France, the number of higher education graduates in the 25-34 age group is good

(49.4% compared to an average of 45.6% for all OECD countries). If we look at the

geographical distribution of this graduation rate (map below), we can see that there are still

territorial inequalities with regard to access to higher education: the more rural the region, the

lower the graduation rate. The territorial networking of higher education sites is therefore a

major issue for regional planning policy.

Rate of higher education graduates by city for the 25-34 age group in 2018

in relation to main university sites

Source: Cour des Comptes (Court of Accounts), based on INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies) data

The social background of students remains the main cause of inequalities in access to

higher education. Among young people aged 20 to 24, 77% of children with parents who are

managers, in intermediate professions or self-employed are studying or have studied at a

higher education level, compared to 52% of those with parents in manual or clerical positions,

i.e., 1.5 times more. Social and geographical origins also influence the choice of institution and

course of study after the baccalaureate. In fact, students from disadvantaged social

bac

kgrounds prefer a shorter education in secondary school (“

lycée

”), whereas advantaged

students are more likely to go on to prestigious universities (“

grandes écoles

”). With their

intermediate positioning, mainstream universities and technological institutes promote a more

equal access to higher education.

3

Territorial issues in missions of higher education and student life

1

Social and geographical inequalities in access to university education around the country

remain an issue, despite attempts to reduce them. To remedy this, university branches have

been opened or maintained in order to improve access across territories. There are

approximately 150 of them and together they have close to 91,000 students (of which nearly a

third are in institutes of technology -

“IUT”). They have a public service mission, mainly

undergraduate courses. Despite the difficulties of the Ministry of Higher Education and the

institutions themselves in quantifying their costs, due to the lack of cost accounting, the survey

has made it possible to estimate that these costs are comparable to, or even lower than, those

of courses at main sites. The success rate observed in the branches is very similar to that of

the parent universities. The rate of continuation to postgraduate education, however, is low.

Connected campuses are another response to the geographical and social difficulties in

accessing higher education. However, their success appears to be mixed. Launched in 2019,

eight of the hundred or so of these campuses have more than twenty students so far, which

puts the value of this new model into perspective and sometimes leads to exorbitant costs per

student.

The fight against inequality also involves welcoming and supporting students: some

universities are making significant efforts to pursue an ambitious policy in these areas.

However, the Court found that there were significant differences between institutions due to

the lack of a clear definition of the concept of student life. This lack of a definition is reflected,

among other things, in the difficulty of establishing master plans to develop the concept.

Actions remain dispersed, and involve many stakeholders with whom universities must work,

in particular the regional centres for student services (CROUS). Coordination between CROUS

centres and universities, particularly in the areas of accommodation and catering, is lacking on

all sites. Increasing the responsibility of universities with regard to student life would provide

more levers to improve this situation, but the majority of universities reject the notion of an

administrative rapprochement with CROUS centres.

The need for new frameworks to understand the university landscape

The map of higher education reveals many divides, whether historical, territorial, social

or legal. They have become more pronounced following the excellence policies deployed over

the past ten or so years, as well as the implementation of experiments that have led to the

emergence of a new type of institution in a context marked by the rise of private higher

education. Public authorities currently have neither the tools nor the means necessary to

regulate this highly differentiated university landscape.

The implementation of new frames of reference seems necessary for the management

of this diversity. This objective implies some decision-making on the part of the government.

Besides the

status quo

, a first option would be to establish, on a national level, several

categorisations of universities according to each priority in public policy. These categorisations

would determine the resources to be allocated to universities to fulfil their missions as best

possible with regard to their needs and the specificities of their territory. This would make it

possible to set criteria to ensure that the distribution of funding between institutions is done in

an understandable way, but it seems to be a complex exercise that is difficult to accomplish.

The government could also decide to do away with all forms of modelling and develop a unique

relationship with each university, considered as an entity in its own right, while relying on a

minimum number of common elements and an inviolable base for each one. This second

option would require strengthening the expertise and decision-making power of regional

education authorities, which would reduce the heavy burden on central government. It would

1

Aware of the particularities of Paris and the overseas territories, the Court decided to exclude higher education in

these territories from this report. These may be the subject of specific publications in future work.

4

in particular involve an overhaul of the system for allocating financial resources: the current

system does not take into account territorial specificities or the quality of the training provided,

and thus does not allow for strategic management and remains misunderstood by the

stakeholders concerned.

Institutional relations vary in scope from one territory to another

Local and regional authorities are valuable allies for universities owing to the funding

they provide and their often proactive policies. The financial resources paid out each year are

substantial, amounting to around €1.5

billion. The regions, which have been the territorial

leaders in higher education since the NOTRe law came into force, implement their own policies

without fully ensuring proper coordination with the other funding authorities within the same

territory. There are too few forums for the exchange of information and the implementation of

joint actions by all the authorities, which hinders the implementation of a coherent and

controlled strategy. This lack of coordination leads to a suboptimal distribution of funding and,

in some situations, to a dispersion of funding.

The Ministry of Higher Education is struggling to involve local and regional authorities in

the contracting it carries out every five years with universities, despite the recent provisions of

the Research Programming Law (LPR) which encourages it to do so. As a key player in the

control, standards and allocation of resources, the ministry must now reform its organisation

to fully exercise its role as a strategist and better take into account the specific territorial

characteristics of each university. Currently, it swings between a (recent) decentralised system

whereby institutions are managed by regional education authorities, and a management

system that remains highly centralised. In the field, the role of higher education officer, created

in some regional education authorities in 2020 to facilitate dialogue with universities, is being

gradually established, but without clearly defined missions or full delegation from the chief

education officers of the academic regions. It seems necessary to strengthen this role so that

it can be fully deployed.

Recognition from the business world still to be established

Economic players are becoming essential partners for universities, which involve

businesses in their strategic bodies or pedagogical councils, in particular for professional

bachelor degrees

and in master’s programmes. Universities’ contribution to employment and

economic development is undergoing initial assessments as part of impact studies. However,

these initiatives remain scattered. The Ministry of Higher Education has not developed a more

systematic approach and methodology, such as in the UK. Doing so would make it possible to

calculate the return on investment of higher education spending, which could be a decisive

element in budgetary negotiations with the budget department.

However, there are mixed opinions among business leaders. A survey of a

representative sample of a large number of them showed that the majority would like to be

more involved in the definition of curricula and be better informed about the university training

offer, which is still considered too complex and not very clear. Most also deplore a lack of

responsiveness in the establishment and accreditation of government-recognised diplomas.

The latter is the responsibility of the Ministry of Higher Education, but pragmatic measures

could be taken to respond more quickly to the changing needs of the economy by allowing the

different levels of academia to intervene in specific cases to facilitate adjustments to courses

during the accreditation process.