How many students are enrolled in a private, for-profit institution? It is difficult to answer this question accurately since there are currently no consolidated statistics on the subject. We know, on the other hand, that a quarter of all French students are today in private higher education. Within this category, it is appropriate to distinguish the so-called “traditional” private establishments (such as religious institutes or business and engineering schools) from the new market players belonging to the so-called “for-profit” sector, which are very heterogeneous but which generally have the common point of offering “professional” training.
“Between 400,000 and 450,000 young people would belong to this second category which undoubtedly continues to gain ground,” say Estelle Folest, deputy for Val-d’Oise from the Modem, and Béatrice Descamps, deputy for the North from the Libertés group, independent, overseas and territories. On April 10, the two parliamentarians presented a report on the abuses of these groups and schools before the Committee on Cultural Affairs and Education of the National Assembly and formulated 22 proposals. Denouncing the lack of transparency and readability of their training offers, Estelle Folest pleads for better control of this new lucrative private market which is booming. Interview.
L’Express: Why does private, for-profit higher education attract so many students?
Estelle Folest: One of the main reasons is the demographic explosion which took place in the 2000s, combined with a high baccalaureate success rate and an increasing appetite among young people for diplomas perceived as being the best weapon against unemployment. From 2015, these three factors combined are causing a massive influx of young people into higher education. As the public is not able to accommodate this new student population on its own, the lucrative private sector will position itself to meet this strong demand.
The other major factor which explains its growth is the 2018 law for the freedom to choose one’s professional future. This LCAP law sought to facilitate the integration of young people into employment by massively encouraging professional training and apprenticeship through liberalization of their operation. The private for-profit sector has been able to seize the new opportunities offered by this reform. The establishments in question were notably able to save on training expenses and increase them thanks to financial support from the State. Today, they welcome 25% of apprenticeship students at post-baccalaureate level.
Has this system not benefited many young people?
Yes, of course, and I would like to point out that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This policy dedicated to apprenticeship was, and still is, a huge success which has led hundreds of thousands of young people to employment. And it must be recognized that some of them would never have had access to higher education otherwise. The problem is that the emphasis has been placed more on the quantitative than on the qualitative at the post-baccalaureate level, which has given rise to abuses denounced both by the mediator of National Education and higher education. and by the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention. In 2020, a DGCCRF investigation established that, of the 80 higher education establishments examined, 56% were in violation. A whole host of dysfunctions have been noted, ranging from misleading information on the content of training to fraud, including financial disputes over tuition fees. It is absolutely necessary for the public authorities to finally look into what these “pharmacies” or “margoulins” – terms used by players in the sector themselves – are offering to avoid these abuses.
Some of these groups or schools maintain a certain vagueness about the nature of the diplomas for which they prepare. How ?
Contrary to what some families imagine, most of these training courses do not lead to the obtaining of diplomas recognized by the Ministry of Higher Education, but give access to “titles” registered in the national directory of professional certifications (RNCP) led by the Ministry of Labor. The confusion comes from the fact that the names given are sometimes very close. For example, some young people can sometimes think they have obtained an academic “master’s degree” when they actually hold a “master’s degree”, a professional title registered with the RNCP which does not guarantee them either the continuation of studies or access scholarships awarded on social criteria by the Ministry of Higher Education. The fact that all stakeholders can use the unprotected term “diploma” on the Parcoursup platform further accentuates this vagueness.
The Parcousup system is often described as a “jungle” in which it is difficult to navigate. Here again, shouldn’t the offer be clarified?
Yes, the higher education system has become completely illegible and students, as well as their families, have great difficulty finding their way among the more than 23,000 courses displayed. This is why we suggest setting up several filters on the Parcoursup platform to facilitate the search and understanding of each offer. The idea is first of all to group together under different tabs the training provided by public higher education, by the private sector under contract and by the private for-profit sector. Then, indicate the educational value of each of them. Finally, we propose to create compulsory “training identity cards” which will give details on the legal status of the different schools, the nature of the diplomas or certifications offered, the possibilities or not of continuing one’s studies at university or to access Crous scholarships. Before registration is validated, young people will have to check a box certifying that they have read all this information.
One of the other key measures proposed would be to call on different inspection bodies…
The idea would actually be to entrust a mission to the General Inspectorate of Finance, the General Inspectorate of Higher Education and Research and the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs so that they can enlighten us on how in which the private for-profit sector operates, with particular attention paid to learning. These specialists, whose role is to ensure the proper use of public funds, are best placed to investigate to tell us how many students take part in these courses, how state aid or registration fees are broken down. , but also what is their economic, financial and even shareholder model.
There is urgency, because these training courses already welcome between 400,000 and 450,000 students. We should not find ourselves in three years facing a million young people affected without knowing where these establishments are and what exactly they offer. During our hearings, representatives of local authorities explained to us that they were not always informed in advance of the installation of one of these schools in their territory. They sometimes learn about it by chance, when a student applies for a scholarship or accommodation. However, the establishment of an establishment with 300 students necessarily has an impact, whether on transport infrastructure or on housing.
You also propose to increase the controls of the DGCCRF and to publish the names of the sanctioned schools. Isn’t that the case today?
DGCCRF controls already exist and we welcome them, but we would like them to be stepped up and carried out randomly throughout the country in order to combat this feeling of impunity that these schools may have. We also plead for the names of those who are in violation to be published, which is unfortunately not the case today. I insist on the fact that education is not a market like any other. There are no dedicated consumer forums for private, for-profit higher education where you can access ratings or comments. In any case, a student could not afford to attack his school for the simple reason that his future depends on it and its reputation. It is also not possible to request an exchange or refund as one could do, for example, for a refrigerator or a washing machine.
It is therefore up to the State to ensure that young people are not lured by unscrupulous merchants. This is why we propose to appoint a specific mediator, dedicated to private higher education. Its mission would consist of receiving requests for arbitration and disputes and providing responses to them. This would also allow us to collect statistics that are sorely lacking today.
The Ministry of Higher Education is currently studying the establishment of a new “quality label” for private training. A good idea in your opinion?
We interviewed the working group which is actually considering this avenue. This idea of a label seems to me to be a good idea for experts in the higher education sector and local authorities who rely a lot on this type of tool. On the other hand, I think that this will not make the system more readable in the eyes of students and parents. The latter think more in terms of “bac + 2” or “bac + 3”, rate of integration into employment or salary perspective. Knowing what types of professionals provide training or how many teacher-researchers there are doesn’t really speak to them. This is why we need to take other measures in parallel. This is what we set out to do through this mission.
.