French private higher education facing the gap

For the past five years, French private higher education has been at the heart of a series of contradictory signals: rapid growth driven by apprenticeships, increased demands for budgetary sustainability, and intensified legislative initiatives to clarify the rules of the game. Public reports have highlighted the tension between volume and quality (review of apprenticeship spending, sustainability of subsidies), while Parliament and the Government have introduced several pieces of legislation to better regulate student access, quality, and information. This sequence of events creates a need for an analytical framework capable of moving beyond specific controversies to structurally examine the educational value produced by the private "midfield" sector (Levy 2008).

In parallel, regulatory authorities have documented problematic business and contractual practices, and the certification regulator has tightened its criteria, strengthening the requirement for evidence of integration and clarity of labels. Internationally, UNESCO's calls for alignment between "quality, relevance, and equity" necessitate an overhaul of indicators and methods of proof. It is within this context, at the intersection of regulation, trust, and pedagogical transformation in the age of AI, that this article is situated, proposing a governance framework centered on transparency, the authenticity of competency assessments, and risk management.

The paradox of growth

Since 2018, the share of private institutions has increased by 5.2 percentage points, reaching 26.6% of students enrolled in the 2023-2024 academic year (out of a total of approximately 2.97 million enrollments): a dynamic driven by apprenticeships and supply-side policies. This quantitative expansion preceded quality assurance, revealing an imbalance between growth and quality assurance. Information asymmetry is now documented by regulatory authorities. Regarding the use of labels and business practices, the DGCCRF (French Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control) inspected 80 institutions; 56% presented at least one irregularity, more than 30% had misleading business practices (unverifiable promises of employability, improper use of "bachelor's," "master's," etc.), and 40% had unfair or illegal clauses in their contracts. The survey, repeated in 2021-2022 across 90 institutions, confirmed widespread non-compliance (telemarketing, distance selling, contractual clauses) and 21% of cases of misleading business practices; in the osteopathy sub-sector alone, 86% of the schools inspected presented at least one irregularity. In response, the academic regulator CEFDG is publishing guidelines for the use of labels and logos to regulate communication and clarify their duration and scope. These measures highlight the need for standardized transparency regarding labels and the nature of diplomas (accreditation/degree vs. RNCP certifications) to reduce information asymmetry at the decision-making stage for families and students.

Regarding professional certifications, France Compétences processed 2,129 applications in 2024, with a 66.8% approval rate for RNCP certification (39.3% for RS certification) and an average processing time of 4.2 months, reflecting a gradual tightening of criteria and deadlines. This trend is towards more transparent ex-ante/ex-post regulation.

Regarding skills mismatch, several indicators converge. In PIAAC 2023, France has 19% overqualified employees and 12% underqualified compared to the level generally required by the job; these mismatches weigh on the alignment of training and employment. The feeling of downward mobility sheds light on the subjective aspect of the phenomenon: in 2024, 15% of employed 15-34 year olds consider themselves downwardly mobile, with variations depending on status and level of education. In terms of field-of-study mismatch, benchmark studies place France above the European average (approximately 35% in previous series), indicating persistent friction in specialization. Taken together, these findings suggest a shift in sectoral policy from a focus on volume to a policy of educational value, combining public criteria, ex-ante/ex-post monitoring, and systematic publication of decisions and employment outcomes.

The gap in the promise

Driven by employability marketing, the promise of rapid integration clashes, for many young graduates, with a feeling of being "inadequately prepared," particularly regarding transferable skills. Downstream, the mismatch stems from a poorly understood recognition system: on the one hand, academic labels/degrees (controlled by the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation/CEFDG); on the other, RNCP professional certifications, renewed based on evidence of employment—two systems often conflated in institutional communications. Authorities are calling for stricter controls (RNQ/Qualiopi certification, outsourcing), higher standards for demonstrating employment outcomes, and greater accessibility to label decisions and histories. Addressing the "failure of the educational contract" therefore requires standardized transparency (duration and scope of labels, employment outcomes, sanction decisions) so that educational value takes precedence over the justification for access.

The grip of the "Insiders"

Applied to midfield private higher education, the insider/outsider dynamic reveals a deadlock: those in positions (program directors, established instructors) lock down the rules, filter access to responsibilities, and prioritize routine over newcomers and innovation—an effect already described by labor economics and sociology (Lindbeck & Snower, 1988; 2001; Dahrendorf, 1959). On a daily basis, the focus is on continuity: rigid timetables, outdated course outlines, and superficial evaluations rather than genuine skills assessments. Anonymous accounts describe "omniscient" management styles (appropriation of results, invisibility of contributors, micromanagement) that stifle initiative and confrontation with reality. As a result, outsiders (junior teachers, visiting professionals, students) struggle to change course. This closure feeds the perceived inadequacy and may lower requirements to preserve attractiveness: a symptom of degree inflation (Collins et al, 1979) discussed by recent literature.

The status elite versus the role of bearer

In midfield private schools, the self-proclaimed "elite" too often relies more on status than on the knowledge to be transmitted. Prestige is reassuring, but it stifles inspiration: instructors are self-absorbed, and students no longer envision their future. When autonomy, competence, and connection are not nurtured, motivation wanes, a phenomenon documented by the psychology of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Conversely, credible mentors (practical teachers grounded in the field, pedagogical "champions" equipped with the necessary tools) open doors, provide access to real-world contexts, and increase the feeling of efficacy. Without such grounding, a learning fatigue sets in, which is dismissed as "unfounded," when in reality it primarily signals a failure of support. The outcome is known: recognize, train and mandate educational champions (time, right to trial, mandate), evaluate each program on real commitment and access to the field, and reduce status rhetoric in favor of lived evidence (Céreq, 2024).

Towards a new policy of quality and openness

Three key areas emerge. (i) Governance: a controlled renewal of internal stakeholders (limited terms, transparent appointments, peer review) and open advisory boards (students, alumni, employers) to link training and employment with skills frameworks. (ii) Enhanced regulation: publication of employment indicators (time to employment, job/training match, starting salaries) and open decision-making (visa/grade, RNCP certification) in an interoperable system. (iii) Pedagogy: widespread use of authentic assessments (real-world projects, studios, clinical practice) and competency-based learning contracts with dual supervision (faculty/professional mentor), supported by rubrics and formative feedback.

Looking at the bigger picture, AI integration must be governed by risk frameworks: the MIT AI Risk Taxonomy distinguishes seven domains (discrimination/toxicity, privacy/security, misinformation, malicious actors, human-computer interaction, socio-economic/environmental, and security/system failures) and helps prioritize overtrust, data leaks, bias, and misinformation in educational applications (MIT AI Risk Repository, 2024-2025). For private higher education and research institutions, this implies prompt and corpus audits, interaction logging (for educational purposes), aligned assessment tests (avoiding complete substitution of cognitive processes), and reversibility clauses in case of breaches of ethical or security criteria.

This analysis leads to one inescapable conclusion: the quantitative growth of the private sector has outpaced quality assurance and the clarity of information for students, fueling measurable gaps between degrees and employment (e.g., a feeling of downward mobility among 15-34 year olds), despite recent tightening of certification criteria. To address this, the focus must shift from volume to demonstrable educational value: standardized transparency of status and employment outcomes, controlled renewal of insiders, and the widespread use of authentic assessments that attest to skills in real-world contexts. In the age of generative AI, this shift must be accompanied by risk governance supported by a shared taxonomy (bias, confidentiality, misinformation, failures), with public records of practices, regular audits, and reversibility clauses. Aligned with the "quality-relevance-fairness" guidelines promoted internationally, this triptych offers the private "midfield" a credible trajectory to restore trust and prove its contribution to the common good.

---