Cut them out universities will not solve the problems alone. This is, in essence, the message that the Higher Council for Education, Training and Scientific Research (CSEFRS) addressed to the government.
The project to overhaul the university card public comes from a good intention: to relieve the congestion of large universities, to bring campus of the students and better distribute the training offer across the territory. But for the Council, the proposed remedy remains too light to cure a much deeper problem. The project plans to comprehensively review the current organization of public universities. Several large establishments would be divided into smaller entities. Ultimately, the Morocco would increase from 12 to 27 public universities. An important transformation on paper, but which, according to the Council, cannot be confused with a global reform of higher education.
A useful reform, but not sufficient
The idea is simple: a university better anchored in its region can better understand local needs, dialogue with economic players and contribute to territorial development. On this point, the Council therefore validates the objective. But it immediately introduces a significant nuance: dividing a large university into several smaller universities does not automatically guarantee better courses, better professional integration or better scientific research.
The risk of a “ruler and compass” reform
The main criticism of the Council is the approach adopted. The project appears to address the university crisis like a map problem: too many students here, not enough establishments there, so we are redrawing the borders. However, for the Council, the difficulties ofMoroccan university are not just geographical. They also affect the quality of training, teaching methods, governance, research, innovation, student guidance and alignment with the job market. In other words, moving the lines on the map will not be enough if we do not also change what is happening inside universities.
The right diagnosis, but too narrow an answer
The government document identifies several well-known challenges: the congestion of establishments, the quality of trainingTHE stallL’employability graduates and the need to adapt the university to new professions. But the proposed response remains mainly institutional: dividing universities and creating new structures. It is precisely this discrepancy that the Council notes. The diagnosis is broad, but the treatment is limited. As if we noticed that the house has problemselectricityinsulation and foundations, before only proposing to repaint the walls.
Territorial equity must not overshadow quality
Bringing the university closer to students is an important objective, especially in a country where territorial inequalities still weigh heavily on school and university careers. The Council does not dispute this priority. But it alerts us to an essential point: a nearby university is of no use if it does not offer solid training, sufficient teachers, suitable equipment, librariesof the laboratoriesstudent services and a real university life. Proximity should therefore not become a substitute for quality. Creating new universities without guaranteeing their means would amount to multiplying brands without strengthening the content.
Smaller universities, but will they have more power?
Another important remark: the division will not produce the expected effects if the new universities remain locked into the same operating methods. The Council pleads for true autonomy of universities, on the administrative, educational and financial levels. Without this autonomy, new establishments risk becoming simple administrative divisions, with no real capacity to innovate, build their own project or respond to the needs of their territory. Clearly, it is not enough to create new universities. We still need to give them the means to decide, act and differentiate themselves.
Be careful not to devalue open access courses
However, recalls the Council, open access sectors continue to play an essential role in the training of national skills and contribute significantly to the production of the country’s intellectual and scientific elites. Rather than opposing the two models, he recommends promoting all university courses, diversifying the training offer and allowing each student to find a path adapted to their abilities and their academic project.
The heart of the disagreement: where is the master plan?
However, the project submitted by the government is considered too narrow to fulfill this function. Although it presents the revision of the university card as a structuring framework, it remains essentially centered on the territorial distribution of establishments. The Council thus considers that the very concept of a master plan is reduced to its geographical dimension, whereas it should embrace all of the challenges of thehigher education. In the mind of the Council, a real master plan should not only answer the question of where to locate universities. It should also define how to improve the quality of training, strengthen the scientific researchmodernize the governance of establishments, support innovation, respond to changes in labor market and support regional development. In other words, the division of universities should be a consequence of an overall strategic vision, and not the other way around.
The Council also recalls that the framework law on education explicitly provides for a multi-year plan developed in consultation with the various players in the sector. In his eyes, the revision of the university map constitutes only one part of this much larger project. Presenting it as the heart of the reform would amount to confusing a tool with the transformation project itself.
What the Council recommends
Then, he insists on the need to develop the services that make up university life: university cities, sports areascultural facilities, places of hobbiessocial services and adapted infrastructure. A university is not just about classrooms. It is also a living environment, a space for fulfillment and an environment that can promote success. The Council also recommends going further in the resizing of certain very large universities, whose numbers still far exceed the threshold targeted in the project. In other words, if the objective is really to reduce the size of large university centers, it must be done consistently until the end.
Furthermore, he calls for the reform to be legally secure. The project provides for gradual implementation between 2026 and 2028. To avoid it remaining at the intention stage or changing depending on circumstances, the Council recommends the adoption of legal texts necessary and a binding framework.
