The consolidation of specializations within the undergraduate Educational Sciences program into a single unspecialized degree can, from theoretical and educational policymaking perspectives, create opportunities such as the integration of disciplinary identity, the reduction of content dispersion, and alignment with certain global practices; however, at the executive level, it has been accompanied by serious vulnerabilities and ambiguities. A central challenge is universities' confusion in implementing the new program and their inability to cover all defined "fields" (four fields)—an issue tied to faculty shortages, a weakness in reliable sources for certain integrated courses, and the absence of clear criteria for guiding students into these fields. Furthermore, the poverty of codified theoretical foundations regarding the rationale and scientific logic of merging specializations, disagreements among decision-making bodies, and a lack of transparent accountability have led to conflicting interpretations and undermined the scientific legitimacy of the changes among professors and students. Accordingly, it is recommended that, alongside consulting universities and listing deliverable fields in the entrance exam brochure, a precise research project be defined to identify shortcomings in objectives, syllabi, and resources, with the results applied in periodic program revisions. Additionally, formulating a foundational theoretical document on the merger, conducting comprehensive surveys of department chairs and educational officials, and holding joint sessions between the Ministry of Science and the Council for Transformation are essential to resolving ambiguities and mitigating policy vulnerabilities.