The discussions as to the validity of the rival papal elections were a necessary prelude to the debates on the means of ending the schism, which could really be achieved only by a definitive judgement of the conflicting claims. However, by declaring allegiance and committing themselves to specific popes, the academics of Europe ensured that their debates on a solution to the problem would be inconsequential: they could not discuss the matter impartially without prejudicing their already proclaimed allegiances. In general, unless the individuals and corporations concerned were prepared to reject their earlier declarations of obedience, discussions on ending the schism could not proceed beyond the realms of theory.

Despite this difficulty, however, there was almost continuous interest in the search for a means of terminating the schism through to 1383, particularly within the University of Paris. The Parisian masters soon recognised their situation, and tried to overthrow their earlier declaration for Clement VII, seeking also to persuade Charles V to change his policy. Their attitude was perhaps best expressed by Conrad of Gelnhausen in his Epistola concordiae, where he discussed the problems of a solution while specifically excluding the issue of allegiance and legitimacy. Guillaume de Salvarvilla also seems to have realised that proposing a solution necessitated rejection of both contenders, while the most striking contrast between this attitude and the determined views of a declared adherent of one of the claimants was revealed in a poetical debate which broke out within the University of Paris in 1381.