The British Government control of tuition fees
NOWADAYS, it seems commonplace in higher education to associate quality with inadequate tuition fees and/or governmental inputs. Believers of this line of thinking may say that faculty salaries are low because tuition fees are low, and that low salaries do not attract the best in academia, thus low quality outcomes; the same argument applies to governmental input which some perceive as interference that negatively impacts university autonomy and produces poor quality outcomes. Well, those who yield to this notion argue that there should be increased tuition fees and increased government subventions; and then there would be the desired quality in higher education outcomes. Nevertheless, how then do we explain good quality outcomes in some universities among some poor countries which do not have high tuition fees and high salaries? While there is some credence to the argument about the relationship between increased tuition fees and improved quality vis-à-vis better compensation, this association only constitutes one variable in the ‘quality’ equation; another major variable is a university’s quality assurance plan.  
You can pay the best salaries, but without an effective quality assurance plan, monitoring, assessment, and evaluation of academic standards become irrelevant and a non-starter. Under these conditions, quality outcomes in higher education are not even on the faculty members’ radars. Questions that constantly emerge in academia are: What should be the appropriate tuition fees? What is the global function of tuition fees? And as I indicated last week, who would be the final decision makers to determine the level and structure of tuition fees under challenging political and economic conditions? 
And no eligible student should be denied higher-education access because of limited financial means. And that is why governments have to be  watchdogs to assure equity in the higher education system, and in some cases, a government also has to be the ultimate arbiter on tuition fees hike. 
Last week, I noted that the Australian Government and the U.S. State Governments have  firm hands in determining tuition fee increases. The University Grants Commission in India, an instrument of the Government of India, oversees all aspects of higher education, including tuition fees. And then there is the proposed tuition fee hike earmarked for commencement from 2012-2013 at British universities; where its cap is largely determined by the British Government through the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). 
Notwithstanding some variance of quality in these countries, there are reasonable standards in higher education outcomes; and in these countries, too, tuition fee hike is not critical to quality outcomes. In the case of Great Britain, there is the HEFCE that ensures that universities account for how they spend public money, and then there is the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), the watchdog on improving quality in higher education. 
It is clear that resources are essential to achieve quality and excellence, but those resources have to be based on access and equality. In fact, all these countries have quality assurance systems in place, and in some cases, good quality is a precondition for attracting governmental funding, and indeed, non-governmental funding.
Today, I want to focus on the British Government’s control over tuition fees in Great Britain. In 2010, Lord Browne and others presented the report on Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education: An Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance. This report recommended that the government should withdraw its £3.9 billion annual block grant that it presents to universities to finance teaching. 
Collini (2010) in his review of the report in the London Review of Books, noted that Browne sees higher education not as a public good to be funded through public funds; instead, the report sees higher education as a regulated market where consumers’ (students) demand is sovereign in determining what universities offer. 
The Browne report proposed that students determine where they want to have their education and what they want to study; and the government pays full and part-time student tuition costs up to £6,000 per year upfront through student loans; these tuition payments would go to students and not the universities; the student pays nothing upfront. There also is an annual loan of £3,750 for all students to cover living costs. And graduates only start repaying the loan when their earnings exceed £21,000 per year. 
Universities that charge in excess of £6,000 per year as tuition fees would forfeit some proportion of the fee to cover the cost of student borrowing; indeed, universities can charge as much as £9,000 as tuition fees per year, providing that all eligible students regardless of social backgrounds have access. 
In the competition to attract students, universities will have to demonstrate effective teaching quality in their education outcomes, as the cost to cover teaching would now emanate from student loans paid to students, and not from the government’s block grants which used to go directly to the universities; and with students determining where they would use their student loans, clearly, unpopular courses will disappear and some universities may see a drop in student numbers. 
The Browne report provides students with the power to make choices over course selection, and students generally will select courses offering quick employment after graduation. The British Parliament has approved the main thrust of the Browne report. And it is clear that the British Government determines the tuition fees that universities charge, and the government has indirect inputs into curriculum development, too, through its own design and redesign of the national employment structure. All in all, the British Government remains a steadfast partner with universities in shaping higher education outcomes. And in several parts of the world, governments do sustain this partnership role with universities.