For the purpose of education, the UK is divided into two halves: England (and Northern Ireland) and Scotland. Each of them has its own body that supervises quality assurance in its part of the higher education sector. For instance, in England (and Northern Ireland), the job is carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education while in Scotland it is the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). In 2011, the UK government published a white paper, ‘Students at the Heart of the System’ to enhance quality assurance in higher education through the participation of students. In the light of this, the QAA is trying to find new ways of reviewing quality assurance in higher education to be implemented in the universities of England (and Northern Ireland) by September 2013. Similarly, in order to augment quality assurance at Scottish universities in the light of the Sinclair report, the SPSO issued its Model Complaints Handling Procedure (MCHP) for Higher Education in December 2012 to be adopted by all Scottish higher education institutes by September 2013. The UK government’s white paper laid emphasis on the standardisation of criteria for assessing academic standards and the quality of the student learning experience at all universities and colleges; the Sinclair report recommended the adoption of a standardised MCHP in all Scottish universities and colleges. Generally, the UK’s every university is driven by two factors: first, how to meet its financial earning targets set for any given year, and second, how to improve its position on the universities’ ranking table. Any incident of compromise on quality assurance affects adversely a university’s ranking, and consequently, its financial targets. Though the standardisation of the assessment process and the standardisation of MCHP were long overdue, they share a common point: the emphasis of both is still on procedures. This is despite the fact that the cause of the compromise on quality assurance in the past used to be the universities’ devising mechanisms to bypass the procedures but retaining their positions on any ranking table. One of the ways to assure quality through procedures is by obtaining feedback from students. It is a common practice in the UK’s universities that teachers (lecturers and professors) and graduate or post-graduate school administrators influence students, especially overseas students, either to give positive feedback or to make oneself absent from the session meant for gathering feedback from them, whether or not the feedback is obtained at the university or the supra-university level (by the QAA or the SPSO). The question is this: can an overseas student dare refuse any such ‘request’ made by a teacher or administrator? The answer is in the negative because the student is told that in case of noncompliance his/her supervisor will not issue a favourable letter of reference to help him/her forward his/her career in the future. It is difficult for an overseas student to turn down such a request because his/her stakes are higher than home students. In this way, the letter of reference has become a major blackmailing instrument in the hands of supervisors (and course administrators). The threat of writing adverse remarks in the letter of reference is used to silence those students who are vocal against the delivery of low quality education and research at the UK’s universities. In this regard, both the QAA and the SPSO have failed to introduce any mechanism to know why a student is absent from the feedback session or why a student has not submitted the feedback at all, especially where the name of the student is mandatory to be mentioned. Secondly, both the QAA and the SPSO have failed to make it mandatory on all students including overseas students to submit their feedback. Thirdly, both the QAA and the SPSO have failed to determine the difference between representative feedback and non-representative feedback. The second type of students’ comments on quality assurance in the UK’s higher education is through the complaints they lodge against the universities in the universities. Again, both the QAA and the SPSO lay emphasis on the procedure of complaints adopted by the UK’s universities. Complaints and their procedures are described in the bylaws of the UK’s universities. Interestingly, in the bylaws of one university, one provision (law) is present while in the bylaws of another university another provision (law) is present. For instance, in the bylaws of several UK universities (without naming any university), the word ‘complaint’ has not been defined or if it is defined the word ‘compensation’ has been omitted. Similarly, certain universities do mention the term ‘appropriate and reasonable compensation’ in their bylaws but do not explain the meaning of that term. Likewise, the bylaws of almost all UK universities are short of using the word ‘shall’ and they substitute it with the words ‘will’ and ‘should’. The absence of key terms prohibits students, especially overseas students, from filing a complaint and reporting their grievances. Again, the procedure is ineffective in assuring quality in the UK’s higher education sector. In this regard, both the QAA and the SPSO have failed to focus on the standardisation of the bylaws of the UK’s universities. Secondly, both the QAA and the SPSO have failed to notice the absence of key terms from the bylaws of the UK’s universities. At this juncture, the concern of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan should be whether the degree obtained by an overseas Pakistani student from even any top ranking UK university is the same (not by its name or caption but) in quality that the HEC had thought it would be? There are other loopholes in the UK’s higher education sector, which have not been mentioned here owing to the limitation of words. If the British Council (which speaks on behalf of the British High Commission) considers it appropriate, the challenge of debate given to it by this writer on the topic on April 10 this year is still open. The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com