Government leaders have shown to be radically against the charging of any fee in public institutions of higher education, particularly in federal universities. In addition, they reported that there is no prospect for any action in this regard.

Interviewee 9 believes that Brazil has two systems, the pure free through federal funding and the other in which the government contributes with a part, and the private sector contributes with the other one, that receives the scholarships and the student contributed with another part. Interviewee 11 goes further by asserting that the government " by no means" in making such charges, an action that would be necessary including the Brazilian constitution, which says that education in public institutions is free.

Interviewee 10 reports that some people have defended the charging hypothesis, but the appointed reasons were not sufficient to improve the debate on this action.

It has thought of something. There are economists and thinkers who speak of it, that you have an individual advantage with higher education. But if so, we will have to charge in the SUS [Acronym which means Unified Health System], because when I go there ill and I am treated, I have a personal advantage. Thinking like that, we have to charge for many public services (INTERVIEWEE 10).

Corroborating with the understanding of the above leaders, Interviewee 9 reinforces that Brazil has health and education with this free premise and that it is not wrong in relation to other countries, each one just found their own way. However, Interviewee 11 reports that OECD argues for charging fees, and that the government has been asked why not adhere to this practice.

They cannot see, but our model is not so unique neither. If you go to Germany, everything is free. In several European countries, everything is free. So they are just looking at themselves, that's why, as there are very different models in other countries. And I think we chose a model today, hybrid. If by any chance it is possible to be identified as hybrid, since we have 76% of enrollments in the private sector but in the private sector the government goes with the direct appeal. Thus, strictly speaking, at least 51% of enrollments today are already public. This is the method by which it was opted for (INTERVIEWEE 11).

Fearing any initiative for the fees collection, Interviewee 13 believes that to start this process, there is the possibility of public institutions to exclude the population with low income.

Finally, Interviewee 11 realizes that in the entire system, there is a balance in favor of democratization, because it allows for an equitable treatment to the rich and the poor in the process. The interviewee reaffirms not agreeing if the paid public education is instituted, it will be a more accurate system. While institutions can garner more resources to the fees collection, these resources can be obtained by part of the income tax of a more economically favored population, for example. The issue is the Federal Government always seeking for a fairer alternative to decide how to behave.

Corroborating the views of the government managers, experts also show that fees collection in public institutions would not be feasible. If the idea is to diversify sources of funding, other alternatives could be considered, such as taxation on higher incomes or the search for a contribution from the graduate students when they return to society.

Initiating the debate, Respondent 23 ensures that this is a difficult discussion to the federal universities, since they are in a development phase and need to expand higher education for the large population still without access to it.

For Respondent 20, charging fees does not achieve expansion. The expert says that when fees were charged at the time of the military dictatorship, it simply replaced one source with another and the budget was of the same size.

According to Respondent 21, this has been an issue debated in Brazil for many years and has already been implemented in some institutions and subsequently repealed. The understanding that prevails is that the offer must be public. If it is considered that democratization is happening on this educational level, through political quotas and other actions that have allowed access to low-income and ethnically diverse, it is not consistent to take an action like this, a view also shared by Respondent 22.

The Brazilian social scene is uneven markedly. Therefore, gratuitousness is a decisive factor for the democratization of any level of education. I am among those who consider education at any level, a right. So, it is not an expenditure, but an investment. Therefore, I am totally against the charging of any tuition fees in HEIs (RESPONDENT 22).

For Respondent 24, considering the term "feasible" within the legal precepts, the fees adoption is not credible, given the audit of Government Ministries for public universities not to charge anything.

Respondent 19 explains that today, even with an unfair tax system, Brazil is in the range of 35% of GDP regarding the tax collection. Therefore, it suffices to enter the club of countries that are in the range of the 40% as is the case of Norway, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, France, Belgium, Italy, among others, designed for the surplus for education to reach the goal of 10% of GDP proposed by the National Plan of Education (PNE).

Finally, in a complementary way, Respondent 20 suggests that it might require certain commitments from students who return to society instead of a direct student's charging during their formative process.

The student leaders also did not consider feasible to start a fee-charging process in public institutions, on the contrary, they argue that the public and free institutions receive even more students.

According to Respondent 25, the fees charging imposed socio-economic barriers to education access, which needs to be treated as a social and Federal Government responsibility as well as to ensure equal access to all.

Although not agreeing with the fees charging, Respondent 26 believes that in the distant future, it may so happen, especially if they lack resources to promote the expansion of education. Moreover, the student leader reports a failure experience with the fees charging in a recent time.

There are experiences where UEMG (State University of Minas Gerais), tried encamping institutions within the state from the late 90's and early 2000, where tuition and students would bear 50% of the course and the government would be charged with the other share , yet the idea and experience was not fruitful because the students of these institutions had no way to afford this payment (RESPONDENT 26).

Finally, Respondent 27 shows what the student movement aspiration is.

What we want is the democratization of education and that all social classes are in the classroom, we believe that education must be free, public and with quality (RESPONDENT 27).

The government leaders unanimously favor the tuition fees charging in public universities. However, they demonstrate that a good student assistance system is necessary so that the access from the socially excluded is not jeopardized. Once one has this concern, there is a part of them, which guarantees that the tuition fees charging does not reduce the percentage of enrollment and access.

For Interviewee 1, there is no clear relationship between having tuition fees on ones system and the ability to promote access to higher education, on the contrary, he believes that fees have a certain ability to make larger and better systems because, simply, they help to increase the financial resources within the system. This view is reinforced by Interviewee 2, who advocates in favor of the charges saying that research has shown that fees do not really affect access.

Interviewee 4 also appears to be favorable for tuition fees charging, saying that traditionally, people who go to higher education are from middle and upper classes, and they can afford these costs, there is no reason for this level of education to be subsidized to them. Another point systematically defended by both Interviewee 3 and Interviewee 4, are the private gains that a graduation can offer to an individual. On the other hand, Interviewee 5 believes that this process goes against the culture of the country itself.

Canadians do not like to see things being delivered for free, but they also do not like to pay too much. It cannot be free, since access would be very low. It cannot be very expensive because it is difficult to pay (INTERVIEWED 5).

According to Interviewee 4, there is a very specific return on investment in higher education, and the government's intention is not to harm the participants and not to charge exorbitant fees. The government's philosophy is to charge fees to cover around one third (1/3) of the actual cost to educate a student.

When asked regarding the full gratuity in public higher education, leaders have shown that such a measure would not be beneficial to the system.

We actually think that a free system would not be accessible to the underrepresented students like the system we currently have. So what we do, we have a very generous financial assistance plan for the most needy students (INTERVIEWEE 4).

Finally, Interviewee 5 admits that there were some debates about 100% free public higher education in the 60's and 70's, but in no opportunity this idea proved to be representative, and he personally believes it never will, because they need the tuition fees to feed the system.

Specialists in higher education do not act radically against totally free public higher education; however, they act cautiously when addressing the issue, because, at the time, the fees are absolutely essential to the proper functioning of the system.

For Respondent 5, the government wants students to pay the tuition fees, as when someone makes a personal investment, this individual becomes more engaged. Respondent 2 complements this idea, believing that tuition fees are a balance of political pressures, concerns about access, needs to increase revenue for the system, and a sense that those who benefit should pay at least a part of the education they receive. For Respondent 4, it is a more complex situation, since the whole formation process cannot be charged from all, since it is used only by a part of society.

Respondent 1 presents a different view about the fact. For him, Universities in general, would like to charge higher tuition fees, which would be ideal for the government. However, it is not politically feasible, because middle-class families are reluctant to pay more. A student's protest that took place in the province of Quebec in 2013 against rising fees meant that the government is worried about it. The deregulated fees also bring harm to the system, as Respondent 6 accounts, because it makes certain programs become unaffordable for many. However, the perspective of high tuition fees is still difficult for the government to understand, so it always tries to moderate the increase in fees, but with no prospect of eliminating them.

When analyzing the prospect of removing the tuition fees from the current model, some experts are skeptical. Respondent 5 reports that he does not see Ontario as going towards a teaching model 100% free, because the cost of higher education sector operation is significant and cannot be carried alone by the taxpayer. Respondent 2 is even harsher in his assessment, classifying the measure as a "bad policy."

No tuition fees charging is a bad policy when it comes to efficiency, equity and equalization of public finances (RESPONDENT 2).

On the other hand, some experts classify the measure as valid, since the government honor its obligations and continues financing the system with an amount similar to the model with the fees. Respondent 3 states that it has no objection to a higher education system 100% free, since the government provides the money that currently comes to universities through tuition fees. For the specialist, universities cannot work without money, they need adequate funding, otherwise it will have access, but for one those not deserving it. Finally, Respondent 1 is favorable to the free model, but realistic about the current model.

My view is that higher education, in the ideal world, would be free. But it will never happen. Moreover, students do not understand that free higher education limits access because it means that universities need to offer fewer seats in higher education. In places where the tuition fees are higher in Canada, access is also higher on the other hand, and the access is lower in provinces where tuition fees are lower (RESPONDENT 1).

The student leaders have shown slightly contrary opinions on this issue, although both agree that tuition fees are relevant for the proper functioning of the system.

For Respondent 7, who operates in a student organization nationwide, tuition fees are an important source of funding for most higher education programs. He also believes that they encourage programs to see students more than just an expense, as they also offer a hand.

On the other hand, Respondent 8, who operates in a student organization of provincial scope, shows dissatisfaction with the fees charged in Ontario. He reports that the tuition fees have been the means by which universities offer education and expand their own operations in the context of decline or stagnation of other forms of government funding for higher education in Ontario.

OUSA believes that a fair cost-sharing model is one in which students pay less than at present, and no more than one third of the total cost of the training for a student through tuition fees. OUSA would support any move toward tuition fees reduction (RESPONDENT 8).

Regarding the complete tuition fees abolition, both student leaders believe that such a measure would bring more losses than profits for Canadian higher education system. According to Respondent 7:

If there were a significant increase in levels of funding for universities, which according to the current financial policy is unlikely, this change would still have a greater impact on access to prioritize grants and loans, to maintain the level that was previously covered by tuition fees (RESPONDENT 7).

On the other hand, Respondent 8, despite of being unhappy with the amount of fees charged in Ontario, recognizes that students must bear at least some part of their education, due to significant personal benefits that come with having a higher education. He also strengthens that there is evidence to support the charge of an academic rate that may decrease dropout rates and increase individual students' performance.

According to the government managers' perception, tuition fees charging was an absolutely essential process to ensure the expansion and democratization of the system. Due to the large volume of people interested in joining higher education and the cost that this demand would bring to the public coffers, dividing the portion with the main beneficiaries was the solution found by China. None of the leaders consider the possibility of China returning to a completely free public system. Interviewee 7 tells about the beginning of the tuition fees charging in the country.

You need to be aware of the fact that China provided free higher education by the end of 90's. At that time, China realized that it would not be able to expand using only its economy, then it chose to begin collecting fees, and it was in the 90's period which the expansion of higher education truly happened (INTERVIWEE 7).

According to Interviewed 8, the Chinese government realized a global provision for the charging of fees.

In the government's perspective, charging tuition fees is a universal trend. On one side, higher education is not compulsory, so the student should rather pay fees for this level of education. On the other hand, the government cannot afford more money because the number of students is currently too large (INTERVIEWED 8).

Regarding the complete tuition fees elimination, making the Chinese educational system completely free, Interviewee 8 appears to be a nonbeliever with this action. For the interviewee, education in China is expanding and there are increasingly more students in universities. If the students do not pay the tuition fees, universities cannot afford the costs to provide the under graduation of these students. For this reason, he believes that the Chinese government does not intend to provide a 100% free education, opinion also advocated by Interviewee 6.

The government believes that higher education brings a public benefit to society, and to the private sector, for the individual, and then it is not reasonable to adopt a totally free model for this level of education (INTERVIEWEE 6).

Finally, Interviewee 6 strengthens that China has to charge tuition fees that are possible to be paid by students, but this process only began to be absolutely necessary so that they reach the desired indicators for this level.

As university leaders, experts in higher education advocate the tuition fees charging in the Chinese higher education system. They consider this issue closely connected with the system expansion and stability, believing it is impossible for such a large nation to fully assume the costs for this level of education, which is not compulsory.

Respondent 11 argues that, no doubt this policy was responsible for the expansion of higher education that took place in 1999. Respondent 13 also supports this initiative.

It is reasonable to charge for higher education and that users of the system to share part of the cost in higher education by paying tuition fees. This is beneficial for improving the quality and expansion of higher education (RESPONDENT 13).

For Respondent 10, tuition fees charging served to ease the government's financial pressures. With incentives charging fees, both the government and HEIs tend to enroll more students.

Respondent 12 explains that in many ways, the tuition fees structure is similar to Canada: public universities fees cover about 20% of the actual cost, and is available for most students.

When asked about the tuition fees exclusion, experts argued not to believe that it would be the best option. For Respondent 16, tuition fees are closely related to the expansion in enrollment, it would not be advantageous to the nation not collecting them. The same line of reasoning is stated by Respondent 10, who realizes a worldwide trend towards recovery, so he does not believe that gratuity for higher education is an option.

Finally, Respondent 15 supports the effectiveness of the charging policy, especially because it is accompanied by a series of assistance tools.

Tuition fees charging is a way to expand enrollment beyond the budgetary capacity that is provided by the state. In China, I think the tuition fees policy is efficient and equitable. In fact, it works well, as there are also financial aid and loans for needy students (RESPONDENT 15).

Respondent 17 also shares the same opinion of experts and government managers. According to the student leadership, the fees have an important role in the Chinese higher education system and removing them would not be a good initiative.

For Respondent 17, the fees should be maintained, and argues that without them there would be no guarantee of any quality to the participating students. The student leadership also analyzes a hypothetical scenario without charging fees.

Artificially, not charging tuition fees could help in the expansion of higher education, since the doors would be open to all. However, it is not feasible in the current country's condition (RESPONDENT 17).

Finally, the student leadership argues that the charges should continue, but it is necessary to review some factors, especially the student's assistance tools, which are essential to ensure the students' democratization of access and permanence in universities.