There is need for increasing financial inputs for higher education. Currently the Government is also subsidizing the higher education by charging low fees to those who can pay. The cost of higher education is not being met by the educational institutions themselves (because of subsidy and fee restrictions). There is also a severe mismatch in the costing at school level and higher education level. Expansion and Quality are not possible without a sound infrastructure, financial and other resources to institutions and universities. There is a strong need for increasing financial inputs for higher education.

There is no single solution for educational affordability as every circumstance will be unique. However, a number of solutions exist which together can solve this problem. The following measures are suggested:

i)	Fee to be based on the minimum norms prescribed by statutory authorities giving due credence to the quality of the program, faculty, infrastructure, recurring and non-recurring expenses.
ii)	Fixation of Fees should be based on economic modeling. It should have some economic relationship with costs of education; ‘differential’ fee system based on the cost of the intellectual capability of the programme offering, infrastructure, research base, quality offering, employability etc.
iii)	There may be a set of models developed with standards or benchmark for fixation of fees. The fee so fixed should include the genuine cost as explained in point along with the development cost.
iv)	The fee should have the provision of surplus of 15 percent, for the developmental activities of the institutions and universities.
v)	The institutions should be allowed to levy 15% separately for the Research Purpose i.e. on R&D, if it’s a research based institute. This will ensure the quality and research development and contribution of the university to the economy and society.
vi)	Institutions or programmes with high accreditation ranking may fix the higher fees as they desire, by providing due justification about the fee so fixed. Only in such cases the fee may be more than the maximum prescribed.
vii)	The government/State can fix fees based on their own actual cost, which they really invest. Based on that the realistic fee may be fixed for their own institution. For weaker sections they can also provide otherwise.
viii)	Student welfare programmes should be given priority. The present scheme of providing loans to students should be streamlined and made facilitating. Instead of charging low fees from universities/ Institutions, the Government should create a separate bank (Education Development Bank) to give soft interest loans to students on predefined criteria such as, on an understanding that once the students start paying Income Tax or they leave the country, these loans will become payable. This will bring accountability in the educational system.
ix)	Alumni’s to be encouraged to finance their institutions and projects of their choice directly University should establish an Alumni association and get as many of its former students engaged in mobalising resources for the university. A detailed project should be prepared in this connection and implemented with vigour and enthusiasm. Models of such a project would be available from some of the leading universities of the USA such as Harvard. By and large the governance of higher education institutions should be largely participated by the alumni who have concerns about their alma mater.
x)	Efforts to be made to raise resources from other non-transitional sources also such as commercial concerns, Encouraging public & private partnership, and encourage Corporate funded scholarship, fellowships and faculty positions. Mobilizing resources for the university, MP and MLA funds, foreign gifts and funds, creating a Corpus Fund, which should accept all donations, voluntary contributions etc. The Fund should be deposited in fixed deposit and only interest be drawn from it for development purpose
xi)	The institutions and universities must maintain the accountability and the transparency.