<p>
[quote]
For example, I don't believe that a 24/7 walk in health care facility is an "instructional expense", but it is very much a part of the "undergrad experience".
[/quote]
My apologies, I did extrapolate "instructional costs" when you hadn't specified that. </p>
<p>But I don't think undergraduate costs are quite as clear-cut, either; at least not for schools with substantial grad programs. That 24/7 walk-in health care facility may also be used by grad students. Do you count the graduate library, if undergrads have privileges there? Etc. Institutions may have different rules about what they are going to count, and that's where I think it gets dicey.</p>
<p>There's also the concern that expenditures can indicate both good spending and bad. A school can spend the same as its peer and not actually provide a equivalent education--just a poorer one bought in profligate manner. Same with aid--you can spend aid in ways that get you a highly-qualified, diverse class (as Swarthmore does), or you can spend aid on less-discriminate tuition discounting. These two programs might cost the same and represent the same amount of "spending" on undergrads, but the former model of aid spending likely results in a better educational environment for everyone. That's a difference some people will know about, but many others won't when they see two similar budgets for aid spending.</p>
<p>Mind you, I'm not saying that expenditure comparisons lack merit--you can certainly learn something from them. But there are pitfalls to producing and interpreting those figures, and that concerns me.</p>
<p>I don't think it would be that difficult. I mean, the universities already know who is using the health services!</p>
<p>Libraries: I would allocate resources that are substantially used exclusively by grad students to the grad schools. I would allocate truly shared resources on a per capita basis.</p>
<p>There are absolutely differences in the way two schools would spend the same amount of money. If a saavy consumer wants to dig deeper into that, great (after all, that's what "fit" is all about. Do my priorities match those of the school?). If a consumer doesn't bother to look, then it's no skin off my teeth. At least they have some baseline data.</p>
<p>The big problem I see with a college purchase decision today is that schools are largely being sold as "black boxes". It doesn't have to be that way. There are statistical measures (especially financial) that go into those black boxes.</p>
<p>For example, you cite the fact that a small college has to spend more per student because it lacks the efficiencies of scale of a large university. Of course. Small scale education definitely has a premium cost associated with it. So why bury that? Make the cost differentials explicit. </p>
<p>Use transparency to help consumers understand the real differences between several equally valid approaches to undergrad education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, the universities already know who is using the health services!</p>
<p>Libraries: I would allocate resources that are substantially used exclusively by grad students to the grad schools. I would allocate truly shared resources on a per capita basis.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point was that institutions may make different decisions about that. Do you divide up the health services costs by sheer number of patients (undergrad vs grad) or do you look at the costs associated with them (because one population may tend towards more expensive services)? I gave two examples (health center, grad library) but there are numerous other areas where institutions would have to make a judgment call. Standardization from campus to campus could be an issue.</p>