<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I would say that there’s a serious question that gogobet has touched upon. You say that it costs Yale $90k to educate its student, but that just begs the question of why they need to spend so much. The truth is, college doesn’t really need to be as expensive as it is. Colleges spend prodigious amounts of money on highly questionable expenditures.</p>
<p>To give you an example: why do colleges have their own gyms? And not just any old gym, but often times, a world-class gym? For example, it cost $20 million (in 1990’s dollars) for Berkeley to build the RSF. It cost nearly $60 million (in early 2000’s dollars) for MIT to build the Z-Center. Don’t get me wrong, I work out quite often, but I have often times wondered why do these schools really need that? Surely those students and faculty who want to work out can just buy a membership at a private gym. What does building a world-class gym have to do with the core mission of the school, which is to educate students? Berkeley students who want to work out are free to buy a membership at the local 24-Hour Fitness. </p>
<p>Similarly, it has been mentioned that schools need money to erect research buildings and hire top faculty. But again, the question is, why? After all, many top professors are not exactly great teachers, especially of undergrads. Heck, many of them hardly even bother teaching undergrads at all. For example, when exactly was the last time that Nobel laureate George Akerlof actually taught an undergrad course? Or Richard Schrock? Hence, if you’re not going to teach undergrads, it is a fair question to ask why the undergrads should have to pay for you. </p>
<p>Or take the research apparatus of universities in general. Let’s face it. Most undergrads do not participate in research. They will never read the academic journals. They don’t care. So, for the students who aren’t going to perform research, it is a fair question to ask why they should have to pay to maintain the university research apparatus. </p>
<p>I also question why exactly do universities, especially those that are located in metro areas, really need to have their own libraries. Why not just have the students go to the public library? For example, Harvard University has the largest university library system in the world, but it is still smaller than the combined resources of both the Boston and Cambridge Public libraries (and the associated systems). Perhaps I can understand having your own rare volumes that nobody else has. But, does Harvard really need to buy its own copies of Harry Potter? Can’t the students just get them from the local public library? </p>
<p>The point is, while I agree that colleges do spend a lot on their students, but the question is why do they really need to spend so much.</p>