[andy9775]

> I don't think it would save the university money, if done well.

IMO universities these days are mainly in the real estate business. The maintenance on a building with multiple 1k person lecture halls isn't cheap. Faculty are underpaid. And yet it's more and more expensive.

[bluGill]

Most universities don't pay property tax (maybe not most, but many are public and don't). They all have owned most of their land for over one hundred years. Buildings are expensive, but those are "one time capital expenses) and just plain don't add up.

What I'm saying is there is no obvious reason why a university costs more to run today than 1990,but tuition has gone up far more than inflation.

[mixmastamyk]

Guaranteed loans and other subsidies.

[bluGill]

Those are enablers for sure, but not causes

[mixmastamyk]

What's the difference?

[bluGill]

If students can't get the money prices cannot go up without a drop in enrollment thus students need a way to get money. That is why more money enables prices to go up, the alternative of going without becomes forced if students (other than the rich) cannot raise the money.

However the ability change more doesn't force it. Administration could presumably keep prices down instead of - here I have no idea what they are spending it on.

This lack of knowledge means that I cannot comment more. My opinion on using the money to pay more teachers thus reducing class size is very different from my opinion on private jets to some exotic vacation. (I don't think either of the above are the case but I could be wrong)

[mixmastamyk]

Yes, many folks comment on administrative growth and lavish student services to compete.