College Rankings Fail to Measure the Influence of the Institution

The tension in education between the study of skills (what you would call preparation for your career) and the study of values (what you refer to as creating "well rounded people") has been around since the Ancient Greeks [1]. Most institutions tend to skew one way or the other, with smaller, liberal-arts style colleges tending to be on the "values" side, and larger, research universities tending to be on the "skills" side. (This is, of course, an oversimplification).

Now, the rhetoric we've been throwing at kids to get them to go to college has been strongly on the "skills" side of things, which is perhaps why you (and others) feel that colleges aren't focusing on what they should.

As far as fundraising is concerned, it's complicated. You have to do something to keep the doors open and the lights on. Amenities (like rec centers, nice dorms, and so on) are justified by claiming that they increase recruiting yield and retention (thus stabilizing revenues) but they cost a lot. Money in the endowment means less of a dependence on tuition, which means more stability in the face of possible enrollment shortfalls.

Something like an art museum serves multiple purposes. It's an amenity, sure, and may help students (or their parents) decide that this institution is the right place for them. If there is an art or art history department, it may serve pedagogical functions. In many cases, though, donors may have given significant amounts of art to the school, and they need a way to respond to that gift. Having a museum to put it in makes everyone happy.

[1] Sorum, C. E. (2005) The Problem of Mission: A Brief Survey of the Changing Mission of the Liberal Arts In Liberal Arts Colleges in American Higher Education: Challenges and Opportunities (pp.26--39).