> I mean, where's that money going?
* Professor salary
* Related support salary (secretaries, IT, administration)
* Physical plant, upkeep, support salary for those
* Advertising, student support (health, scholarships, extracurriculars)
But if you think about a student body of 5,000 paying $50,000 a year (for a total of $250 million_yr), then it starts to seem more exorbitant, even after paying for salaries and buildings...
Why is it that education has been able to steadily increase their costs 7-8% per year forever? I get it when people say that the loans enable this - but my question is, like yours, "where is the money going?"
I'd love to see a reporter do a complete audit of 10-20 educational institutions over a period of, say 5 years, to understand what the money is covering.
You used to be able to make great progress against a problem with a pen, paper, and a good mind. Now, to do anything notable, you'll need an observatory, a particle collider, a supercomputer, a top-tier bio lab, a chemical synthesis plant, etc.
Also, good pamphlet material like beautiful dorms costs a lot, but I find this argument to be weak considering most of the really expensive schools don't have very amazing-looking facilities.
The biggest problem with particle colliders is not the experiments themselves but paying researchers money to slough through the data.
Also why are people asking "where does the money go". Are you suggesting that there is one-to-one between money creation and expended effort / energy? It's fiat money. There is no such link.
http://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/06/30/banks-are-not-interm...