Basically, people think non-profit means the organization works for the public or puts the public first. Unfortunately, what it often means is money goes to employees and insiders instead of shareholders. For colleges, it means the students (and the Federal Government which issued the student loads) comes last and the college's employees come first. Not great public policy.
If college is expensive, students should choose not to go, or find a cheaper one. Choosing an expensive college, whether the outcomes are good for said student or not, is the choice of said student and therefore, subject to their rational utilitarian calculations. Choosing badly is always possible, just like any other life decisions.
We need to collectively choose to structure education for the benefit of society because we want people to be educated.
It's not about consumer choices or utility functions. That type of thinking has zero place here.
so it is done already with k-12 education. Not everybody agrees that tertiary education should be paid for by the state, but do agree that the state should help subsidize a bit.
This is the education loan system that is the collective decision.
A majority of people get a college degree these days. It isn't some effete luxury of the literati in country club colleges. If someone is willing to do the hard work of educating themselves we should support it without burdening them with a lifetime of debt.
You want a doctorate and are willing to put in the years of effort? Good, we need more. It should be free. It's not like information is a scarce resource these days. Spending years of your life to defend a dissertation is a big enough sacrifice.
* see https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reaga... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/12/29/hi... . The same people who whine about h1-b workers also don't want to fund education to get more domestic ones. We need to stop pretending people with such incoherent policies deserve a seat at the table.
New buildings can house new students and academics which is good and also helps bring in more money in future.
New buildings also preserve the status of the university as a top institution - there is some level of competition for students and talented academics and if Harvard fell behind other universities it would be harder to bring in grants. Of course this is a good thing for the university but it's also good for any administrator who wants to preserve their pay.
Https://finance.harvard.edu/financial-overview
"The University ended fiscal year 2023 with an operating surplus of $186 million compared to $406 million in fiscal year 2022, on an operating revenue base that increased 5% or $262 million, to $6.1 billion. The reduced surplus was not unexpected and was driven primarily by expenses associated with renewed return to campus activity and strategic investments in our workforce, with increased compensation for faculty and staff, a decrease in vacancy rates, and overall growth in new workers across campus."
It literally is. "Non-profit" is a particular way of doing accounting, categorizing funds, filing taxes, but the incentives and interests are no different.
If you wanted to justify further pay increases this would be the best strategy - if you have an operating deficit you'll be under pressure to cut staff or pay.
Again I'm being very cynical here and I have no idea if this is actually happening. Just speculation.
People want to be more important.