I see this sentiment a lot, and I feel like you fundamentally misunderstand what is actually happening at universities. Discounting athletics, which in some places are revenue neutral and can be counted as marketing/local cultural artifact depending on who you talk to, the "wise passionate teachers" you praise so aren't there to teach idiot undergrads. Instead, they're hired to do research with the teaching as essentially a subset of that in most cases. Pure research, especially in a political climate that's increasingly anti-intellectual and anti science, is expensive and that cost gets offloaded to incoming students since the hard requirement for a college degree for many professional jobs creates inelastic demand.
The "phony administrative positions", lawns, and student facilties you dismiss as pork are the school's way of competing for the piles of grant money replacement known as undergrads.
Then further more, prices are already in the ball park of your supposed ideal. An instate student can go to a school like Georgia Tech (ranked 5 or so in engineering nationally depending on the year) for 12k before scholarships, essentially free if they don't piss away their grades. Private top tier schools cost more, but tend to offer more scholarships and grants so that's harder to compare between institutions. It's not that schools are expensive, it's that students are choosing to not go to the inexpensive schools, usually to get out of their state, or to be in an institution that specializes in their major, or go someplace with better student institutions.
US research is what makes our schools the top in the world, and the actual education gained from an undergrad degree isn't the drive for most people. It's the networking, the exposure, and the certification, none of which can be duplicated in a dinky classroom with a whiteboard and an underpaid teacher. Just look at American High Schools if you want to see how that turns out.
> Pure research... is expensive and that cost gets offloaded to incoming students
Do you have evidence for this?
I have never been privy to the financials of a university, college, or even department where tuition money subsidizes research staff, including professors.
> The "phony administrative positions", lawns, and student facilties you dismiss as pork are the school's way of competing for the piles of grant money replacement known as undergrads.
Believe me, we'd see this dynamic regardless of whether your hypothesis re: research funding were true. For evidence, look toward small liberal arts colleges. Most have never received anything more than token amounts of federal grant money, and yet their tuition increases match those of research universities.
>...Georgia Tech...
is an extreme outlier in terms of quality for cost.
Also, that $12k is only tuition. The actual cost, assuming you can't find free room/board in Atlanta, is 2x before interest on inevitable loans.
> the school's way of competing for the piles of grant money replacement known as undergrads.
I say it's a consequence of their windfall profits from 3-5% yearly tuition increases. Most institutions have "use-it-or-lose-it" budgets. Their accountants can only be so clever in finding ways to spend it, lest it pile up and get released on a state budget report. Then everyone would scream "Why does UXY have a $50mil surplus when they just increased tuition!".
If they wanted to actually compete, they would lower prices. Thats what attracts buyers.
> That is a dangerously oversimplified view of how markets work.
Because university is so expensive, we're told that more things matter than just price.
Buyers are obviously attracted to more than low prices, but some buyers are highly price-sensitive. So, we should let them find something that works for them.
>you fundamentally misunderstand what is actually happening at universities
What is actually happening is that in many cases "researchers" chase fame and money, not academic excellence. They have no time to teach "idiot undergrads", as you nicely put it, because they are busy running their consultancies on the side.
[I am in Boston, I see a lot of this first-hand, in "elite" schools in particular]
The "phony administrative positions", lawns, and student facilties you dismiss as pork are the school's way of competing for the piles of grant money replacement known as undergrads.
Then further more, prices are already in the ball park of your supposed ideal. An instate student can go to a school like Georgia Tech (ranked 5 or so in engineering nationally depending on the year) for 12k before scholarships, essentially free if they don't piss away their grades. Private top tier schools cost more, but tend to offer more scholarships and grants so that's harder to compare between institutions. It's not that schools are expensive, it's that students are choosing to not go to the inexpensive schools, usually to get out of their state, or to be in an institution that specializes in their major, or go someplace with better student institutions.
US research is what makes our schools the top in the world, and the actual education gained from an undergrad degree isn't the drive for most people. It's the networking, the exposure, and the certification, none of which can be duplicated in a dinky classroom with a whiteboard and an underpaid teacher. Just look at American High Schools if you want to see how that turns out.