<p>I agree that Universities spend a lot of money on things that do not appear to be related to instruction, and among these things there are likely things that could be cut without harming the student experience. </p>
<p>But it’s not all bloat. </p>
<p>Some of those expenses result in a University that is more prestigious, more resource-rich, and more appealing for undergrads–like development, for example. Some of those expenses represent things you couldn’t run the university without. For example, look at the latest Higher Education Opportunity Act. How do you fulfill all those reporting requirements without staff (all or most of whom are going to be non-instructional in nature)? How do you recruit that staff without benefits and pensions? </p>
<p>I feel like government and the public sometimes speak out of both sides of their mouths. They complain of bloat and gripe about institutions not focusing enough on undergraduate instruction. Yet schools are taken to task if they don’t have great websites, wired dorms, super rec facilities, available staff, public reporting of data, high-performing endowments, state-of-the-art security systems, etc. Those things don’t just happen–they take money and staff.</p>