Everyone on this thread seems to be focusing entirely on money when determining whether or not something is rational. The Economics 101 definition of rational

Everyone on this thread seems to be focusing entirely on money when determining whether or not something is rational. The Economics 101 definition of rational that I recall from university is only tangentially related to strictly monetary value -- things usually provide non-monetary value as well ("opportunity cost", etc.). If every trade were always based solely on monetary value, trade would be a zero-sum game, but it's not: fair trade is a win-win situation. Seller wins because the product is worth more to the buyer than it cost to produce; buyer wins because the product is worth more to them than it cost to buy. If this weren't the case, one or both parties would decline the trade (assuming, of course, as economists are wont to do, that both parties are rational). As you point out, there are plenty of non-monetary benefits to academia: passion, interest, fulfillment, pride, etc. These things have different value to different people depending on their own interests and goals. If the total benefit (tangible and intangible) is worth more to someone than the opportunity cost, then, according to economics, that person is still acting rationally in such pursuits. I'm not an economist, but this is seriously undergraduate-level Introductory Economics material.