One big problem here is that they'll be rewarded in the rankings. A bit part of the various rankings models (US News, etc) is how much money is spent on each st

One big problem here is that they'll be rewarded in the rankings. A bit part of the various rankings models (US News, etc) is how much money is spent on each student. So squandering $10k more on students next year is, in certain respects, a good investment for a university with decent cash flow. And the question of how much money is spent on a student can be disconnected from the question of tuition, at least at top-tier schools: At my alma mater, Bowdoin, the college spends just shy of $100k per student each year. The comprehensive fee (incl. room & board) is around $72k per year, and for students qualifying for financial aid (abour half), the college provides grants that bring it down to about $24k per year, which almost resembles something sensible. But if you're a donor, and you give an unrestricted gift to a top-tier college or university, there should be absolutely no expectation that your donation will be spent frugally. In fact, for rankings purposes (which help all the cash flow stuff above), it just matters that it gets raised and spent. I think this is one of the biggest problems in American higher ed, and I'm hoping there are a few institutions with the fortitude of character to stand against it and work toward, rather than against, a cost-effective education model in the US.