Is it really a logical fallacy to assume that we should have better outcomes from spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on academia vs e.g. spending

Is it really a logical fallacy to assume that we should have better outcomes from spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on academia vs e.g. spending thirty dollars on amazon? At least naively, that money could (should?) be going towards paying for staff and a support system/hierarchy to ensure a higher quality. That's at least nominally why accredited, non-profit education is so expensive, because it's nominally supposed to be capable of paying decent salaries to intelligent people dedicated to teaching, compared to say amazon or the gym where the incentives are to cost cut and maximize profit. In reality, I suspect the same applies to colleges, but I don't think it should, in some ideal world.