Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university?Why is Howard University still predominantly black?How to move forward following an unpleasant situation with colleagues?When did it become commonplace for data set providers to ask users to cite their paper(s)?Why doesn't the academic year start on January first?When and why did conferences pick up the habit of giving out conference bags to attendees?Why did most US Universities switch to semestersWhy does a university course become defunct?When and how did journal publications start to have such an important role in evaluating researchers?When and why did journal article titles become descriptive, rather than creatively allusive?When did “Publish or Perish” first become a thing?

What type of interpreter were most 8-bit BASIC implementations?

My PhD defense is next week and I am having negative thoughts about my work and knowledge. Any advice on how to tackle this?

Is it possible to protect saved games on Nintendo Switch from being played by other users?

Why should I invest so much in 401(k)?

Why is there potato in meatballs?

How to end sending data over I2C by Slave or Master?

How to fight an army of skeletons?

Designing Borders with QGIS

Sorting numbers in descending order but with `0`s at the start

Triangle puzzle

How was the Luftwaffe able to destroy nearly 4000 Soviet aircraft in 3 days of operation Barbarossa?

Why does the B-2 Spirit have a pattern of thin white lines?

How do the different seasons work for Eladrin?

If a photon truly goes through both slits (at the same time), then why can't we detect it at both slits (at the same time)?

Translate the French quote "Il n’y a pas d'amour, il n’y a que des preuves d’amour" to English?

Two people from small group of friends want to have a "meeting" with me. The circumstances are strange and give me a bad feeling

Triangular domino tiling of an almost regular hexagon

What is difference between idempotent magma and unital magma?

Starting a sentence instantly with a noun

What instructions should I give to an untrained passenger for Hand propping Cessna 172N as a pilot?

Should I present forged documents in a Penetration Test/Red team engagement?

How can I swallow pills more easily?

Why would one use "enter the name of the project to confirm"?

Is 'lay lady lay' grammatical?



Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university?


Why is Howard University still predominantly black?How to move forward following an unpleasant situation with colleagues?When did it become commonplace for data set providers to ask users to cite their paper(s)?Why doesn't the academic year start on January first?When and why did conferences pick up the habit of giving out conference bags to attendees?Why did most US Universities switch to semestersWhy does a university course become defunct?When and how did journal publications start to have such an important role in evaluating researchers?When and why did journal article titles become descriptive, rather than creatively allusive?When did “Publish or Perish” first become a thing?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









46


















In 1873, Johns Hopkins University was started with an inflation-adjusted $144.5 million. In 1884, Stanford University began with an inflation-adjusted $139 million. Meanwhile, in 2009, KAUST was started with $10 billion. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude.



Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university in modern times?










share|improve this question



























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – eykanal
    Sep 12 at 16:36

















46


















In 1873, Johns Hopkins University was started with an inflation-adjusted $144.5 million. In 1884, Stanford University began with an inflation-adjusted $139 million. Meanwhile, in 2009, KAUST was started with $10 billion. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude.



Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university in modern times?










share|improve this question



























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – eykanal
    Sep 12 at 16:36













46













46









46


4






In 1873, Johns Hopkins University was started with an inflation-adjusted $144.5 million. In 1884, Stanford University began with an inflation-adjusted $139 million. Meanwhile, in 2009, KAUST was started with $10 billion. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude.



Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university in modern times?










share|improve this question
















In 1873, Johns Hopkins University was started with an inflation-adjusted $144.5 million. In 1884, Stanford University began with an inflation-adjusted $139 million. Meanwhile, in 2009, KAUST was started with $10 billion. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude.



Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university in modern times?







university academic-history






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Sep 12 at 16:36









eykanal

45k16 gold badges106 silver badges208 bronze badges




45k16 gold badges106 silver badges208 bronze badges










asked Sep 10 at 4:22









AllureAllure

56.1k25 gold badges156 silver badges218 bronze badges




56.1k25 gold badges156 silver badges218 bronze badges















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – eykanal
    Sep 12 at 16:36

















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – eykanal
    Sep 12 at 16:36
















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– eykanal
Sep 12 at 16:36





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– eykanal
Sep 12 at 16:36










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















82



















Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).



In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.






share|improve this answer





















  • 18





    I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.

    – xLeitix
    Sep 10 at 5:56






  • 19





    In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.

    – Anonymous Physicist
    Sep 10 at 5:57






  • 22





    @Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.

    – Peter Taylor
    Sep 10 at 6:48






  • 12





    @Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.

    – Arnaud D.
    Sep 10 at 8:17







  • 11





    @Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).

    – xLeitix
    Sep 10 at 9:53


















15



















I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.



  1. Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.

  2. To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.





share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    "Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.

    – Stobor
    Sep 12 at 1:35






  • 1





    @Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.

    – Ehsan
    Sep 12 at 13:30


















13



















I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:



  1. Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.


  2. Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.


  3. Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.






share|improve this answer























  • 14





    Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    Sep 10 at 5:28






  • 5





    @Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%

    – Nuclear Wang
    Sep 10 at 13:20






  • 14





    Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.

    – JeffE
    Sep 10 at 17:40






  • 4





    Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.

    – Wolfgang Bangerth
    Sep 10 at 21:33






  • 2





    @NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.

    – Prof. Santa Claus
    Sep 10 at 23:20



















3



















Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.



The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:



  • Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.


  • In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.


  • In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.






share|improve this answer

































    0



















    1. Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.


    2. Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.


    3. Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.






    share|improve this answer



























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "415"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );














      draft saved

      draft discarded
















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135919%2fwhy-did-it-become-so-much-more-expensive-to-start-a-university%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown


























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      82



















      Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).



      In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 18





        I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.

        – xLeitix
        Sep 10 at 5:56






      • 19





        In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.

        – Anonymous Physicist
        Sep 10 at 5:57






      • 22





        @Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.

        – Peter Taylor
        Sep 10 at 6:48






      • 12





        @Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.

        – Arnaud D.
        Sep 10 at 8:17







      • 11





        @Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).

        – xLeitix
        Sep 10 at 9:53















      82



















      Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).



      In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 18





        I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.

        – xLeitix
        Sep 10 at 5:56






      • 19





        In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.

        – Anonymous Physicist
        Sep 10 at 5:57






      • 22





        @Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.

        – Peter Taylor
        Sep 10 at 6:48






      • 12





        @Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.

        – Arnaud D.
        Sep 10 at 8:17







      • 11





        @Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).

        – xLeitix
        Sep 10 at 9:53













      82















      82











      82









      Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).



      In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.






      share|improve this answer














      Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).



      In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.







      share|improve this answer













      share|improve this answer




      share|improve this answer










      answered Sep 10 at 5:40









      xLeitixxLeitix

      113k40 gold badges283 silver badges417 bronze badges




      113k40 gold badges283 silver badges417 bronze badges










      • 18





        I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.

        – xLeitix
        Sep 10 at 5:56






      • 19





        In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.

        – Anonymous Physicist
        Sep 10 at 5:57






      • 22





        @Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.

        – Peter Taylor
        Sep 10 at 6:48






      • 12





        @Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.

        – Arnaud D.
        Sep 10 at 8:17







      • 11





        @Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).

        – xLeitix
        Sep 10 at 9:53












      • 18





        I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.

        – xLeitix
        Sep 10 at 5:56






      • 19





        In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.

        – Anonymous Physicist
        Sep 10 at 5:57






      • 22





        @Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.

        – Peter Taylor
        Sep 10 at 6:48






      • 12





        @Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.

        – Arnaud D.
        Sep 10 at 8:17







      • 11





        @Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).

        – xLeitix
        Sep 10 at 9:53







      18




      18





      I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.

      – xLeitix
      Sep 10 at 5:56





      I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.

      – xLeitix
      Sep 10 at 5:56




      19




      19





      In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.

      – Anonymous Physicist
      Sep 10 at 5:57





      In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.

      – Anonymous Physicist
      Sep 10 at 5:57




      22




      22





      @Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.

      – Peter Taylor
      Sep 10 at 6:48





      @Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.

      – Peter Taylor
      Sep 10 at 6:48




      12




      12





      @Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.

      – Arnaud D.
      Sep 10 at 8:17






      @Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.

      – Arnaud D.
      Sep 10 at 8:17





      11




      11





      @Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).

      – xLeitix
      Sep 10 at 9:53





      @Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).

      – xLeitix
      Sep 10 at 9:53













      15



















      I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.



      1. Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.

      2. To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.





      share|improve this answer





















      • 3





        "Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.

        – Stobor
        Sep 12 at 1:35






      • 1





        @Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.

        – Ehsan
        Sep 12 at 13:30















      15



















      I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.



      1. Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.

      2. To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.





      share|improve this answer





















      • 3





        "Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.

        – Stobor
        Sep 12 at 1:35






      • 1





        @Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.

        – Ehsan
        Sep 12 at 13:30













      15















      15











      15









      I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.



      1. Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.

      2. To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.





      share|improve this answer














      I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.



      1. Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.

      2. To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.






      share|improve this answer













      share|improve this answer




      share|improve this answer










      answered Sep 10 at 7:44









      EhsanEhsan

      1,0461 silver badge11 bronze badges




      1,0461 silver badge11 bronze badges










      • 3





        "Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.

        – Stobor
        Sep 12 at 1:35






      • 1





        @Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.

        – Ehsan
        Sep 12 at 13:30












      • 3





        "Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.

        – Stobor
        Sep 12 at 1:35






      • 1





        @Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.

        – Ehsan
        Sep 12 at 13:30







      3




      3





      "Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.

      – Stobor
      Sep 12 at 1:35





      "Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.

      – Stobor
      Sep 12 at 1:35




      1




      1





      @Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.

      – Ehsan
      Sep 12 at 13:30





      @Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.

      – Ehsan
      Sep 12 at 13:30











      13



















      I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:



      1. Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.


      2. Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.


      3. Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.






      share|improve this answer























      • 14





        Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.

        – Prof. Santa Claus
        Sep 10 at 5:28






      • 5





        @Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%

        – Nuclear Wang
        Sep 10 at 13:20






      • 14





        Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.

        – JeffE
        Sep 10 at 17:40






      • 4





        Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.

        – Wolfgang Bangerth
        Sep 10 at 21:33






      • 2





        @NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.

        – Prof. Santa Claus
        Sep 10 at 23:20
















      13



















      I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:



      1. Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.


      2. Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.


      3. Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.






      share|improve this answer























      • 14





        Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.

        – Prof. Santa Claus
        Sep 10 at 5:28






      • 5





        @Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%

        – Nuclear Wang
        Sep 10 at 13:20






      • 14





        Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.

        – JeffE
        Sep 10 at 17:40






      • 4





        Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.

        – Wolfgang Bangerth
        Sep 10 at 21:33






      • 2





        @NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.

        – Prof. Santa Claus
        Sep 10 at 23:20














      13















      13











      13









      I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:



      1. Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.


      2. Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.


      3. Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.






      share|improve this answer
















      I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:



      1. Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.


      2. Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.


      3. Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.







      share|improve this answer















      share|improve this answer




      share|improve this answer








      edited Sep 10 at 4:57

























      answered Sep 10 at 4:47









      nick012000nick012000

      4,0632 gold badges12 silver badges27 bronze badges




      4,0632 gold badges12 silver badges27 bronze badges










      • 14





        Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.

        – Prof. Santa Claus
        Sep 10 at 5:28






      • 5





        @Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%

        – Nuclear Wang
        Sep 10 at 13:20






      • 14





        Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.

        – JeffE
        Sep 10 at 17:40






      • 4





        Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.

        – Wolfgang Bangerth
        Sep 10 at 21:33






      • 2





        @NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.

        – Prof. Santa Claus
        Sep 10 at 23:20













      • 14





        Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.

        – Prof. Santa Claus
        Sep 10 at 5:28






      • 5





        @Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%

        – Nuclear Wang
        Sep 10 at 13:20






      • 14





        Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.

        – JeffE
        Sep 10 at 17:40






      • 4





        Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.

        – Wolfgang Bangerth
        Sep 10 at 21:33






      • 2





        @NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.

        – Prof. Santa Claus
        Sep 10 at 23:20








      14




      14





      Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.

      – Prof. Santa Claus
      Sep 10 at 5:28





      Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.

      – Prof. Santa Claus
      Sep 10 at 5:28




      5




      5





      @Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%

      – Nuclear Wang
      Sep 10 at 13:20





      @Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%

      – Nuclear Wang
      Sep 10 at 13:20




      14




      14





      Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.

      – JeffE
      Sep 10 at 17:40





      Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.

      – JeffE
      Sep 10 at 17:40




      4




      4





      Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.

      – Wolfgang Bangerth
      Sep 10 at 21:33





      Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.

      – Wolfgang Bangerth
      Sep 10 at 21:33




      2




      2





      @NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.

      – Prof. Santa Claus
      Sep 10 at 23:20






      @NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.

      – Prof. Santa Claus
      Sep 10 at 23:20












      3



















      Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.



      The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:



      • Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.


      • In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.


      • In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.






      share|improve this answer






























        3



















        Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.



        The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:



        • Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.


        • In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.


        • In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.






        share|improve this answer




























          3















          3











          3









          Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.



          The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:



          • Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.


          • In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.


          • In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.






          share|improve this answer














          Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.



          The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:



          • Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.


          • In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.


          • In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.







          share|improve this answer













          share|improve this answer




          share|improve this answer










          answered Sep 11 at 21:18









          Ben CrowellBen Crowell

          14.9k2 gold badges40 silver badges75 bronze badges




          14.9k2 gold badges40 silver badges75 bronze badges
























              0



















              1. Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.


              2. Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.


              3. Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.






              share|improve this answer






























                0



















                1. Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.


                2. Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.


                3. Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.






                share|improve this answer




























                  0















                  0











                  0









                  1. Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.


                  2. Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.


                  3. Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.






                  share|improve this answer














                  1. Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.


                  2. Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.


                  3. Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.







                  share|improve this answer













                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Sep 11 at 2:37









                  Always ConfusedAlways Confused

                  1557 bronze badges




                  1557 bronze badges































                      draft saved

                      draft discarded















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135919%2fwhy-did-it-become-so-much-more-expensive-to-start-a-university%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown









                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                      Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                      Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?