Not sure why research is being trotted out as a negative. My ability to do research as an undergrad alongside phd students and post-docs was the highlight of my academic experience and got me my first job.

If you want a school where the professor's highest priority is the classroom experience go to a small liberal arts school. But frankly, there's no reason a great professor can't do both so you may as well go somewhere with the resources to conduct interesting research.

I also thoroughly enjoyed my undergraduate research opportunities and they played a large part in how I chose my university. It's also an area where I think the US does very well--introducing students to research early in their careers.

I'll respond to all three:

1. This is an assertion. During 11+ years in academia, I saw no evidence that "typical" students were unhappy with quality of the education.

2. Yes, college costs a lot. We disagree on the reasons.

3. I agree that the incentives are biased toward research, but disagree that this leads to a poor student experience.

As for the $12k for 250 hours of instruction: yes, that's $50 an hour, per student. But you're not just paying the instructor of the course (believe me!) -- you're paying for the classroom, the building, the fancy new student center, the campus landscaping, the fountains, the climbing wall, the professors who are teaching dozens of other, very small courses, the laboratory space, the dormitories, the third-party software licenses, the women's softball team, etc.

Universities aren't cheap to run. The guy at the front of the classroom is only the start of the cost structure.

Then why were they were so much cheaper in the past?

Also, I imagine you didn't go to a state school.

I got my PhD at the University of Washington.

There are many reasons why schools have become more expensive over the years. The cost of health care, alone, is growing much faster than the rate of inflation.

But honestly, most universities went on a building spree over the last twenty years. Fancy dorms and labs and classrooms and athletic facilities really start to add up -- and grants rarely pay for them. As I said before, there are tons of inefficiencies in the university system. I just don't think they're in the classroom.

It's not athletics; at a large state school those programs bring in a heap more money than they cost to operate.

Athletics are a money loser for all but 15 or so universities.

For a lot many schools, the donations and fund raising increases as they have a better athletic presence. In the long run, athletics doesn't really lose money for the school. Athletics at a lot many schools are self-sustaining.. especially after cutting off a few sports that were a moneysink. Big Time Athletics is Big Business these days with sponsorships, TV revenue, ticket sales, advertising and elicited donations.

Part of the reason they were much cheaper in the past is that government funding per student was higher in the past. When I went to college government funded around 2/3 the cost of my education. Tuition covered 1/3. This is no longer the case. There are other reasons for the increase cost in higher education but none of those reasons are faculty salaries.

Educational funding from the Govt to public schools has drastically decreased over the last decade causing schools to cancel classes and let go people. There's not much to do in terms of increasing revenue but to increase tuition, increase enrollment and such,.