I'm not generally in favour of elite universities so don't deeply disagree with the sentiment, but is there actually a way to justify more money under the pattern you established in your comment?

I'm guessing your intention was to suggest that in the presence of a large surplus (Harvard's massive endowment etc) it is reasonable to assume this goes unspent because it can't be turned into worthwhile education or research. Is that about the sum of the argument?

Meanwhile, somewhere with high impact research but nearly zero in reserves would presumably be more deserving?