Universities across the country are spending too much money on non-academic expenditures. Instead of squeezing every penny into attracting high-quality faculty or improving laboratory and library facilities, universities are dedicating large portions of their budget toward amenities aimed at attracting students.

A high-profile example of this trend is Stanford’s new dormitory, which costs $200,000 per bed to construct. While it might seem like this kind of spending would be contained to schools for the wealthy, examples of this trend can be found at OU.

Students at OU are familiar with the extravagant Couch Cafeteria’s renovations over the last few years. There are now places in the Couch Cafeteria where one can see more than 20 televisions from a single seat.

Additional expenditures include over-the-top Gaylord Hall. According to a 2009 report of university capital development projects, phase two of Gaylord Hall cost $19,950,000. Nearly $11 million was anticipated to come from private sources, $9 million was in university bond funds and $100,000 in college funds.

OU’s intent to acquire a multi-million dollar monastery in Italy for study abroad is another example.

In some cases, the bulk of the cost is shouldered by outside donors, and this fact is often used to stonewall any criticism of the projects. Absent from this excuse is the ongoing maintenance and insurance costs with which elaborate projects will burden future budgets.

Additionally, it is fair to ask whether this is the best expense of donor money. Sometimes donors approach OU with a specific project in mind, such as Gaylord Hall. In those cases, it is sensible for the administration to accommodate reasonable project proposals instead of risking the donation altogether.

Other times it is clear that OU’s administration is encouraging donors to participate in particular projects.

For instance, it seems unlikely that any donor came to OU’s administration with the goal of buying a multi-million dollar monastery in a foreign country. So, even when it is donor money, that does not mean there is no trade-off between some other way the administration could direct it to be spent.

OU administrations defend these non-academic projects, claiming it is necessary to recruit students.

While it is understandable that universities compete for students, the current arms race toward greater luxury spells more costs for everyone with no educational benefits. And costs across the board will have to rise, which will ultimately be borne by students or taxpayers.

Administrators and those in the position to make spending decisions must consider the overall social cost of this kind of competition.

From a single university perspective, it might make sense to sink millions of dollars into water complexes, decked-out cafeterias, and domes that glow in the dark (looking at you Gaylord Hall).

If only one university is innovating in that way, then perhaps it will be more attractive to certain students and the costs will be justified. But it is not only one university that is taking this approach.

Across the board, universities feeling pressured by the spending at other universities follow suit. Everyone loses in this competition as the price of education rises while the quality of it stays the same or even drops.

The trend toward luxury in higher education will cost us all.

Unless the current OU administration seeks to simply build a legacy for itself by littering the campus with fancy buildings, it will buck this recent trend and dedicate funding for education, not luxury.