[googlegoogle]

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...ily/P74829.asp

Capital spending: Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, in his book Tuition Rising, describes a kind of arms race among the nations top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.

But its not just the Ivy League schools that are spending like mad. Colleges that want good rankings with U.S. News & World Reports annual college rankings and other college-rating programs shell out big bucks on ubiquitous high-speed Internet access, bigger and better dining facilities, new gyms and concert halls, apartments instead of dorms for students.

A lot of this spending is fueled by endowment funds, which in the go-go 1990s were swelled by a rising stock market and increased contributions from stock-rich donors. Critics make a good argument that at least some of the largesse should have been used to put a lid on prices.

But schools couldnt have justified this spending if there werent other factors at work.

Faculty: Half to two-thirds of the typical colleges budget goes to paying instructional salaries. So rising paychecks are indeed a factor in higher college costs. But few college profs are getting rich.

The median salary for a full-time college educator is $46,300, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The picture is brighter for those who have tenure: Full professors make an average $76,200, according to the American Association of University Professors.

The tenure system and the lack of mandatory retirement can make it tough to oust high-earning but less productive employees.

On the other hand, colleges are holding costs down by using a lot of non-tenured teachers: graduate students, instructors and lecturers. In fact, only 55% to 60% of the typical colleges staff is tenured or tenure-track.

So blaming higher college costs on the teachers alone really doesnt wash.