That question is somewhat addressed in Sean Carroll's post that I linked to:
> If it weren’t for the fact that it’s hard to get alumni donations when you don’t have any alumni, serious consideration would doubtless be given to cutting out students entirely. Sure, some would complain that they enjoy teaching, that it keeps them fresh, or that students can be useful as research assistants. But those are reasons why the students are useful to the faculty; they are not assertions that the purpose of the institution is to educate students for their own sakes.
>Don’t believe me? Here is the test: when was the last time Harvard made a senior tenure offer to someone because they were a world-class educator, rather than a world-class researcher? Not only is the answer “never,” the question itself is somewhat laughable.
Honestly, once you realize that private research universities use undergraduates as a source of money, all sorts of seemingly strange behaviors by the university become simple. Why does Princeton allow so many academically unqualified students in to play sports? Alumni donations. Why does it charge $40k+ per year (albeit with financial aid) if it really wanted to attract the absolute best students (since it doesn't actually need the money)? Because the students aren't important and, heck, might as well pay for a couple more buildings.
> If it weren’t for the fact that it’s hard to get alumni donations when you don’t have any alumni, serious consideration would doubtless be given to cutting out students entirely. Sure, some would complain that they enjoy teaching, that it keeps them fresh, or that students can be useful as research assistants. But those are reasons why the students are useful to the faculty; they are not assertions that the purpose of the institution is to educate students for their own sakes.
>Don’t believe me? Here is the test: when was the last time Harvard made a senior tenure offer to someone because they were a world-class educator, rather than a world-class researcher? Not only is the answer “never,” the question itself is somewhat laughable.
Honestly, once you realize that private research universities use undergraduates as a source of money, all sorts of seemingly strange behaviors by the university become simple. Why does Princeton allow so many academically unqualified students in to play sports? Alumni donations. Why does it charge $40k+ per year (albeit with financial aid) if it really wanted to attract the absolute best students (since it doesn't actually need the money)? Because the students aren't important and, heck, might as well pay for a couple more buildings.