College is expensive. Pitt, compared to the average  public university, is particularly expensive. According to the College Board, the average tuition at public universities last year was $8,655. So why does Pitt charge almost double this, $16,240?

One reason is almost certainly the stinginess of the Pennsylvania state government. Gov. Tom Corbett signed into law a budget that allocates $136.3 million to Pitt. In the 2012-2013 school year, 72 percent of students at Pitt were from Pennsylvania, according to the Pitt Fact Book produced by Pitt’s Office of Institutional Research.

If we assume the same number and breakdown of in-state and out-of-state students for this school year, there are just more than 20,000 in-state students at Pitt this year. That means the state government contributes approximately $6,600 per in-state student (if we are very generous in our calculations). Though this is above the national average reported by CBS News of about $5,900 per student, this comes nowhere close to covering the difference between in- and out-of-state tuition. Pitt receives more than $3,000 less state support and tuition per in-state student than it does per out-of-state student.

Despite being greater than the national average, Pennsylvania’s support of Pitt seems piddling in comparison to the roughly $17,400 spent by Michigan on the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, by the same metrics. They spend $279.1 million on 27,979 undergraduates, 57.4 percent of whom are in-state students.

In this limited contrast, state funding seems to free a university to provide high quality education with low tuition levels for in-state students. For those universities that lack such state funding, they need to ensure students that their current spending is appropriated to benefit the most students. At Pitt, it doesn’t seem like that’s the case.

To combat these problems, and to stay competitive with institutions such as the University of Michigan, Pitt needs to take a closer look at making the most of the funding it does get, regardless of the amount. It is important to efficiently allocate funds for every institution.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the athletics sector housed four of Pitt’s top five highest-paid employees. This allocation of resources, although it may seem outrageous, might not be a terrible thing: According to businessofcollegesports.com, our basketball team earns the University more than $7 million in profits. With that money, we could support hundreds of students with full scholarships. Hence, athletics seems to add to the University’s culture without detracting from academics.

Recently, the University of Kentucky built new honors housing and physics and chemistry teaching facilities using money generated by athletics. However, Pitt doesn’t necessarily bring in the same amount of revenue from sports as Kentucky.

In a time of shrinking budgets, Pitt should begin to cut the opulence in athletics and redirect that money to fund learning. I don’t mean the University should pay out fewer athletic scholarships. Giving motivated students who are invested in sports the chance to go to college and learn is great, but maybe some sports teams could travel a little less or we could not waste money on new stairs for the Pete at random times.

Another issue of questionable funding pertains to recent renovations on campus. For instance, Market Central certainly didn’t require renovations this past summer. It’s great students now have a dessert bar, but the renovations surely did not justify their cost.

Another example is the new book center: Despite being an impressive and remarkable new storefront, it certainly did not justify a cost of more than $300 per undergraduate student for the hour each year most students use that space.

What is most mind-boggling about this tendency is that the University has opened a new dorm and renovated all of these spaces instead of providing something more useful for its students. As an example, Hillman Library, a common study place for Pitt students, has not been given the same thoughtful consideration by the University.

For one, the library still lacks proper lighting and space for students to learn and study for exams. The Pitt libraries have wisely moved to 24/7 hours during the work week, but because of poor lighting, an unstable Internet connection and the fact that the floors often fill to capacity during exam periods due to the serious lack of space, the current efforts are not a sufficient solution.

Ultimately, there are key problems on campus that can be solved by reallocating our budget. A little less attention to less important spots on campus may solve the problem, whereas a closer consideration to renovating and improving the most used and important campus buildings may actually enhance the University. 

Write Rohith at [email protected].