University spokesman Bill Mahon probably wasn't an economics major in college, so he might have never heard the term "diminishing returns" to capital investments in relation to Penn State appropriations. Any economics student can tell you that per-student funding ratios are irrelevant. After all, Penn State does not need twice as many chemistry labs, twice as many IST buildings, or twice as many basketball arenas as a school half our size.

The fact is, Penn State educates its students at the margins, that is, the cost of educating one more student is less than educating the one before. Our huge enrollment means that Penn State has a far lower per-pupil educational cost than Clarion, for example. Clearly, the state legislature has done its best to provide adequate funding for a state school with a land grant mission. If some administrators want to dramatically grow the university, so that it competes with the top private schools, that is a worthy goal, but not one that Pennsylvania taxpayers ought to be expected to finance. As a final note, Mahon blames the legislature for cutting appropriations, allegedly leading to higher tuition. At a time where everyone else was tightening their belts in the midst of a recession, Penn State was expanding at a very vigorous pace, and continues to saddle the undergraduate student with the highest in-state public school tuition in the country, a fact publicized last week by USA Today. I already bleed Blue and White, so why does the university insist on making my family and I bleed green as well? Mahon shouldn't underestimate the challenges facing lower and middle class students presented by outrageously high tuition.