Students are attracted to the colleges they attend for various reasons. Some students are most interested in what they will learn at an institution while others may be dazzled by what flashy amenities the college offers. 

In an ideal world, colleges would not have to choose between amenities and programs, but that’s not the world we live in today. 

What Columbia administrators and those at colleges nationwide should remember is that students—for the most part—care more about the substance of their education than the architecture that will surround them as they absorb this new knowledge. 

The Chronicle of Higher Education evaluated state-by-state funding of public universities over 25 years in its March 3, 2014, issue and found that both state and federal funding had declined at more than 600 colleges nationwide. 

Thus it’s no surprise that students at the University of California, Berkeley, recently complained that the addition of unnecessary amenities including “nap pods” to their campus does nothing to quell their post-grad worries about crushing student debt, according to an April 19 article by The Atlantic.

Columbia students have echoed those complaints.

It’s understandable that luxurious amenities and designer furniture can give colleges a competitive edge by impressing prospective students and enticing them to enroll. 

But the emphasis on a college’s excellence should be framed more directly in terms of its curriculum, programs and financial support for students than its visual appeal. 

The college’s Student Government Association advocated for Monetary Award Program grant funding April 20 for Illinois Lobby Day, as reported in the story on Page 7. 

Even on our own campus, students have been frustrated by the allocation of funding to the redesigning of certain buildings’ entire floors and the addition of hammocks and bean bags to make the campus “more comfortable.” 

But most students would find much more comfort in the knowledge that the college could pay for state-funded financial aid or that the student center might be put on hold until the college’s finances shape up.

Students struggling to pay for college are also acutely aware that the debt they are accumulating is not just funding academic programs but is also going toward the bells and whistles that they often are surprised to see on campus. 

These improvements are typically paid for with little to no consultation with students regarding whether they even want these new amenities. 

Some perceive higher-ups’ decisions to purchase things like costly designer furniture and elaborate new campus buildings as showing more concern for getting new students through the door than offering value to those who are already here.

College administrators should consider students’ input through methods such as focus groups, surveys or town hall meetings to find out what their student body actually values. 

If the overwhelming majority of students would rather see their tuition dollars go toward funding elaborate architecture on campus buildings and “nap pods” galore, their administrators can reasonably make those decisions guilt-free.

But those students who value funding thorough educational programs and adequate compensation for the faculty and staff who manage their education on a daily basis deserve to have their voices heard.