Posh digs are nice when you can get them, but not essential.

When I got my undergrad degree, I was in the last graduating class that did all their time in the "old" building, and never got to enjoy the not-quite-finished "new" building. And the exact same thing happened years later when I went to law school. This is not to say I have any regrets about getting a good education in old buildings. My alma maters certainly have no such regrets. They get in touch each year about money to pay for the new buildings.

Of course we students care about posh digs. But, we want them for ourselves. This current student is probably not too big on the idea of construction, because she will not be able to enjoy the new buildings (NB: I did not read the Chron article beyond the the first few lines... as I am not a subscriber, I cannot get the gated version). But I'm certain that if you polled prospective students about their impressions of a school after a visit, the results would positively correlate with the state of the physical plant.

Here at USF Law, we are fortunate to have beautiful urban facilities. Other schools in the area may be ranked higher than us, but if I am going to be spending three years in the library, I would certainly rather have ample, technologically enhanced space with views of the Golden Gate Bridge. And certainly that played a role in many students decision to both apply and attend (I might note that my decision to apply to UIUC - the only out-of-state school I applied to - was largely driven by the winning pitch given by Admissions Director Paul Pless. Oh, and the fee waiver, too).

Having just gone on a second college road trip with, I can assure anyone that, at least for undergrads, nice digs count for a lot. The "feel" of the campus, or that part of it where the kid expects to spend most of their time, is probably the dominant criteria after they have narrowed it down to five or six schools of roughly equivalent reputation.

I think the article points out a subtle complex problems that the US education system faces: how to best improve the quality of education without increasing the cost. The recent compounding growth of law school tuition is an excellent example. The dean of Boalt Hall recently to the Regent's board that he could not be expected to maintain a "top 5" program on a public institution budget. He requested an increased budget that would likely drive tuition costs above $30,000 per year for in-state students.
While increasing the budget through donations, tax dollars, or tuition may give universities more money to "improve" the educational quality, it has unintended consequences, namely passing the burden to future students and future tax payers. Students will pay for the changes through increased tuition and must take out more student loans to obtain an education. Even with subsidized Stafford loans, the loan will likely take more years to pay off than the student spent in college. While some students in some disciplines will find jobs that will make this burden relatively light, many are caught in the undertow of compounding debt, being overqualified and underpaid for the jobs they find after school.
The increased costs are also passed on to current and future taxpayers. As the US continues to increase its budget every year, the taxpayers face higher taxes, which makes it even more difficult for many families to afford college. If the taxes aren't raised, then the US must use defecit spending to fuel public spending, which only delays the true cost by burdening future tax payers.Either way, the tax payers will be burdened by the increases to "educational quality". While some burden is warranted, we must be increasingly careful in our spending choices.
In sum, while we live in an age of unprecedented wealth, we may need to reevaluate the true costs of "improving" the educational system through increased spending. Just because technology is growing exponentially doesn't mean that education must keep pace, especially if it creates such high costs for the students, taxpayers, and future generations.
The next question is obvious: how should we improve the educational system without increased spending? While there is no simple solution, the first step is to reevaluate the priorities of spending. We must be more critical of each dollar spent and the return on its investment, (both tangible and intangible).
Unfortunately, even reevaluating our priorities may not be enough, especially if students do not reexamine their demands on the educational system. Compared to any other generation, this generation has had more exposure to wealth than any other generation in US history. I say "exposure" because many students may not have affluent backgrounds or large incomes, yet they are surrounded by ipods, cell phones, and consumer technology that is often associated with wealth and in some cases even purchase such items, even though they may not be a strict necessity. If students continue to "demand" the "posh digs" on university campuses, they reinforce the universities' decisions to spend on buildings/facilities, which will lead to higher tuition costs and taxes as noted above.
Maybe it is time to examine the saving habits of past generations and seek to emulate their behavior. While this may cause a drop in the rate of growth in the education system, it does not mean that the educational system is failing. It may be time to reexamine the notion that we must continually increase quality at any cost.

Has ascetic scholarship gone out of fashion?

What the heck is "ascetic scholarship"?

Disregarding the "public institution", do you not remember Sensenbrenner Hall? Despite valiant attempts to pretty it up via frequent new paint jobs and new artwork, not even the extreme law school makeover team could make the building competitive. I love MULS,and other factors make the school a great place to be, but there was good reason why many students sought out other facilities to study and the like. At least I wasn't using a wheelchair for mobility...

Cliff asks: "What the heck is 'ascetic scholarship'"?

A sign of the times. (Sigh.)

Jake says: "A sign of the times. (Sigh.)"

Not really - just a sign of momentary ignorance that a quick lookup cured. Nonrecognition of arcane words hardly constitutes lack of understanding of or agreement with the substance of a concept.