I think it's more depressing, but less deliberate than that. We decided we should run colleges like business, and put managers and executives in administrative positions. They're doing what they've been trained to do, which is to make their organization successful as measured by the amount of money they pull in and whatever bullshit metrics they can come up with. So they do raise tuition because they can make money doing it. I don't think it's greed. That's just what they think it means for a university to be successful, because that's what they think it means for any organization to be successful. Likewise using impact and number of papers published in order to evaluate faculty, because you need metrics in order to manage, and it's irrelevant that it forces them to flood the field with work that's either obvious or just uninteresting. As much as I can't stand managerial types, I don't think any of them are personally at fault. It just follows directly from deciding that's who should be running our universities.