EDIT: Hosting a national debate

Few universities are willing to bear the financial costs of hosting a presidential or vice-presidential debate, according to an article in The Daily Beast Monday.

To put things into perspective, Hofstra University, which hosted the second presidential debate, spent $4.5 million on the debate, according to The Daily Beast.

The price is steep. It makes sense that some universities would opt out of the experience because it is so costly.

However, if a university’s student body was very engaged politically, the institution might look past those costs.

A politically active student body would be excited about the opportunity to see the candidates up close. For many college students and adults, viewing a debate in-person is a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

The university also gets exposure on the night of the debate and in the days leading up to it, which is probably why lesser-known universities have stepped forward to host the debates.

But what do schools really gain from this experience in the long run?

Several schools reported to The Daily Beast that they experienced an increase in applications after they hosted a debate.

Many times, though, the attention on the schools wanes. The venue isn’t something that is discussed days after the election ­— the content of the debate is.

Universities should not agree to host a debate solely because of the publicity factor. It should be something the students really want.

It would be interesting to see whether something such as this would hold up at Boston University. In 2002, BU hosted the Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial debate, according to a BU press release.

However, would students support a debate of this scale being held at BU? BU students tend to be quite vocal about the school’s spending practices. If students were aware of how much an experience like this cost, they might not be in a favor of one happening at BU.