First you say that money and seminary mean different things to different people. Then you say “…it’s [?] unlikely to be a financially prudent decision based on beneficial analysis of what money and seminary are worth to that person.” Given that money and seminary mean different things to different people, how exactly were you able to evaluate the financial prudence of the decision “based on…what money and seminary are worth to that person”? Do you know this person or something?
Although money and seminary are worth different amounts to different people, there is a range within which one can surmise the decisions are made with healthy motivations, and outside of which one can surmise that the motivations were unhealthy. As an analogy, if a wealthy person spends $140 on sneakers, it can be unobjectionable, while if a desperately poor person spends that same amount of money, it would lead one to question the prudence of that decision, despite the poor buyer’s clear indication that he values the sneakers over insulin for his diabetic grandmother.
Also, how exactly does having less money and it having been harder to come by make someone less capable of making “financially prudent decision based on beneficial analysis”? I didn’t say that the person is inherently less capable. I just said if they were to make this particular decision it would likely be based on an unhealthy motivation.
Finally: Can you explain how this statement
…you get to do all kinds of fun things that someone else pays for, while convincing yourself that it’s important for Hashem that you do it.
segued into what you have just explained?
I don’t think they are necessarily related, except insofar as they reflect a certain amount of scorn for seminary as anything other than 10 months of camp. The initial scorn addressed the supposed value to Hashem that allows people to justify spending other people’s money on extended camp. The second part was addressing the scenario of a poor HS graduate paying for seminary themselves.