Federal education spending: Cover for padding … |

Federal education spending: Cover for padding …

Higher education’s spending priorities are so misplaced that students face ever-higher tuition and debt despite record levels of federal student aid.

James A. Bacon, author of the “Boomergeddon” book and blog, notes in The Washington Times that the Obama administration has boosted total student-aid spending nearly 50 percent and gave students $28.2 billion in 2009-10 Pell grants — $10 billion more than in 2008-09.

National Center for Education Statistics data show that from 2003-04 to 2006-07, U.S. higher education institutions’ operating expenditures grew by an inflation-adjusted 16 percent. Their spending on institutional support, academic support, student services and operations and maintenance — “the most administration-intensive categories,” Mr. Bacon says — grew even more. Yet spending on scholarships and fellowships that make their institutions more affordable grew just 9.6 percent.

So long as federal money flows, he writes, “higher education can evade accountability.” Eliminating that largess would force cost efficiency, which Bacon calls “the only way” toward greater college affordability.

Otherwise, administrators will just continue their misplaced priorities — aggrandizing themselves and their institutions at students’ expense.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.