> I mean an unreasonable amount of it went to administrators. But the goal and the intent was certainly there.

This is wrong.

The increase in administrator pay began well after the crises cited in OP.

You could cite spending on the sciences (and thus Silicon Valley), but the spending by the US did not accrue to administrators; and further, federal money primarily goes to grants and loans, but GP is citing a time over which there were relatively low increases in tuition.

Edit: Not at home, but even a cursory serious search will turn up reports like this one that indicate the lack of clarity in the popular uprising against money "[going] to administrators"

https://www.investigativeeconomics.org/p/who-to-believe-on-u...

▲

malcolmgreaves 4 hours ago | parent [-]

For universities, yes. But not for primary education. Administrative bloat is the worst in K-12.

	▲	bonsai_spool 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> For universities, yes. But not for primary education. Administrative bloat is the worst in K-12. First, where is your data? Second, this discussion is clearly about post-secondary education ("the idea is more money could've been invested into bringing the bottom rungs of American society up and created a more skilled and educated workforce in the process.")