In a recent article written for the Washington Times by Peter Morici – economist, national columnist, and business professor at the University of Maryland – he offers another possible method to bring down the ever-increasing cost of attending college.
The article is titled, Beyond the admissions scandal, and in my humble opinion is probably one of the most brutally accurate assessments of higher education in America you could ever read. His commentary pulls no punches – not even in the least. He “…..lays bare the true weaknesses in higher education” for all to see. If ever there was an exceptionally damning analysis of our institutions of higher learning, rest assured that this is it.
Discussing student loan debt and useless degree programs, Mr Morici writes,…..”the money to relieve much of this debt should be raised by suing the universities who defrauded these students.”
He goes on by noting, “The universities could cover their losses by mortgaging their buildings – universities own lots of valuable real estate free – and service those bonds by cutting back on summer camp activities.”
Morici states that by taxing the wealthy and simply printing more money, as some politicians and economists advocate, that …..”Both would compound the waste of social resources by making college free.”
Expanding on his ideas, Morici urges that:
“Universities should be required to mortgage their assets to raise half the capital needed to finance student loans – if graduates didn’t find decent jobs, they would default and diploma mills would be liquidated. Self-preservation would compel universities to be careful about whom they admit, uphold academic standards and impart marketable skills, and require faculty to teach and students to show up for class.”
Again, colleges and universities have different ways to go about making higher education more efficient and affordable. But as we are all too well aware, they have zero interest in doing so. Placing the heavyweight financial burden on students and parents is just so convenient and locked-in that, in their view, why change anything?
Why, indeed? What’s easier than spending someone else’s money?
After all, isn’t that what free college is all about?