ARGUMENTAM AD MISERICORDIAM. The lead editorial in Tuesday's Northern Star makes a case for tuition relief, or something. (I don't intend to make a practice of commenting on editorials in college newspapers, but this one raises a number of questions.)

"We went to school here and used government money to help fund our education, so why can’t we give some of that back? As reported in the Chicago Tribune, the College Board said the national average for tuition and fees at four-year public institutions, such as NIU, has increased by an average of $4,081, a rise of 9.6 percent from last year.

"Because tuition and fees have increased over the last year, the number of those who apply for federal grants, like Pell grants, has increased."

I'm not sure I follow the first sentence, but the rest of the argument is clear enough: college has become more expensive, thus more people seek help in paying for it.

"Yet, the federal funding available for such grants has been decreasing, forcing more students to look to banks for student loans."

So far, so straightforward. Looks like substitution at work: when one good isn't available, look for something else that does something similar.

"As a result, there has been less money coming from schools and the government for students to get their hands on."

I don't follow this part of the argument either. It's not an "as a result," it's a substitution.

"When that happens, banks basically can say you have to use their funds, which require interest on the money, therefore, the bank gets more money than it gave you. The banks don’t seem to have a problem with this, and it’s good that they have started to pick up the slack in providing student loans."

For reasons that will become clear shortly.

"However, then banks make and keep the money. It is not reinvested in any institution. In a perfect world, the money would be going back to the university and government"

Here is a nasty form of the Complex Question. First, the money is in fact reinvested. Banks lend money that depositors lend them. Second, the authors have invoked a perfect world, without first spelling out their standard of perfection. Is it any less perfect for repayments of student loans to make Granny's retirement a little more comfortable, which is what happens when Granny draws interest on the savings she left with the bank, which the bank then lent to students?

"What’s keeping us from that ideal is the small number of people investing in the institution that invested in them. And that number continues to get smaller."

I don't follow this at all: where is this return of an investment coming from?

"The College Board reported that a record $90 billion in student financial aid, including loans, was given out in the 2001-2002 school year. That’s an 11 percent increase compared to the 2000-2001 school year."

Not only that, we have a confusion of number with proportion. We have an 11 percent increase in financial aid, a less than 10 percent increase in tuitions on average, and an unspecified increase in enrollment in college. The authors have not ruled out an increase either in the proportion or in the absolute number of people "investing in the institution," whatever that means. And we are about to see why banks might be interested in writing college loans, rather than lending money for cars.

"The Board also estimated those with a college degree can expect to make $1 million more throughout their careers than those with only a high school diploma."

Suggesting that a portfolio of student loans is a better investment than a portfolio of auto loans to high school graduates.

"If that is the case, then some of that money surely can go back to the university or be offered through federal programs to help keep education costs down for college students."

It is certainly in the interest of a student, or of anyone else confronting the obligation to pay for something, to seek ways of paying less. But it sounds like a particularly obnoxious form of special pleading to ask Granny on her pension, or those high school graduates who stand to make less money, to dig deeper and pay more taxes simply to ease the path to those larger salaries. In other contexts, such policies might well be viewed as giving to the rich.

"The way to combat increasing college costs is to know which politicians lobby for money for higher education. There are some elected representatives interested in helping institutions of higher education weather poor economic times and expand during good ones, and students need to recognize these people and support them."

That really doesn't do anything about college costs: the value of a resource depends on the use to which its owner puts it. It does reduce the price students pay, and it's certainly not wrong for students to advocate such policies. By the same token, it's not wrong for a professor to say: Look, you stand to gain a great deal by obtaining your degree, and it is my responsibility to help. Share some of the gains you expect to make with me. That I am not advocating the bribery of professors is left to the reader as an exercise.

"So, not doing your homework will cost you in the long run."

And in the short: I also leave the grade this essay would have earned to the reader as an exercise.