MORE WORK TO BE DONE. Despite all the efforts of the National Council on Economic Education and others, students still enter university ... and pass through ... without developing much in the way of economic understanding. Although I share King's reluctance to fisk student columnists, one in today's Northern Star sets such a low standard for logic that -- well, it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Onward.

Why does it seem as if the cost of education is as bad as it gets? Everyone talks about the importance of education, but finding money in government seems to be at the bottom of the task list.

What’s interesting is that when politicians run for office, they often talk about improving education and providing students with the best affordable education possible. However, in the past 25 years, the financial problems with education continue to get worse nationally. Government has a problem prioritizing and allocating sufficient amounts of money for its public schools and public universities. And we the students continue to give without receiving.

Literally. The writer is about to demonstrate that he has been on campus for at least a year (I recall this columnist from last academic year) without receiving any grounding in logical thinking.

Here’s a reminder: As taxpayers, we give corporations millions of dollars each year by purchasing cars, computers, clothing and fast food. In return, these corporations make millions of dollars and even may receive tax write-offs. What do we get in return? Insufficient amounts of money for education. We also get a front-page article informing us that the CEO of our favorite investment company - or sports team - has stolen millions of dollars from us as a whole. The following proposal would alleviate some of the financial problems that educational institutions are facing around the country. “Leave No Corporation Behind” is the proposed guide to improving the facilities and environment in which young people are taught.

Where to begin? (Hey, search my archives ... I've used this formulation frequently. President Bush, do you owe me a royalty?) First, let's distinguish the act of paying TAXES to GOVERNMENTS -- state support and all that -- from the act of making PURCHASES from CORPORATIONS. Isn't the obligation of a corporation to provide decent cars, computers, clothing, and (pardon the oxymoron) fast food? Now perhaps there is a case for corporations misusing corporate welfare -- something that underpins the scandals in agribusiness, energy, and professional sports. But the author has already confessed to "not receiving" from the University, which he will continue to demonstrate in the next few paragraphs. (As an aside, one might wish to consider Milton Friedman's suggestion that businesses which make large charitable contributions be investigated for antitrust violations.)

With this proposal, companies such as Nike, Reebok and Adidas would be allowed to build sports facilities on college campuses. The proposal would provide jobs, internships and graduate assistantships. These companies already give the sports programs discounts on merchandise while making millions of dollars off the universities’ likenesses. Why not have them build a facility, maintain it, allow the state to hire faculty and spend the money to pay faculty?

Ford, Pontiac and Oldsmobile should be allowed to provide cars at no cost to universities for the purpose of traveling to conferences and other collegiate events and, in return, receive tax write-offs and future business from full-time employees and students.

Got news for you: the sportswear companies are complicit in the losses most athletic departments run up. The problem with such a proposal is that the university then has to negotiate an exclusive dealing contract with a vendor. The contract Northern Illinois University has with Pepsi is one such illustration. And do we really want to extend the coaches' car contracts to the faculty? If a conference is an overnight train ride or flying distance away, do we want to tie the faculty to their company cars?

With ever-changing technology, a deal should be implemented that would allow Microsoft and Dell to build facilities while providing upgrades and the best software programs with computers to students year-round.

Let's see, didn't IBM get hit with an antitrust suit over such promotional discounts, years ago? And didn't Microsoft's "installed base" figure in its conviction for monopolization? Are you sure you want to go there?

U.S. Cellular agreed to pay the Chicago White Sox $68 million over 20 years for naming rights. What harm would it do for the Music Building to be named “Virgin Records,” for the record company, if it means the university would be presented with a check for $30 million for 10 years? Alumni donate millions of dollars every year to programs with their names on it. Why not maximize the benefits for students?

I don't follow. Are the existing sales of "naming opportunities" (note the kinder, gentler development office language) for the benefit of somebody other than the students?

Those that believe such a proposal is politically incorrect must be satisfied with the education they - or their children - are receiving. Unfortunately, it will be a cold day in hell before President George W. Bush or Gov. Rod Blagojevich advocates it like they do when they are campaigning for improvements in the cost of education.

And I fail to see the connection here to anything that precedes it. No shortage of work to do when I get back to the classroom, I can already see that.