Ron Paul is dominating some headlines this week. Ron Paul is dominating some headlines this week.

The Republican presidential contender said Sunday on “Meet the Press” that, if elected, he’d eventually like to phase out federal student loans, which have helped put students $1 trillion in debt amidst a struggling job market and economy.

National headlines have been fear-mongering at best, like Politico’s “Ron Paul: End U.S. Student Loans.” We realize slashing student loans isn’t part of Paul’s campaign, but the thought of no federal college loans both intrigues and scares us.

The idea is that tuition rates are so high because schools realize that students will borrow in order to attend. Thus, if the government no longer lends, universities’ student supply would drop drastically and they would be forced to lower tuition to maintain their bottom lines.

It sounds like a great idea in theory, but there are several ways it would go wrong.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the average student loan debt among 2011 graduates was about $23,000. That’s an average out of every student, including those who don’t take out loans as well as those who are, say, $100,000 in debt. But with a number that high, it’s clear that college students rely on borrowing in order to get their degrees.

Without federal student loans, the neediest people would struggle the most. The Department of Education states that federal student loans have both lower interest rates and more flexible payment options than loans from banks or private lenders.

Paul also dreams of a world where students can pay as they go. He worked through college back in the day, so the idea is that — when the economy turns around — students would be able to pay for college through hard work at part-time jobs. The problem with that? It’s a whole different ball game for students today, as opposed to the ’50s and ’60s.

Earlier this month, Pitt approved $152 million in construction and renovation. According to The Pitt Chronicle, about $9 million will go to renovation projects for the Chevron Science Center, including a molecular characterization facility and X-ray diffraction equipment. While the construction’s funding doesn’t come from students, the point remains the same. Technology has exponentially grown over the past 50 years, and it’s important to remember that these advancements cost money.

That’s the academic environment that surrounds us: It’s all about having the best facilities, sports teams and even the best students. And being the best means charging students a fortune so schools can spend a fortune.

That point segues into the ambivalence of a draconian policy like this. No one can say for sure whether universities would cut their tuitions or not if Paul gets his way.

There are several reasons for ballooning tuition in addition to the one that Paul focused on. According to Consumer Affairs, reduced support from state governments, the high cost of being an elite school and competition between schools all contribute to steady tuition inflation. Those reasons need to be accounted for in order to provide a convincing argument that tuition rates will drop.

Cutting supposedly superfluous spending is like a game of Jenga. The infrastructure of our economy can stay together with a few holes in it, but if we pull the wrong pieces, it’ll all fall apart.

We don’t think federal student loans are the right pieces to pull.