>But that’s because such measures exclude the very asset the person borrowed to buy—an education that increases lifetime earnings. That’s like assessing a homeowner’s wealth by counting their mortgage balance but not the value of their home.

The value of a higher education that it's sold to young people with is the income it allegedly brings in. If that's the case someone uses the product and their income goes up then we already have a means to tax that income it's called income tax. If the product fails to deliver that income but the money is still taken (and as others mention in a non dischargeable way) then I don't see how that isn't fradulent.