<p>@observeraffect
It’s meant to show that STEM students aren’t really better off than liberal arts students.
However, how often has anyone heard about a STEM barista?</p>
<p>Thumper, few enough even remember that it was called BankAmericard. LOL.</p>
<p>I have always maintained that one of the big failings of our high schools is that they spend way too much time and money trying to be junior colleges rather than preparing all students for adult life.</p>
<p>When I am king of the world…all HS grads would be required to have a C or better in Personal Finance class and 2-3 years of Government (State/Local, US Federal, International). Whether someone is college-bound or not, they need these skills. I am sure we can all make lists of courses offered at our kids’ HS that really don’t make sense at the HS level.</p>
<p>I agree with poster earlier about administration…for those wondering…there is a federal election and even a lame duck president (any in 2nd term) yearns for a Congress that more closely agrees with their priorities. It does not have to be about HIS re-election, per se. Presidents often like to do big ‘landmark’ things to build a lasting legacy. The difference is that most try to do so through Congress, not by executive fiat.</p>
<p>@thumper1
Yes, personal finances should be taught in high school and college, especially in high school. “Economics” may be a graduation requirement in some states, but it doesn’t touch upon the topics students actually need to learn. We are living in an era of complex financial systems, and even adults don’t fully understand the financial implications of, say, taking on a huge debt for a car or house.
As a student who spent most of his life abroad, I am still baffled that debt and “living beyond one’s means” are such prominent features of the U.S. </p>
<p>
Why? The students and their family do not consult their tax preparers before taking on student loans or starting the repayment. I think the Federal government should work with high schools to increase awareness of high schools students on student loans</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not everyone might have trouble repaying the loan, but letting the universities determine with no real market cap what price is, and throwing loans at people to make the difference is what causes the cost of tuition (and medical) to be off the charts from the normal rate of inflation.</p>
<p>@collegevetting Colleges should be free to set prices and not be restricted to third party price caps.
Students should be free to not go to colleges that charge too much, provide inadequate aid or provide an education that doesn’t enable students to pay back loans. They are also free to go to a CC for 2 years and transfer.
If more people did that, there would be considerable downward pressure on pricing.
Besides, for a huge number of colleges, there is a supply demand imbalance.</p>
<p>The normal rate of inflation is a red herring and not an appropriate comparison.
That core rate does not include the increases in food of gas prices for instance - and we recently had years when energy is going up 10% a year, food 2-4% a year. </p>
<p>If the loans are going to be paid back minimally and eventually forgiven, why not take them? I may be missing something but this sounds like a gigantic student bail-out that encourages irresponsible debt while driving prices even higher since the loans are available. But again, I could be confused.</p>
<p>@Vlklngboy11 im not sure how the death of the middle class has anything to do with rising tuition. I suggest you do your hw before making a statement like that. the government first got in the student loan market in 1950s under the NDEA and exactly since the 50’s tuition has skyrocketed. sure there are other factors but nothing comparable to the crisis that the government has created by digging taxpayers into a deep hole and students into an even deeper on. this is what always happens with the government, they get involved and only make matters worse (i could go on and on).
also to address my point on worthless liberal arts degrees, it may be true that they earn higher but my point is they really dont contribute much to society. how is somebody with a russian literature going to ever change my life. dont get me wrong, you can major in anything you want and anythings possible but youre the ones paying for fancy campuses and big fat checks to college execs.</p>
<p>I agree with @Fredjan and @4kidsdad that more education and required financial courses, a new plan for second semester seniors possibly? is a must. For many colleges that have these crash courses on student loans and whatnot it is after they have already committed to the school and about to start the semester. I believe that the talk should occur before committing the school and should be before or during the decision process.</p>
<p>The details of this issue is yet to be fully disclosed. So far it does not seem like its benefiting all students loans holders. According to MSN news on this issue, the requirements of borrowing after 2007 and not after 2011 is just questionable. I guess we will just have to see the full details as it unfolds. So, far I have come to know that nothing is REALLY free when it comes to students loans repayment in this country, no matter how the terms are twisted. SOMETHING always has to give.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These repayment options were already made available to students who borrowed after 2011.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it’s constitutional. FYI, here is a summary of executive orders by president. Obama hasn’t used it as often as Bush, Reagan or Clinton. Roosevelt had the most by far.</p>
<p><a href=“Executive Orders | The American Presidency Project”>Executive Orders | The American Presidency Project;
<p>
</p>
<p>Ohhh, sorry–I didn’t realize it was all about you. Geez.</p>
<p>@sally305 very good points-and maybe it will help to keep this thread on topic instead of becoming a referendum on Presidents and the worth of different college majors.</p>
<p>What I have read about this so far I do not like but I want to read more and from a variety of sources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I think they should subsidize community colleges and state universities to lower their tuition and leave it at that.</p>
<p>According to Yahoo poll this morning,</p>
<p>Poll
President Obama is speaking about student loans today. Is it fair that tax payers forgive student loans for those paying debt for 20 years?
29 days remaining
Yes, it will help the economy (2948)
14%
No, it’s the responsibility of the owner (12412)
60%
The cost of tuition needs to be capped (5255)
25%</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Highly unlikely, since the law clearly spells out which years PAYE applies to. But due to a thing called ‘standing’ his Exec orders are virtually unchallengeable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although there is no specific provision in the Constitution that allows for an Executive Orders, they are considered constitutional if they are in conjunction with a power granted to the President. Historically, they are orders to the executive branch as in this case “asking the Treasury dept to…”, “directing the government to renegotiate contracts”.</p>
<p>They are not broader law or statutes that apply to the general populace. For example, Truman’s EO around taking control of steel mills was deemed unconstitutional since it neither was about clarifying existing law nor directing efforts in the executive branch.</p>
<p>that’s a side point, fluffy. The job of the President is to enforce the laws, not change them by Executive Order. If Congress passes a law (which the President signs), that clearly states that all those born after of Dec 31, 2000, are affected, the President can’t, years later, broaden the law and say, well, it now impacts everyone born after Dec 31, 1999.</p>
<p>But again, unlike taking over steel manufacturers, there is no standing to challenge. the change in IBR/PAYE.</p>
<p>No it is the main point.
You need to read what the Executive Order actually says, NOT what the press reports it as.</p>
<p>The actual language of the EO will be something along the lines of “This order directs Sec’y Duncan to amend the provisions of the xyz law to include…”</p>
<p>What then has to happen is for the funding to be there and then the legal basis for Duncan to change the law.</p>
<p>It is called an “Order” because it is a directive to people in the administration, not a change to a statute.</p>
<p><a href=“Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (2010; 111th Congress H.R. 4872) - GovTrack.us”>Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (2010; 111th Congress H.R. 4872) - GovTrack.us;
<p>Scroll down to education reform to read everything. Cant post it all…too long.</p>
<p>THIS IS THE LAW SIGNED BACK IN 2010</p>
<p>"…Lowers the cap on annual, income-based student loan repayments for new borrowers after July 1, 2014 from 15% to 10% of the amount by which a borrower’s and the borrower’s spouse’s adjusted gross income exceeds 150% of the poverty line.</p>
<p>Requires the Secretary to forgive the remaining balance of such loans after 20 (currently, 25) years of repayment…"</p>
<p>Below is a NYTimes article on the 2010 law. It appears to be a good summary</p>
<p><a href=“Obama Signs Overhaul of Student Loan Program - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/us/politics/31obama.html</a></p>