Averting the sequestration that looms like an iceberg dead ahead of the United States’ ship of state should be Congress’ next priority.

The Congressional deal that averted our going off the “fiscal cliff” at the beginning of the year did not, unfortunately, solve the problems of pending spending cuts and revenue shortfalls. The language of the bill merely forestalled the date by which Congress must act to prevent government spending cuts that economic analysts and the White House say “would have a devastating impact on important defense and nondefense programs.” Now the spending cuts begin soon, on Friday, March 1.

This situation requires action.

The possibilities are as numerous as the number of perspectives on governmental actions. My own preference is action that passes a budget for a whole fiscal year instead of continuing resolutions that postpone thought and decision, lower spending to arrest the development of a huge class of Americans who depend in some way on the government, and increases payments toward reducing the national debt.

But anything is preferable to nothing.

Procrastination is one of the great ills of society. Ask any student, and he or she probably will tell you that parents and teachers have admonished him since a young age against doing tomorrow what could be done today.

There are a few legitimate reasons for procrastination. The innumerable tasks before us require some prioritization; it would be improper of us to consider and resolve a small annoyance before dealing with a problem that threatens our way of life. By nearly all accounts, failing to stop the sequestration of federal spending presents the latter kind of task. It is the lesser, not the greater, problems that should be procrastinate or put off, and we should do so for the sake of addressing the larger ones.

There is a word for failing to address until the latest possible moments such a “fiscal cliff” as we face: lazy. The members of Congress, if they failed to do something to put our fiscal house in order, would be, in the words of a wise, sage man, “a bunch of bums.”

Inaction in this situation would be the opposite of productivity, industry, ambition and health. It contaminates public life with the feeling that the members of Congress can enact laws (as the Constitution says) “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” as it suits them, not the people for whom those laws are to be made. American citizens should not find themselves almost universally saying the same words sung by a character from the musical “Les Miserables”: “Where are the leaders of the land? / Where are the swells who run this show?”

In the absence of an established church, especially without one that uses a rigid hierarchy, such as Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism; in the absence of a nobility that holds certain legal privileges and exists in a feudal relationship with inferiors and superiors; in the absence of any social role-models apart from those that a person willfully adopts; the leaders of the United States are its politicians, especially the president and members of Congress. The only kind of social distinction that we all must recognize is the holding of public office. Every other kind of esteem or high regard that a person can receive from others is the choice of the giver. But everyone — even the people who did not vote for a victorious candidate — must admit that office holders are in some way special.

So why do they think they can get away with doing nothing? Even the most partisan of congressional districts (Republican and Democrat alike) elected their representatives to office so that they could do work. And yet, although members of Congress obviously postpone their confrontations with the biggest challenges the United States faces, we continue to pay their salaries and benefits.

In a complete reversal of a speech made by Winston Churchill — that “Never in the field of conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” — never have so few owed so much to so many.

As we gaze upon a tradition of heinous adherence to party rather than truly public service, all that we can do is hope that they rise to the occasion made for them by taking the oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

For fans of the NBC sitcom “30 Rock,” the inevitable ending of the show proves to be a bittersweet moment.  On the one hand, longtime fans will be saddened by the ending of a brilliant sitcom, but on the other it’s a both a surprise and a blessing that the show has been kept on the air as long as it has.

Despite the astoundingly low ratings of “30 Rock,”  NBC still awarded this masterful program six full seasons as well as an abbreviated seventh. Despite the poor commercial reception of the show, critically the program has proved a darling for the network, winning the Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series three years in a row perhaps stands as the shows crowning achievement.   One can only hope that the show’s small but incredibly dedicated fan base will expand with the passage of time as more are exposed to the antics of Liz Lemon via syndicated reruns and online video steaming services.

And how was the final hour long show itself? In a word, spectacular.

Besides providing fans with a well deserved and, as expected, incredibly funny conclusion, “30 Rock’s” finale manages to draw an actual emotion and perhaps a tear or two from its audience for the very first time on more than one occasion.

Jack Donaghy, finally achieves his goal of becoming one of the world’s greatest CEOs only to find himself unfulfilled.  Liz is unsure of what path to take now that TGS is over, especially since Jack is now going back on all his past several years of advice, which Liz points out makes him nothing more than “an alcoholic with an amazing voice.”

New NBC President Kenneth is no help after rejecting a new show pitch from Liz for using descriptive no-no words including “woman” and “quality.” Pete is on the verge of finally leaving his depressed life of wife and kids, while the writing staff of TGS is finally getting payback from years of ragging on Lutz.

Jenna meanwhile fails to realize her total and utter uselessness but at least finds a real emotion at last when her mirror is taken from her.

Tracy, in an attempt to receive $30 million due to a contract clause, wrecks as much havoc as usual before he and Liz have a heart to heart, fittingly inside a strip club.

While the entire 7th season has featured encore appearances from favorite recurring guest stars, the finale itself featured a who’s who of surprise appearances including Salma Hayek, Julianne Moore, Conan O’Brien, and Al Roker among many others.

The entire cast delivers an amazing performance in the finale, mixing the shows characteristic one liners with a twinge of emotion, in particular Alec Baldwin whose performance as Jack in the episode is absolutely Emmy deserving.

The jokes in the finale flowed plenty and often, as they have for seven years, and without a single hitch during the episode to boot. In summary – brilliant.

“30 Rock” was a show whose commercial failure is sometimes blamed on the thought that the idea is too smart, too quick, and too witty for most average americans to stay invested in.  To be honest, the same has been said about “The Simpsons” and “Arrested Development”, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.  Over the past decade, ever since her famous stint as co host of Weekend Update on SNL began, “30 Rock” star and creator Tina Fey has established herself as one of the premier comedic minds of her generation.  While no one knows if the future will hold a comparable degree of wild success for Fey, one thing is for certain: “30 Rock” will serve as the standard upon which other comedy programs should be judged. Tina Fey has easily created one of the funniest television sitcoms in history. Period.

Oh and as you might have guessed, Kenneth is indeed immortal.

Ever wonder if that “poke” you got from a friend on Facebook was really more of an invitation for sex rather than a friendly “hello”?

Well, now you can get around the awkward wondering with a new app that notifies other friends if the two of you want to “bang.”

Here is the breakdown: A person installs the “Bang With Friends” app. That person clicks any friends they might want to sleep with. The friends they might want to sleep with will only be notified of the desire should that same friend also have clicked the desire to sleep with that person.

Long and the short is, people don’t have to worry about if the other person is going to feel awkward about their advances.

Now, there are some obvious problems with the whole plan, namely the whole friends having sex thing. Sex is already an awkward situation for some folks, and then, adding that to a friendship can quickly destroy the relationship.

Those worries aside, this app appears to be a marvelous bit of technological advancement for all those out there that are not afraid of “no strings” sex and see it as healthy.

Yes, the app goes against many religious teachings and some more traditional outlooks toward relationships and fornication, but those folks that dislike it won’t know about what does or does not go on as they will never be notified due to the way the program is set up.

A big fear with the program though is when those under 18 start using it as there are always ways around any age restrictions involved in using the app. But then, problems like that already exist when using Facebook anyways, and with time, the program should have a lot of those problems covered.

As of now, the app appears to be more centered around men and their desire to get down, which makes sense given men tend to be a bit more talkative about constant sexual desire. As the app matures, maybe it will come to encompass homosexuality and alter its marketing to target more than the Y chromosome or just heterosexuals.

There is also the possibility for someone to just click all of their friends as would-be partners just to see who is going to click them for some intimate times without actually having any intention of following through with it.

That could result in some serious embarrassment for those using the app. However, why would people want to have a friend who was enough of a jerk to do something of that sort? Maybe this app will finally help people to stop accepting every random person they meet as a “friend.”

Complaints about the death of personal communication will be stirred fully by this new way to circumvent actual in-real-life getting-to-know-you conversation. Those fears will be around as long as technology and the Internet continue to offer people new means to do things. So cast them aside. It isn’t as if this is any worse than spending hours in a bar trying to get enough liquid and regular courage together to hit on, with the likely intent of sleeping with, that certain someone.

It could be said the app is hardly different from dating sites currently available, and those people would be right. Really, all the app does is cut out some of the time people might spend cruising the “one night stand” preferences but with one big difference: The app cuts out most of the creepy folks that someone looking just for a hookup is bombarded by.

Yes, this app is likely going to be a headache for some women as they discover that almost every male friend they have wants to get in their pants, but a little honesty can go a long way.

Who knows, the app could finally begin to show some men out there that women are sexual creatures the same as men when guys realize the girls they are into had to be in the same mindset for the app to function. “By your powers combined, we are sexuality!”

Use of the app doesn’t even have to be for sex; it could just be so people know the attraction is there and, therefore, get the ball rolling for a date. Or it could eliminate the wonder of if a date should end with a nice handshake or a trip to the bedroom.

Maybe, just maybe, the app will allow some friends who never would otherwise have gotten up the nerve to express their healthy sexual desires to jump into the sack. Just having that release granted from sexual activity, or merely knowing that they are desired, could be a huge moral boost to a lot of people.

Obviously, this app isn’t for everyone, but for those who enjoy sex as a fun and health activity, it is something to look into.

In the immortal words of Rodney Dangerfield in his first film appearance, “Caddyshack:” “Hey everybody, we’re all gonna get laid!“

Everybody’s favorite international non-conformist is at it again. Recently North Korea announced it is taking a more aggressive approach to foreign policy by continuing to test nuclear weapons and long range rockets as part of its action against “the sworn enemy of the Korean people.” This is hardly newsworthy, as it has happened numerous times since North Korea’s withdrawal from the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 2003.

So what is the U.S. to do? Ideally, absolutely nothing.

If countries were celebrities, North Korea would be 2010 Charlie Sheen — dysfunctional, delusional and really interesting to follow. North Korea’s repressive communist government and its complete control of information more often finds itself the butt of jokes than in serious conversations, and rightly so.

The country is not sustainable. North Korea relies heavily on foreign food aid from several countries, including China, its closest ally, and for no good reason, the U.S.

Past negotiations for food and other forms of aid from the U.S. have worked as an extortion racket. North Korea promises to stop developing nuclear weapons and the U.S. gives aid as an incentive. Then, North Korea resumes developing nuclear weapons and the process starts over again. Extortion is usually the powerful extorting money from the weak, but thanks to leadership in Washington, North Korea is somehow extorting us.

The U.S. must realize North Korea is absolutely nonthreatening. If the U.S. could go toe to toe with the Soviet Union, a country with thousands of nuclear weapons, we shouldn’t be scared of a country that possesses maybe two.

There isn’t a reason to provide North Korea with aid, no reason what so ever. Giving aid to third world countries only helps legitimize oppressive governments. More often than not, dictators use food aid to control their people rather than to feed them.

However, North Korea is by no means wrong to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, given the ever-present involvement of the U.S. with countries without nuclear weapons, I’d say it’s a smart move. For the most part, countries with nuclear capabilities tend to be left free of unwanted U.S. military involvement. After seeing what happened to Iraq, it is only natural countries like Iran are looking to develop nuclear weapons.

The U.S. needs to respect North Korea’s sovereignty. It is a country’s right to develop weapons it feels are required to maintain sovereignty against foreign threats. At the same time, we need to stop sending aid, which only serves to legitimize Kim Jong-un’s tyrannical regime.

In other words, foreign policy is a lot better and cheaper when you just do nothing.

The White House proposed a new compromise Friday regarding religious nonprofits and the mandated contraceptive coverage, a deal that would potentially allow Notre Dame to issue a health insurance plan to its employees without directly providing birth control coverage.

The proposal suggested a separate, individual private insurance policy that could provide contraceptive coverage at no cost for the employees of faith-based organizations.

“These proposed rules aim to provide women with contraceptive coverage without cost sharing and to protect eligible organizations from having to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds,” the proposal stated.

The proposal is an amendment to rules regarding minimum insurance packages set forth by the Department of Health and Human Services as part of its regulatory authority under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

If the proposal takes effect, objecting organizations could provide employees with a plan that does not offer contraceptive coverage. The health insurer providing the plan would then enroll those employees in a separate, stand-alone policy that only covers contraceptives at no extra cost.

The University, however, is self-insured. The policy proposed by the White House on Friday presented several possible approaches for self-insured organizations. In all approaches, self-insured plans could work with the company that administers their health benefits to avoid coverage contraceptives.

A third-party administrator would “automatically arrange separate individual health insurance policies for contraceptive coverage from an issuer providing such policies,” the proposal stated.

A previous proposal had suggested a similar solution for self-insured plans, but under that proposal, the third-party administrator would have had no way to pay for the contraceptive coverage other than the revenue it receives from self-insured plans. That proposal was criticized by many as nothing more than an accounting gimmick.

The current proposal would lower fees in other parts of the ACA to provide third-party administrators with savings they could use to pay for the contraceptive coverage.

The third-party administrator would receive a credit «in an amount that would offset a reasonable charge by the third party administrator for performing this service.

University Spokesman Dennis Brown declined comment on the proposal until Notre Dame administrators have fully analyzed its contents.

Last May, the University filed one of more than 40 religious liberty lawsuits from faith-based organizations to contest the constitutionality of the contraception mandate. The lawsuit states the mandate would go against Church teachings and therefore violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal laws.

A federal judge dismissed Notre Dame’s lawsuit last month, when U.S. District Court Judge Robert Miller Jr. ruled Jan. 2 that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the University’s claim is not yet “ripe,” meaning it is not ready to be litigated — in this case, because the rule regarding contraceptive coverage had not been finalized.

At the beginning of each semester, students begrudgingly trudge to the bookstore to pay an exorbitant price to purchase textbooks for their classes. Many others, looking to save money, resort to purchasing books through online retailers like Amazon, where they often revel in having saved money before realizing they somehow received the wrong book. In an age where sharing information is even easier than withholding it, students have many options to obtain course materials. Unless the textbook industry plans a significant overhaul in policy and distribution, buying a textbook may soon become obsolete.

Purchasing textbooks is traditionally seen as a necessary college expense and can be a rite of passage for first-years taking their first courses. But students in this day and age have found other, sometimes illicit, approaches to obtaining textbooks. We do not condone the illegality of these methods, but we cannot deny their existence or their appeal to students.

Rather than spending money, students can receive textbooks from a friend, borrow them “long-term” from the library, download them from the Internet, purchase international editions of textbooks that are often cheaper or even choose not to buy them at all.

We do not specifically advocate any of these options, but they are certainly more sensible to the frugal college student. This begs the question: Should textbook companies adapt to remain relevant cornerstones of our educational experiences? Are they even capable of doing so?

We have nothing against textbooks in general. Many students find having a physical copy of the textbook to be much more conducive to studying, and for those students who are perfectly content with purchasing textbooks, feel free to stop reading at this point. But many students do look to economize, and it is common knowledge that other options exist, such as the ones outlined above.

After all, there are formal institutions that suggest knowledge is a public good that should be accessible to all who seek it. This is why websites such as Wikipedia have been so popular not just with students, but also with the general public.

In addition, the popularity of free courseware with several top institutions such as Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attest to the belief that the more people gain knowledge, the better. We hope the textbook industry can recognize the trend toward the de-commodification of education and take appropriate and drastic measures to stay relevant in these rapidly changing times.

We understand buying textbooks is sometimes completely necessary. Many classes require course packets that can only be bought through the bookstore, and it can be difficult to obtain that specific gender studies or post-modernist Bengali poetry book from a friend or online.

But simultaneously, we want to challenge the notion that buying textbooks is the only option or even the best option. In accordance with the now-prevalent principles of open, accessible knowledge, institutions and the general public alike have already fundamentally uprooted the tenets of education. While textbooks cannot be handed out for free, it is time for the textbook industry to seriously evaluate and adapt to compete with the new, worthy competitors that have risen in its previously monopolized market in education.

It has been almost two months since Texas teenager Emily Bauer became stable enough to come off of life support after suffering several seizures and strokes, allegedly caused by synthetic drugs. Bauer is now constrained to a wheelchair and has only recently regained the ability to swallow solid food.

Like many teenagers, Emily fell victim to the pressures of adolescence and made a bad decision to consume drugs. But instead of suffering from a headache or increased appetite, Bauer suffered blood clots in her brain that led to severe brain damage.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and law enforcement are fighting a losing battle against marijuana that some states have already bowed out of. The introduction of synthetic cannabinoids, such as Spice and K2, only helps the argument that marijuana should be legalized by noting that the illicit drug has not proved to cause health risks.

Since the legal substances became popular over the last eight years, the federal government and the DEA have fought another losing battle to catch up with the drugs’ manufacturers in order to ban the specific compounds that make up the dangerous products.

The problem is that every time a sanction is put in place to make a specific strand of the synthetic cannabinoids illegal, the drug makers are able to produce a different strand that complies with current law that has even more unpredictable side effects.

When the government tried to make any product that can be used as synthetic drugs illegal, the manufacturers in turn just marketed the products as potpourri or incense and marked the packages to say that the product is not for human consumption.

Emily’s story is one of many stories of how synthetic narcotics have affected those who use it beyond the designed inebriation. It has come to a point where the illicit drugs are a healthier alternative to the synthetic drugs that were designed to emulate the same high as marijuana.

The only difference is the controversial legality of marijuana and society’s perception of it.

If marijuana were legalized then synthetic cannabinoids would be useless.

Despite marijuana’s illegal status, people will continue to consume drugs or alcohol to become intoxicated. Instead of fighting a legal battle with chemical distributors of synthetic weed, decriminalizing the organic substance that is less potent would serve well.

It was the upload heard ’round the world: Last Friday, online television juggernaut Netflix made history by adding an entirely original series to its instant streaming service. House of Cards, starring Oscar-winner Kevin Spacey, is the first big-budget series to be created exclusively for an online provider and could very well be the beginning of the end of television as we know it.

In the virtually untested waters of original online programming, the stakes were high for Netflix’s $100 million dollar gamble in the original debut. Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos says the decision to commit to two seasons of House of Cards did not come lightly.

“We wanted to go all-in,” Sarandos said to the Los Angeles Times. “It’s important to signal … that we’re moving into this space in a meaningful, big way. So we did it loud.”

A glance at the show’s credits, however, suggests that “loud” is an understatement. Executive producer and partial director David Fincher is the man behind such acclaimed works as Fight Club and The Social Network. Paired together with Academy Award-nominated writer Beau Willimon, House of Cards is a series that demands to be taken seriously.

The high degree of talent on the show’s lineup is something that one might expect to find on Showtime or HBO. But when Netflix — formerly strictly a media provider, never a producer of original content — outbid every network that vied to control the show, the world of TV raised its eyebrows.

But for Modi Wiczyk, co-CEO of producing studio Media Rights Capital, which created the series, Netflix offered something far more valuable than anything the other networks could: complete artistic freedom.

“[Netflix] gave us the opportunity to be the anchor, the defining show,” Wiczyk said to USA Today about Netflix’s unprecedented 26-episode commitment before filming had even begun. “It was really kind of rare air.”

With unlimited creative control, the producers of House of Cards do not have to obey network demands for script changes or production design specifications; to the filmmakers, this freedom alone could almost be worth the enormous budget to which they are also privy.

Normal network shows are subject to changes sometimes literally while an episode is being filmed — mainly because of current ratings and reviews. “We’re telling a story. We’re gonna tell it at our pace,” actor Corey Stoll told MTV. “… That’s very hard to do when you’re worried about ratings.”

Hopefully, this decision to leave the story uncensored will be of great benefit for not only new fans of House of Cards, but also for online originals in the near future.

If Netflix’s undertaking proves to be as successful as it appears it will, a full move to original online content could be underway very soon. And if online providers follow in Netflix’s footsteps to let their filmmakers have real artistic control, then a new wave of exceptional TV and cinema could be on the way.

But perhaps more valuable to the fast-paced audiences of the digital world, dons one feature that could never be matched by traditional networks: On Feb. 1, the entire first season — not just the first episode — was posted online all at once.

It’s a move that bucks the usual network strategy of “Wait a week and we’ll give you new episodes, then wait a season, we’ll give you another season,” Sarandos told the Los Angeles Times.

But this just won’t do with modern audiences. “The Internet is attuning people to get what they want when they want it,” he said.

The instant gratification that the Internet provides is nothing new, so it seems about time for more facets of pop culture to start exploiting it. Netflix and competitors Hulu and Amazon Prime have established themselves as the standard (legal) online cinema providers, but by creating an entire original series all available in one click, Netflix has significantly upped the game.

In researching how subscribers use their websites, providers like Netflix have coined a new term, “binge-viewing,” to describe the watching of several episodes of a series in one sitting. Sarandos told investors at the BOA Merrill Lynch Media, Communications and Entertainment Conference that he noticed the significance of binge-watching when 50,000 subscribers watched the entire fourth season of Breaking Bad in a 24-hour period the day it was posted on Netflix.

Though Netflix’s competitor Hulu was technically the first to air an original drama online, the lack of a substantial budget and little critical attention prevented it from gaining much attention.

With House of Cards, that certainly isn’t a problem — and it certainly doesn’t seem it will be a problem for other online shows if they follow in Cards’ footsteps.

In light of a new study finding college students more likely than ever to default on their student loans, students must be aware of various repayment options and strategies to avoid default, Boston U. officials said.

The average size of student loan debt has increased 58 percent since 2005, while the average credit card loan balance and average balance on car loans have decreased, according to a study released by FICO Labs Wednesday.

“You can always default on your loan, obviously, but my understanding is if you make money below the poverty line, you basically don’t have to repay things anyway, it can change your loan terms,” said Johannes Schmieder, a BU economics professor.

In 2005, the average student loan debt was $17,233, whereas in 2012 the average was $27,253, according to the study.

Students were more likely to default on their student loans in 2012 than in 2005 due to significant growth in the amount of debt new graduates carry, the study stated.

Frederic Hyunh, FICO’s senior principal scientist, said he was not surprised by the results of the study as student loan default rates have been increasing.

“We’ve been hearing for quite some time regarding some of the dangers in the student loan sector,” he said. “We have come across previous studies that indicated student loan debt is increasing — defaults are increasing.”

Consumer interest regarding the student loan and the student loan sector has increased, which prompted FICO’s research, Hyunh said.

“We basically wanted to corroborate this to better understand what we’re seeing in terms of the growth of outstanding debt — being able to qualify that as well as measuring how well the consumers with student loan debt are repaying those sort various obligations,” Hyunh said.

For federally subsidized loans, Schmieder said students have the option of entering the Income-Based Repayment Plan, which allows borrowers to pay back their loans based on their current income in relation to the poverty line.

“They basically calculate your disposable income, and that’s only your income above the poverty line. Of that you have to pay a certain percentage,” he said. “In some ways there are some mechanisms that allow people to really limit their loan payments, and I wonder if some people just don’t realize that.”

Schmieder said there are also options available for students who struggle to find jobs after college and go to graduate school, thereby adding to their debt.

“It seems if you are unemployed, you can definitely get a deferment,” he said. “Then you don’t have to repay it until you have a job again. For that reason I’m not completely sure I understand why there’s a sudden increase in these defaults unless people really make these kinds of mistakes.”

Some students said they are concerned that while college prices have spiked in recent years, entry-level position salaries have not gone up.

“A lot of people don’t consider that the starting wages and the starting positions just aren’t earning that much, so it’s getting progressively harder and that’s a factor,” said Ana Delcid, a BU sophomore.

Delcid said it is still difficult for recent college graduates to find a job after graduation.

“Job markets aren’t getting any better,” she said. “It’s harder to find a job and there’s just, overall, less security for people to be able to prosper right after college.”

Azura Ge, a BU freshman, said the weak job market might be contributing to student loan defaults.
“It’s really hard for students who can’t afford that money to go to college. I think colleges should lower their tuition,” she said. “There are a lot of people getting higher education so it must be more competitive to get jobs.”

Brandon Siegenfeld, a BU sophomore, said college graduates’ salaries have not increased to match the increase in rising college tuition.

“We had the recession, so salaries haven’t increased over this amount of time even though the price [of higher education] is going up, so it’s not reflected in the salary increases,” he said.

Siegenfeld said the high cost of college has caused unfortunate divisions between schools based on the income of students’ families and their abilities to afford tuition.

“It definitely limits the ability for talent to enter college. It makes it more separated by income level, which is not a good thing,” he said.