Wednesday, January 22, 2020
The State of Financial Aid Part 2, or...
I'm no longer in a New York State of mind...
\Please read Part 1 here.
With the Federal Government out of the way, it's time to review my predictions for New York State, and not coincidentally, cover the mischief Albany is up to now. Now, New York has done other things besides Excelsior, but it's by far my biggest headache, so it get the most attention. I've written about the program extensively since its advent in 2017, but I've only made two predictions. I'm glad that's the case, since I could never have foreseen some of the nonsense Albany would invent. Sparing the reader from having to review everything I wrote, I predicted that Excelsior would set us back 3-5 years in our efforts to automate financial aid, and that Albany would soak in the applause, take a bow, then move on to some other economic programs with which to virtue signal, leaving the program a broken, confusing mess. While both were right in spirit, I was wrong in the specifics. For example, if I had just said that Albany would move on to other progressive causes without ever fixing Excelsior, I would have been 100% correct. What did I predict was more economic programs, and that expressly did not happen.
The lack of new spending programs is a fascinating example of the limitations of local and state government. I wrote in a prior post the New York is effectively 2 states: the milieu of New York City, and everything else. It's not quite a red and blue split, but more like a deep blue versus purple split. Upstate is much more socially conservative than the city, but is equally dependent on government spending, with little employment outside of the SUNY system and prisons. This gave the state two distinct cultures, and the separation was maintained by a quirk in Albany's structure: The governor could flip between parties, but the Democrats had the Assembly locked up for decades, while Republicans had a majority in the State Senate. This meant to matter what the liberals in NYC wanted to do, they were stymied by the Upper Chamber. However, the GOP's hold on the Senate was tenuous at best, and riding a wave of anti-Trump momentum, the Democrats not only took the Senate, they took it by a huge margin. This means that progressives have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and in some ways, they have used the opportunity: bail reform is a good example, along with gun control, and there's even the possibility of New York State legalizing prostitution. Still. this new progressive wave has not been extended to financial aid.
So why has Excelsior remained so limited, confusing, and punitive when fixing it would require very little political capital? Because unlike the societal changes above, fixing Excelsior would also require financial capital, something New York does not have. As I have told anyone who will listen (and more than a few who won't), some of the biggest problems with the program are written in the statue, so fixing those flaws would require lawmakers to change them. It hasn't happened, and there isn't even the discussion about easing the academic requirements, which are onerous to the point people aren't signing up for the program. All HESC can do is tweak the system, but even the small changes that are occurring have only made the program worse. Until recently, one of the requirements is that if you transfer, you still have to be making sufficient progress towards your degree. If you went to Albany for a year, but decided to come back to Westchester, you needed to transfer 30 credits back to my school. This was a huge problem for those who wanted to change their major or those who got D's, as they don't transfer. They counted towards keeping Excelsior, but only at the college where the poor grades were earned. You were stuck. Now that may no longer be the case, but would that be an improvement? I say no.
Using the above example, let's say you went to SUNY Albany to study Political Science as a pre-law major, saw how Albany worked and was so sickened you had to leave (a laudable reaction) then wanted to study medicine. You may not have all 30 credits transfer, so even if you were an honor student, you lose the scholarship going forward and you had to repay what was already given to you. HESC recently said that policy has changed. You could transfer 24 credits, and I would have to package you with the hope you'd be back on track by earning 36 credits in your sophomore year. This sounds good, but it isn't. It assumes the student actually earned 30 credits, but not all of the credits transfered. What happens if the student didn't actually earn the 30 credits? I wouldn't know either way, as I don't have access to the transcripts. I have to package the aid until I know you can't earn the 30 credits in the year, which could be the end of August. What happens is that the student gets decertified well after the fact, and I don't know how HESC is supposed to contact me to take away the money the student was already awarded, and I will then have to answer to the student, parents, the Bursar's office, etc. Best of all, this change in policy was supposed to be retroactive to 18/19, and I have no way of knowing who should have gotten the money and who shouldn't. After much protesting, and us describing real life examples like this one, the change is on hold, thankfully. If it did go through, the work would increase exponentially. This dovetails nicely with my prediction on Excelsior and automation.
The scholarship will resist automation so long as it exists, as my staying until 11pm last Thursday night demonstrates, but it hasn't really affected the office's overall efforts, only mine. This means I really need to examine my processes for Excelsior, but aside from seeing a few more panicked and annoying students, no one else is really impacted. One year from now or five, technology will continue to take over college advising, and with the change to the FAFSA examined in part 1, a good portion of our work may disappear. It's possible that Excelsior will become so large or unwieldy that the other counselors will absorb the scholarship for their students, but until then, I'll fall back on a conversation I had with my boss when we first learned about the program: Excelsior replaced the VA benefits for me, and this would have happened even if I didn't go to the 2017 SUNYFAP conference. The similarities are striking: both programs require endlessly repeated work, and I'm forever checking grades, attendance, certifying and decertifying for multiple semesters, etc. The main difference is that most veterans already knew the system had flaws when they came into my office, while most middle class families look at me like I work a McDonald's drive through. The best part is that we have maybe 120 students a year getting the award this year, and that's been stable since 2017. It's much ado about almost nothing.
Realpolitik in New York dictates that nothing is going to get better until outside forces require change. Even if the Republicans take back the NY State Senate, that doesn't mean policies will be reversed. Knowing that, I also know Excelsior will not get fixed any time soon, one way or the other. It won't become the program it claims to be, since the Albany doesn't have the money, and no one is willing to incur the wrath of Gov. Cuomo to end it. When he's out of office, I'll reevaluate the situation. The counterpoint to all I've said is that for some students and families, the program is a Godsend. If you keep your grades up, don't change what you want to study, or take extra classes to compensate for the change, and have no bad luck or bad teachers, then you benefit greatly from the program. I will never believe this small pool of students makes up for all the misinformation, hype, and workload associated with Excelsior, but the opportunity for students is there for the taking.
If I'm right that changing the FAFSA will cut into our workload, then I suppose I should be grateful that Excelsior exists, with all its contradictions, flaws, severe academic requirements, and ongoing changes for the worse. It certainly keeps me busy, and I understand the program as anyone in Westchester. That's a horrible attitude, looking for reasons to justify my employment rather than saying that I have a career, that I help people, and my contribution is valuable. Is the worst case scenario true, that I'm limping to retirement, with no hope of forward momentum or profession fulfillment? Of course it fucking does! What else have I been saying all these years? Still, my outlook is much darker than it has ever been. This leads us to part three: the college.
\Please read Part 1 here.
With the Federal Government out of the way, it's time to review my predictions for New York State, and not coincidentally, cover the mischief Albany is up to now. Now, New York has done other things besides Excelsior, but it's by far my biggest headache, so it get the most attention. I've written about the program extensively since its advent in 2017, but I've only made two predictions. I'm glad that's the case, since I could never have foreseen some of the nonsense Albany would invent. Sparing the reader from having to review everything I wrote, I predicted that Excelsior would set us back 3-5 years in our efforts to automate financial aid, and that Albany would soak in the applause, take a bow, then move on to some other economic programs with which to virtue signal, leaving the program a broken, confusing mess. While both were right in spirit, I was wrong in the specifics. For example, if I had just said that Albany would move on to other progressive causes without ever fixing Excelsior, I would have been 100% correct. What did I predict was more economic programs, and that expressly did not happen.
The lack of new spending programs is a fascinating example of the limitations of local and state government. I wrote in a prior post the New York is effectively 2 states: the milieu of New York City, and everything else. It's not quite a red and blue split, but more like a deep blue versus purple split. Upstate is much more socially conservative than the city, but is equally dependent on government spending, with little employment outside of the SUNY system and prisons. This gave the state two distinct cultures, and the separation was maintained by a quirk in Albany's structure: The governor could flip between parties, but the Democrats had the Assembly locked up for decades, while Republicans had a majority in the State Senate. This meant to matter what the liberals in NYC wanted to do, they were stymied by the Upper Chamber. However, the GOP's hold on the Senate was tenuous at best, and riding a wave of anti-Trump momentum, the Democrats not only took the Senate, they took it by a huge margin. This means that progressives have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and in some ways, they have used the opportunity: bail reform is a good example, along with gun control, and there's even the possibility of New York State legalizing prostitution. Still. this new progressive wave has not been extended to financial aid.
So why has Excelsior remained so limited, confusing, and punitive when fixing it would require very little political capital? Because unlike the societal changes above, fixing Excelsior would also require financial capital, something New York does not have. As I have told anyone who will listen (and more than a few who won't), some of the biggest problems with the program are written in the statue, so fixing those flaws would require lawmakers to change them. It hasn't happened, and there isn't even the discussion about easing the academic requirements, which are onerous to the point people aren't signing up for the program. All HESC can do is tweak the system, but even the small changes that are occurring have only made the program worse. Until recently, one of the requirements is that if you transfer, you still have to be making sufficient progress towards your degree. If you went to Albany for a year, but decided to come back to Westchester, you needed to transfer 30 credits back to my school. This was a huge problem for those who wanted to change their major or those who got D's, as they don't transfer. They counted towards keeping Excelsior, but only at the college where the poor grades were earned. You were stuck. Now that may no longer be the case, but would that be an improvement? I say no.
Using the above example, let's say you went to SUNY Albany to study Political Science as a pre-law major, saw how Albany worked and was so sickened you had to leave (a laudable reaction) then wanted to study medicine. You may not have all 30 credits transfer, so even if you were an honor student, you lose the scholarship going forward and you had to repay what was already given to you. HESC recently said that policy has changed. You could transfer 24 credits, and I would have to package you with the hope you'd be back on track by earning 36 credits in your sophomore year. This sounds good, but it isn't. It assumes the student actually earned 30 credits, but not all of the credits transfered. What happens if the student didn't actually earn the 30 credits? I wouldn't know either way, as I don't have access to the transcripts. I have to package the aid until I know you can't earn the 30 credits in the year, which could be the end of August. What happens is that the student gets decertified well after the fact, and I don't know how HESC is supposed to contact me to take away the money the student was already awarded, and I will then have to answer to the student, parents, the Bursar's office, etc. Best of all, this change in policy was supposed to be retroactive to 18/19, and I have no way of knowing who should have gotten the money and who shouldn't. After much protesting, and us describing real life examples like this one, the change is on hold, thankfully. If it did go through, the work would increase exponentially. This dovetails nicely with my prediction on Excelsior and automation.
The scholarship will resist automation so long as it exists, as my staying until 11pm last Thursday night demonstrates, but it hasn't really affected the office's overall efforts, only mine. This means I really need to examine my processes for Excelsior, but aside from seeing a few more panicked and annoying students, no one else is really impacted. One year from now or five, technology will continue to take over college advising, and with the change to the FAFSA examined in part 1, a good portion of our work may disappear. It's possible that Excelsior will become so large or unwieldy that the other counselors will absorb the scholarship for their students, but until then, I'll fall back on a conversation I had with my boss when we first learned about the program: Excelsior replaced the VA benefits for me, and this would have happened even if I didn't go to the 2017 SUNYFAP conference. The similarities are striking: both programs require endlessly repeated work, and I'm forever checking grades, attendance, certifying and decertifying for multiple semesters, etc. The main difference is that most veterans already knew the system had flaws when they came into my office, while most middle class families look at me like I work a McDonald's drive through. The best part is that we have maybe 120 students a year getting the award this year, and that's been stable since 2017. It's much ado about almost nothing.
Realpolitik in New York dictates that nothing is going to get better until outside forces require change. Even if the Republicans take back the NY State Senate, that doesn't mean policies will be reversed. Knowing that, I also know Excelsior will not get fixed any time soon, one way or the other. It won't become the program it claims to be, since the Albany doesn't have the money, and no one is willing to incur the wrath of Gov. Cuomo to end it. When he's out of office, I'll reevaluate the situation. The counterpoint to all I've said is that for some students and families, the program is a Godsend. If you keep your grades up, don't change what you want to study, or take extra classes to compensate for the change, and have no bad luck or bad teachers, then you benefit greatly from the program. I will never believe this small pool of students makes up for all the misinformation, hype, and workload associated with Excelsior, but the opportunity for students is there for the taking.
If I'm right that changing the FAFSA will cut into our workload, then I suppose I should be grateful that Excelsior exists, with all its contradictions, flaws, severe academic requirements, and ongoing changes for the worse. It certainly keeps me busy, and I understand the program as anyone in Westchester. That's a horrible attitude, looking for reasons to justify my employment rather than saying that I have a career, that I help people, and my contribution is valuable. Is the worst case scenario true, that I'm limping to retirement, with no hope of forward momentum or profession fulfillment? Of course it fucking does! What else have I been saying all these years? Still, my outlook is much darker than it has ever been. This leads us to part three: the college.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
The state of financial aid part 1, or...
Richard Nixon is the reason I'm employed.
In the nearly 15 years I've been writing this blog, I've made various predictions concerning the direction of financial aid, what those changes might mean for my job, and the impact on the profession overall. Proclaiming that X will happen and will result in Y is a dangerous practice, leading to looking stupid. Hopefully, I've avoided that, but eventually something had to happen to prove or disprove my theories. It's not as if the situation has been static up to now, but I'll count 2019 as the tipping point where at least two of most important predictions are about to come true, with another situation getting much worse. On the other hand, I was off base or simply wrong as well. Conveniently, the predictions occupy a separate facet of my job: federal, state, and the college itself. These do affect one another, but I'll examine each on its own until tying everything together in the epilogue. The fact that I just turned 49 may be coloring my perceptions on these issues, but I'm counting that as a positive. With that, I'll begin with the Department of Education.
Federal aid has gone through some serious changes over the years, but aside from the now defunct ACG, they were tweaks of the present system, and one of my main concerns was the inevitability of automation and with it, my job's irrelevance. This is hardly a bold statement; all jobs will eventually be irrelevant because of automation to the extent government allows it. 2019 is the year when that prediction came true on the federal level, though the specifics are still hazy. Before I explain what's changing, I should cover the FAFSA current structure and the reasons behind it.
First, the FAFSA, in it's present form, shouldn't even exist. It's central function is actually to inform the student of why he or she cannot get financial aid: immigration status, being in default on a student loan, etc. Almost all of the personal and financial information requested on the form is already in the hands of the federal government, save perhaps the number of people in the household and how many people are in college, but you still have to enter all this information. Why is that? Certainly there's always the possibility of identity theft or other forms of fraud, but the required fields have existed long before that type of crime was a concern, so that's not it. Privacy is an issue, especially for your social security number, but that's not the main reason either. It's because of Richard Nixon.
Although he wasn't the only president to do so, no one weaponized the IRS more than Nixon, in his infamous "Dirty Tricks" campaign against his lengthy enemies list. The scandal resulted in a wall between the IRS and the rest of government. This wall does have exceptions: Social Security gets your income data from the IRS, and if the agency audits your tax returns, it will let your state know so it can audit you as well. Naturally, this is a disaster for New Yorkers. The Data Retrieval Tool allows the IRS to populate the income portion of the FAFSA, but since it's optional and clunky and I kind of hate it anyway, I skip the step and enter the info myself when I'm helping someone.
The key is that using DRT is optional, fairly complicated, and applicants often fail when trying to use it. It's easiest when you have your forms in front of you, which kind of defeats the purpose. Despite all this, and my own feelings about the process, using the tool is actually quite useful. Since the IRS is entering the info, mistakes are far less common, and if the student is chosen for verification, I only need to collect a verification worksheet and the W2 forms(s). Corrections are far less likely, so people get awarded, on average, much more swiftly.
I don't have all the details yet, but a major change is coming with the 2020-21 FAFSA. Roughly 20 income related questions will be eliminated, and all that data will be entered by the IRS. I won't have any specifics until March 27th, but my best hunch is that the Dept of Ed (DOE). with forward the request to the IRS, which will enter the info, then send it back to the DOE to determine the Expected Family Contribution (EFC), which is then sent to the student. If you use the DRT, the exchange is automatic, so that should be goal here. This change was negotiated amongst the various agencies and Congress, but I have a feeling that the IRS may be a little obtuse, and the processing will be delayed, at least in the beginning. I liken it to the transition from the paper FAFSA to the electronic form. When it was first introduced, using the paper application and mailing it was safer, more efficient, and often faster than applying online. The bugs were worked out quickly; the online form became by far the best way to apply, and the paper version was all but eliminated.
What this will mean in terms of our workload is unknown, but that won't stop me from speculating. The effect will be minimal at first, as people won't be expecting the change. It took a few years for the electronic FAFSA to become the norm, but I expect people to get used to this much more swiftly. It's a major change for financial aid offices, but it is far less of a change for applicants. People will go online, and answer fewer questions than before. This could cut down on students getting selected for verification, but if not, the process will be much simpler, since everyone will be effectively using the DRT. Either way, the change has major implications for our workload over the long term. The Feds will still give us work: loans, checking citizenship, Selective Service, and professional judgements, where I look at the applicant's present financial situation and see if it changed dramatically. Regardless, verification is the bulk of our work, though not my work, if that makes any sense. That serves as the transition to part 2: New York State.
In the nearly 15 years I've been writing this blog, I've made various predictions concerning the direction of financial aid, what those changes might mean for my job, and the impact on the profession overall. Proclaiming that X will happen and will result in Y is a dangerous practice, leading to looking stupid. Hopefully, I've avoided that, but eventually something had to happen to prove or disprove my theories. It's not as if the situation has been static up to now, but I'll count 2019 as the tipping point where at least two of most important predictions are about to come true, with another situation getting much worse. On the other hand, I was off base or simply wrong as well. Conveniently, the predictions occupy a separate facet of my job: federal, state, and the college itself. These do affect one another, but I'll examine each on its own until tying everything together in the epilogue. The fact that I just turned 49 may be coloring my perceptions on these issues, but I'm counting that as a positive. With that, I'll begin with the Department of Education.
Federal aid has gone through some serious changes over the years, but aside from the now defunct ACG, they were tweaks of the present system, and one of my main concerns was the inevitability of automation and with it, my job's irrelevance. This is hardly a bold statement; all jobs will eventually be irrelevant because of automation to the extent government allows it. 2019 is the year when that prediction came true on the federal level, though the specifics are still hazy. Before I explain what's changing, I should cover the FAFSA current structure and the reasons behind it.
First, the FAFSA, in it's present form, shouldn't even exist. It's central function is actually to inform the student of why he or she cannot get financial aid: immigration status, being in default on a student loan, etc. Almost all of the personal and financial information requested on the form is already in the hands of the federal government, save perhaps the number of people in the household and how many people are in college, but you still have to enter all this information. Why is that? Certainly there's always the possibility of identity theft or other forms of fraud, but the required fields have existed long before that type of crime was a concern, so that's not it. Privacy is an issue, especially for your social security number, but that's not the main reason either. It's because of Richard Nixon.
Although he wasn't the only president to do so, no one weaponized the IRS more than Nixon, in his infamous "Dirty Tricks" campaign against his lengthy enemies list. The scandal resulted in a wall between the IRS and the rest of government. This wall does have exceptions: Social Security gets your income data from the IRS, and if the agency audits your tax returns, it will let your state know so it can audit you as well. Naturally, this is a disaster for New Yorkers. The Data Retrieval Tool allows the IRS to populate the income portion of the FAFSA, but since it's optional and clunky and I kind of hate it anyway, I skip the step and enter the info myself when I'm helping someone.
The key is that using DRT is optional, fairly complicated, and applicants often fail when trying to use it. It's easiest when you have your forms in front of you, which kind of defeats the purpose. Despite all this, and my own feelings about the process, using the tool is actually quite useful. Since the IRS is entering the info, mistakes are far less common, and if the student is chosen for verification, I only need to collect a verification worksheet and the W2 forms(s). Corrections are far less likely, so people get awarded, on average, much more swiftly.
I don't have all the details yet, but a major change is coming with the 2020-21 FAFSA. Roughly 20 income related questions will be eliminated, and all that data will be entered by the IRS. I won't have any specifics until March 27th, but my best hunch is that the Dept of Ed (DOE). with forward the request to the IRS, which will enter the info, then send it back to the DOE to determine the Expected Family Contribution (EFC), which is then sent to the student. If you use the DRT, the exchange is automatic, so that should be goal here. This change was negotiated amongst the various agencies and Congress, but I have a feeling that the IRS may be a little obtuse, and the processing will be delayed, at least in the beginning. I liken it to the transition from the paper FAFSA to the electronic form. When it was first introduced, using the paper application and mailing it was safer, more efficient, and often faster than applying online. The bugs were worked out quickly; the online form became by far the best way to apply, and the paper version was all but eliminated.
What this will mean in terms of our workload is unknown, but that won't stop me from speculating. The effect will be minimal at first, as people won't be expecting the change. It took a few years for the electronic FAFSA to become the norm, but I expect people to get used to this much more swiftly. It's a major change for financial aid offices, but it is far less of a change for applicants. People will go online, and answer fewer questions than before. This could cut down on students getting selected for verification, but if not, the process will be much simpler, since everyone will be effectively using the DRT. Either way, the change has major implications for our workload over the long term. The Feds will still give us work: loans, checking citizenship, Selective Service, and professional judgements, where I look at the applicant's present financial situation and see if it changed dramatically. Regardless, verification is the bulk of our work, though not my work, if that makes any sense. That serves as the transition to part 2: New York State.
