financial aid and rants and raves

 Productivity gains are usually temporary. 

While I work on a retrospective of the past 4 1/2 years, detailing the horrors that we all suffered, and my own personal pain, I wanted to examine a unique aspect of the pandemic: working from home. 

During several long and testy arguments with Scott (who else?) We settled on the following two, mutually exclusive theories: I said that this was a phase, and people would have to go back to the office, though I later amended this to hybrid work: let's say 3 days in the office and two days at home. Scott was convinced that we would all be working from home. Of course, that isn't possible, but I believe he meant that all those who could work from home would.

Scott's theory was based on the supposition that working from home is better than having to commute, and people would be happier, more productive, and could live anywhere they wanted. This was fair, and he wasn't alone in this idea. However, he had a vested interest in this point of view, since he was convinced that people would suddenly overrun Upstate cities like Binghamton, where he owns a house, is convinced is paradise, and the area would experience a renaissance. Including a dump like Binghamton in this facet of his argument was, is, and will be utterly ridiculous, so I won't even bother examining it further, but it may have been accurate for other areas, like Livingston Manor, a small village in the Catskills. That is worth examining, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. 

I was less sanguine. I reminded Scott, that between the two of us, only one had a Bachelor's and Master's degree in the subject, and it wasn't he. My undergraduate Psych degree was spent studying Industrial and Organizational (I/O) Psychology, purely by accident, and I have a Master's in Human Resource (HR) Management, this time mostly by accident. I find the fields incredibly fascinating, and I'm happy for the learning the subjects, even as I don't use either degree for the most part. 

My working theory was that remote work will seem better than having to go to an office, and that any gains in productivity would be temporary, regress to the mean, then go below 2019 levels. While I agreed that people would be happier about not having to drive to work (but check the link below), remote jobs have their own stressors, and some people would be actually be less happy with their jobs than if they had to come into work. This is dependent on one's personality of course, and here is where I have my own vested interest: I hated, with a burning passion, working from home. For one, I didn't have a good work space. I had a small computer desk in my bedroom, a gaming laptop, a crappy chair, and finally a tense home life; meanwhile, I love my office, so I wanted to go to work. I needed the physical distance, and I work on a beautiful campus. This dovetails with another source of difficulty for remote workers: work life balance and separation. I ran into this myself. When I heard we might be working remotely, I got a Google Voice account, and I still have it today. I knew that I would be calling students using my cell phone, and it's not as if I wanted to give students my number. Best of all, it's a legitimate phone number, local to my area. It's also very useful when you don't have cell service, say in a another country, but you do have wi-fi. I can use it anywhere, and people think I'm calling from up the street. Having that number did include a downside: people could reach me directly at any time. Two examples included a student calling me on a Sunday while I was driving, so I couldn't see that it was a Google call, so I answered it and her questions, though I was really testy. Time and day was lost during the pandemic, so I do understand it in hindsight, but I was not happy at the time. Another example was when Carolyn and I were walking her working dog in November. I got the call at 4:45pm, so I was still on the clock. A professor called, so I was far more polite this time. I also remember Carolyn chuckling at my demeanor, but I took it as a compliment. 

Another reason that I hated remote work is that I feel, and other people have said, that I do my best work talking with students and families face to face. I take my interactions with students very seriously, and continue to work on and improve my communication. I can relay information quite well over the phone, but it's not as effective as sitting with someone. I've been able to help people with problems and misunderstandings they didn't even know they had by reading body language and facial expressions. That's lost where we're talking on the phone. There's also the issue of concentration. People, myself included, tend to get distracted while talking on the phone. When you're sitting in an office, you have to be mentally and emotionally present, as well as physically present. Also, I loved the social interaction. I was miserable. Thankfully, I fixed the problem earlier than anyone else on campus, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. 

The issue of concentration leads into the larger issue of working remotely: productivity. My classes taught me that it would indeed increase, though only temporarily. This was to be expected, at least by me. One of the most referenced studies on the subject is the Illumination Experiment. The link attached gives a good run down of the data and analysis of the study, but it can be summarized as follows: changes to one's working conditions and the observation by researchers and supervisors will increase productivity, but the effect is temporary. The researchers increased the lighting, and productivity increased. They then reduced the lighting, and productivity also increased. The lighting was brought to normal levels, and productivity increased as well. It wasn't the lighting that caused the effect; it was the change itself. It meant that people were paying attention. What was not studies was whether or not this was a positive for the workers. Was their stress level increased and worried about getting fired? Did they take more pride in their duties? We'll never know. What we do know is that after the employees acclimated to the new circumstances, their output went back to the baseline. 

So what happened with remote work during the pandemic? The pandemic only ended, i.e., no longer a global heath threat around 18 months ago.  The virus is still out there, but vaccines and herd immunity have lessened the impact. You may get sick, but unless you have a compromised immune system, you'll recover... probably. (hopefully?) You may not even know you caught it. Regardless, since this is a recent development, the data is incomplete, but there is some information available. Working remotely is less productive than working in a office most of the time.  for various reasons. There are those people and jobs where working remotely results in better output, but for the vast majority of situations, employees do better work in the workplace. There was an initial increase in productivity, but that was due to both the change in the circumstances and a sense of group responsibility. We were all in this together, and people worked harder. As people got used to working from home, people started working less effectively, also for various reasons. Yes, they got used to the situation, but also because of the lack of physical separation between work and home life. The article above details this nicely. People went for walks, got coffee, picked the kids up from school, pet the cat, went to the doctor or the grocery store. Whatever the reason, the pull of needs other than work took precedence. This was to be expected, though I seemed to be the only one who was saying it. 

There are those that did maintain their work, but it was entirely dependent on the individual. Those that lived alone did and are doing more work than those who didn't. Also, if one had a dedicated home office produced more than those working at the kitchen table. If you changed you clothes before and after work, you did more. If you're unusually disciplined, you'll do more work. Much of this is self-selection, not causation, at least in my opinion. Those who are dedicated to their work will do more work, regardless of the circumstances. The steps people can take that are outlined above would be most likely taken by those who are already fully invested in their jobs and careers. I see this in higher education. Students who are smart enough and disciplined enough to get into an Ivy League school do better in all aspects of life than those that don't. Is it internal? Is there something about attending Harvard that causes it? Truthfully, we in education can't be sure. The best guess it that's it both, but the ratios are unknown.

As we end 2024, remote work has increased when comapared to 2019, but it has greatly diminshed when compared to 2020. I and my coworkers are back on campus, thankfully. I'm talking to students, and I'm not getting calls on Sunday. Ironically, now that my living circumstances have changed, I acctually like working from home. It's also not available. I live alone now, and while I don't have a home office, or even a seperate bedroom, I can sit in my chair, look at my laptop, and help students. If there's a major issue, I can tell the student to come into the office. A hybrid schedule seems to be the new remote work, with people coing to the office two or three days a week. This benefits all, and allows for collaberation with cowrkers as well as access to one's boss. These factors are hard to quantify, at least right now. Ten years from now, the data will be more clear. Furthermore, hybrid will fade over time if people aren't keeping up with their work. It will be a perk, not a right. 

Hybrid work invovles commuting, and this leads into my favorite part of this tale: Livingston Manor. When the pandemic caused the world to shut down, those with money fled to the hinterlands, and Lvingston Manor qualifes for that description. They'd be working remotely forever, so why not live on 5 acres in the woods? The Internet is good enough, and the houses are large. Here's the problem: it's in the middle of nowhere! Scott predicted it would be an oasis of activity, like New Paltz or Rhinebeck, a playground for Yuppies and Hippies alike. This did happen in the beginning. Home prices exploded, and the commercial strip, as small as it is, did get some new stores, better storefronts, new restuarants and coffee shops, etc. It didn't last; the new businesses closed, and the reality of living in a very small town with limited services began to take hold. As an example, the closest full service supermarket is 11.4 miles away in Roscoe. Add the prospect of commuting to work a few days a week, with White Plains 104 miles each way, and people realized the mistake they'd made. I loved it, but I will admit there was some envy involved. Even including my envy, I always felt that these people were being both short-sighted and cowardly. There's a pandemic once every 100 years or so, and they always end, then things go back to normal. We were all fed the lie that remote work was permanent, and it does still exist, but what were the odds that a specifc person would benefit? Of course, I would have done somthing similar if I could have. I would have rented an AirBnB in Florida for a few months, which were very cheap in the beginning of the pandemic, since no one was traveling, enjoyed both the beach and the fact that everything opened much earlier, and in some cases, didn't close at all. I would have then trundled back to New York during the summer. I'm also not including the negative effect this would have on the family. What did the kids have to do besides stay home and play online? There's nothing for them to do, and that always leads to trouble. What about the husband or wife? 

Now these people are stuck. The home prices have plummeted, and most people are either underwater or just at the break even point. The houses aren't selling, and even if they could sell, the buyer would then have to get a new mortgage with a much higher interest rate. As I'm a vicious little troll, I find all this very entertaining. 

So who was right and who was wrong? Overall, I was correct. People have to go back to their workplaces, at least some of the time, and remote work overall is fading. Those that fled are now stuck in whatever location they thought would be a safe place. Scott was right in that remote work lasted longer than I thought it would, and that people are generally ahppier, though I need to research it further. 

Fianlly, it feels good to get a post up, and with the dam broken, I hope there are many more to come. 

# posted by brian @ 2:51 PM 0 comments

17 years?! 

Well, yes, it has been 17 years since I started this blog, and while I never went viral, I never got fired either, so let's call this a win. I haven't written much since the pandemic started, as so much of what I thought wasn't that important. Also, I cannot believe the extent to which the world changed, and I can only blame some of it on Covid-19. To my knowledge, I never caught it, though I did get very sick in November of 2019 while driving for the college to Buffalo. We took a side trip to Niagara Falls, and I was surrounded by Asian and Indian tourists. Also, I was bathed in very cold and damp air from the Falls, all while wearing a jacket from New Balance that looked like it could be used for Artic exploration, but was as warming as a wet sheet. It's a great housecoat, but has zero protection from the wind. I would have been better off in a light windbreaker. 

All this added up to a very serious and lengthy lung infection. I was sick for weeks, with diminished lung capacity, fever, an unproductive (dry) cough, and cycles of improvement, then getting sick again. As I recall, it took 6 weeks for me to feel better, and weeks after that to completely recover. I cannot say it was Covid, but I never got it after that, and the virus did appear in November of 2019, so it's possible. 

With the belated marking of this blog's anniversary, and my impotent rage passes, comes the hope that I will begin writing again, if only for my own benefit. This was a small taste of what I've said was coming on so many levels, and there's so much ground to cover: personal, professional, political, and pecuniary. Where was I wrong? The list is ever increasing. Where was I right? Not as many places as I care to admit. Where did my preparations help? There's one specific answer that surprised me, but I (really, truly, desperately) hope to find more. Where did I not do enough? This one hurts, and it will hurt for a long time. What happened at the college? Grrrr. What happened to higher education generally? We all had our eyes open, that's for sure, and the news was not good. What has happened and will continue to happen to our society and to the children? I really don't want to get into it. Also, I don't want to punch my computer. What did governments do wrong? Ditto, squared, and I need this laptop. What did governments do right? This may be too soon to explore, even counting vaccines. What did I learn? Not as much as one might think. 

These questions, and the often painful answers they engender, will provide the map for the blog going forward. The losses we've all suffered have been enormous. I am not the person I was in March of 2020, but who is? This is one of those vacuous statements that sounds pithy and wise, but isn't. Time makes fools of us all is another. No, what I'm really trying to say is that I'm diminished: my world is smaller, and the person I thought I was not the person I turned out to be. I failed, and that will haunt me forever.

With that, let's turn our attention to my field of expertise: financial aid, and what has happened since I last wrote. 

# posted by brian @ 6:29 PM 0 comments

Excelsior, a retrospective...

Although I have multiple drafts on multiple topics sitting in my files, I just can't seem to finish one. Some are too dark; some are too personal; one is both, and one is just fucking pointless. The depression we've all suffered during this pandemic has killed my creative drive as well as few other things. As society reopens and I can reengage with work, friends, and all the activities I used to enjoy and, if I'm being honest, took for granted, I feel more and more like my former self. There will be time to appraise what steps were taken to limit (or ignore) the spread of COVID, but it's too soon for an accurate appraisal. Also, I'm way too pissed. 

No, if I'm to write a post, I want to look at my area of expertise: financial aid. Specifically, I wanted to examine the prospect of free community college as suggested in the proposed 2021 Federal budget. I've ruminated on this possibility before. The most recent attempt I've had to navigate is, of course, Excelsior, the bane (and savior) of my professional existence. The thoroughly snarky posts I wrote on the subject, when the program was first introduced, were, after 4 years of processing the award, absolutely correct. It is every bit the mess that I thought it would be, and it made me indispensable to the financial aid office. I am the expert I hoped I would be, even as I am always somewhat confused. It's a one-eyed man in the land of the blind scenario, but it helps me professionally, so I guess I shouldn't complain. 

The core of my feelings about Excelsior are consistent with any financial aid program that New York State would create at this point: it's all a mirage designed primarily to look good rather than to do good. New York isn't trying to get it right or make it easy, because Albany cannot afford it. The correct approach would have been to take TAP, the standard NYS aid program, and give the maximum award to whomever already qualified, but that would have required much more money and generated far less positive press. My derision isn't entirely fair, of course. Students do initially benefit from Excelsior, and for those who manage to keep the program all 4 years, it's a Godsend.  Politicians can rightfully point to that small subset and claim Excelsior is an incredible benefit. Managing to keep the money both academically and professionally is the crux of the problem, of course, and the vast majority do not, instead owing money to New York State, either because the student didn't finish, didn't finish on time, or had to move out of New York after college to find a job. You owe New York a year of living and working in the Empire State for every year you get the scholarship, and people often forget that after 4 years of school. I blame binge drinking. The bulk of these requirements mean more work for financial aid counselors, not less.  

The other side to financial aid is the Federal government. There's plenty of bureaucracy, contradictions, and confusion to keep all of us busy, and some of that is by design. We have to report our students' progress, whether or not our students are working upon graduation, how much they earn, if they're working in their field of study, making certain they are attending class, etc. The common theme of all this reporting is that the government's money isn't being fraudulently obtained or wasted by either the schools or the students, and that we are delivering the promised educational value. New York isn't all that different, but the Federal info dumps are mostly automated at this point, while Albany's work is often manual, with Excelsior a prime example. Aside from efficiency, the main difference between Washington and NY programs is that the federal government can create money from thin air while a state cannot. If DC has the will to throw fake money at a problem, it will get tossed. How that money is disbursed is another matter. 

Continued in part 2. 

# posted by brian @ 10:29 AM 0 comments