The Court Street Corner
Justin D. Meyer

[as submitted]

"Pepperidge Farm Remembers..." (c) Campbell Soup Company

As the academic year draws to a close, most of us find ourselves amidst numerous deadlines for projects, papers, exams and more. These are the times that really test the mettle of our time management skills and overall efficiency. A good many of us survive only marginally scathed, but even though a few are thoroughly overwhelmed, the repercussions of the magnified effects of schedule crunch reverberate to many other people to which we are responsible.

Pretty much every major here at Stevens has a serious credit/work load with which to contend every week. Add to the top of the pile RSO, club, fraternity, and committee involvements, and pretty soon one has a set of commitments which requires shifting priorities from week to week in order to stay "on top of things". For many in a position of responsibility, this situation is acceptable, and certainly understood. It has also become expected, almost a part of the Stevens student culture…the few who are highly involved in campus are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of the work. (I do not believe the ratio quite fits the "80-20" rule.) This only covers the over-achievers, though, as the rest of us have a full-enough plate with academics and one or two extra-curricular commitments. Regardless, few members of either group consistently maintain their commitments every single week.

Any amount of over-commitment really places one in a position where one is forced to de-prioritize one or more in favor of another. While this is common practice in our college environment, out in "the real world" it does not go over so well with the boss or supervisor. More students need to step back a little and take a good look at their overall schedule and see how well it fits with their goals. I try to look critically at my commitments by asking "would I be able to maintain consistent performance if two out of three of my top responsibilities peaked simultaneously for a couple of weeks?" I must admit that sometimes my answer is "no", especially during writing or interview periods.

From the perspective of a team or group leader, this culture adds subtle and unwritten-but necessary-requirements. After choosing or setting up dates, for example, about one in four people will forget the commitment if a reminder is not provided: be it a group, job, or extra-curricular commitment. While we may recognize that reminders are nice when an event is a few weeks away, needing to send reminders the day before to ensure compliance is not something with which we should become comfortable. This is why I admire people who have, use and live by a planner or PDA-they have taken responsibility for their commitments and are dependable at least from a temporal standpoint.

The secondary factor which is both a function of commitment prioritization and the work ethic of an individual is dependability. I depend on others to keep their responsibilities to me a high enough priority such that I do not fall behind. It is the same with group elected individuals-they achieve for the group only with consistent output from the group. Some of my most valuable team members and colleagues are those who are consistently productive and dependable. Just like insurance for peace of mind, they leave me with nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, this is a more difficult characteristic to teach or encourage in others. We are more likely to be successful looking for others with this innate quality than trying to instill it in them.

The quality and ability to complete work is critical to the success of a team's efforts. Even small tasks often have other aspects which depend on them. I have had to stop group meetings when more than one person was not prepared with their work…the team simply was at a stand-still without their parts. When tasks can be picked up the next week, it can be worked around, and those who begin to show a pattern of not being dependable are given the tasks that "can't be messed up", as long as they are completed. However, when a deadline is hit, or tasks just are not completed the managing members must somehow fill in for the efforts of the slackers.

A case in point was mentioned in the Stute Editorial of last week's issue. Over the past couple issues several regular contributors (yours truly included, sad to say) to The Stute were overwhelmed by Senior Design, papers, exam preparation, jobs, et cetera. While this affects us all and we understand, where does that leave the Managing Editor (the position responsible for making sure all assignments are completed)? It leaves him up a creek without the expected submissions. This, being a deadline case, requires that the space somehow be filled, and it is done with some RSO boxes, PSAs, or recruitment ads. Then The Stute receives letters to the editor lamenting that the paper "has gone down hill" or "is ridiculous". And so the cycle continues with no abatement in sight.

I believe that part of the transition in the work place occurs because of the nature of the transition itself. We each break ties with many (if not all) commitments as we depart college, and start our first job, then fill in the smaller spaces with the essential tasks (domestics, et cetera), then proceed to add commitments where they may fit. There is no "de-prioritization" on a full-time job, only within it, as direct by one's supervisor. Should more students recognize this and choose more carefully over which commitments to spread their time, I believe the quality of work and life for many students will improve. Change does start from within.