Nation-wide database of college student data

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._student_data/

US eyes collection of college-student data
Rights advocates express concerns about privacy

By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff | November 30, 2004

The federal government is considering the creation of a national database to collect information and track the progress of every college student in the country, triggering criticism from education and civil liberties advocates worried that it would amount to a loss of privacy for millions of

''An incredible potential exists for confidential information being used inappropriately" under the proposal, said Sarah Flanagan, vice president for government relations at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. ''There is a Big Brother aspect of all of this that concerns us."

The idea, proposed by a research wing of the Department of Education, is designed to improve federal oversight of students' enrollment rates, graduation rates, and tuition. Currently, that information is provided only in summary form by universities, leaving gaps in national college statistics. When students transfer from one college to another, for example, they show up in the federal rolls as dropouts.

Now, however, there is a movement in Washington, particularly among Republicans, to demand greater accountability from universities in exchange for the federal support they provide. After the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, which uses testing to hold primary and secondary schools accountable for student performance, ''a lot of folks in Washington began to ask, 'Do we have a good idea of what we are getting for our investment in higher education?'" said Travis J. Reindl, director of state policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Some education groups believe that a new system for tracking students individually would provide far better answers to those questions. Under the new system proposed by the National Center for Education Statistics at the Department of Education, each student enrolled in college would have a computer record that included name, address, birth date, gender, race, and Social Security number. It would then track field of study, credits, tuition paid, and financial aid received and would follow the student if he or she transferred or dropped out and later reenrolled.

Many of today's college students are likely to transfer, study part time, leave school and reenroll, and take more than six years to earn their degree. For example, over a third of students transfer colleges at least once, and 20 percent transfer twice or more, according to the American Council on Education. Yet under the current data collection system, these students are marked as dropouts and never counted as a graduate of any school. That means graduate rates may appear artificially low, particularly at institutions with high numbers of ''nontraditional" students, who may be older and squeezing their college classes around a job.

''Some institutions look a lot less successful than they really are," said Reindl.

Reindl's group and some other major higher education associations, such as the American Council on Education, have given their support to the idea of testing out such a tracking system.

Congress is expected to start considering the proposal early next year as part of its periodic reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. If adopted, the tracking proposal would go through a pilot study before being implemented nationwide. Passing the plan would also require amending federal privacy law that currently calls for a student's or parent's permission to release most student records.

The Department of Education says students' privacy would not be violated because the department would not share the information with anyone else, including law enforcement. But opponents worry that that promise could quickly crumble in the post-9/11 environment.

''I simply don't believe that statisticians at the Department of Education will have the political power to prevent subsequent use of this by interested parties who will have a lot more sway," Flanagan said.

Fine, monitor universities but WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED ALL OF MY PERSONAL INFORMATION TO DO IT!??!?!?!?!?!?!

to demand greater accountability from universities in exchange for the federal support they provide.

FUCK YOU. If nobody has to be held accountable for the billions wasted on Iraq, then the miserable pissant budget given to universities should be above reproach.

[DeltAlum]

Misuse of data gathered by government agencies (like the IRS) during the Vietnam era would seem to indicate that Federal agencies don't always put individual rights and freedoms at the forefront.

(Which is the main problem I have with the Patriot Act)

It's interesting to me that a parent who is paying for his/her child's college education can't get their grades without the child's permission -- but the government may be able to under this proposal.

What's wrong with this picture?

[Rudey]

The whole point of the system is to track student performance. Students transfer and it is as if their record starts all over again. It might also be interesting for a state to see how its primary/secondary educational programs are linked to its university programs.

As for some irrational person making a statement about "billions wasted on Iraq" (which billions?!? were exactly wasted and how was nobody held accountable?) while universities have "miserable pissant budgets", well that person is irrational given the large budgets of universities and the amount of funding they receive privately and publicly.

Now as for the rational person worrying about the misuse of personal information, well of course but I think the government should make it apparent that it wouldn't misuse this info somehow (well do they misuse the census or IRS info?).

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Now as for the rational person worrying about the misuse of personal information, well of course but I think the government should make it apparent that it wouldn't misuse this info somehow (well do they misuse the census or IRS info?).

They have done it before, and nobody wanted to believe it then.

The Nixon Administration had the White House Enemy's List and a lot of information was gleaned through the misuse of IRS records -- even things like which charities to which you contributed.

There was also documented evidence of the FBI infiltrating groups that wouldn't seem to warrant their concern at the direction of the White House to the late Director Hoover.

In some cases, power does corrupt.

ETA -- this was from the Watergate hearings:

"Dean Memo on 'Enemies'
Memorandum from (Presidential Council John) Dean to Lawrence Higby, former assistant to Haldeman, dated Aug. 16, 1971 and entitled "Dealing with our political enemies."

This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, Stated a bit more bluntly--how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.

After reviewing this matter with a number of persons possessed of experience in the field, I have concluded that we do not need an elaborate mechanism or game plan, rather we need a good project coordinator and full support for the project. In brief, the system would work as follows:

--Key members of the staff (e.g., Colson, Dent, Flanigan, Buchanan) could be requested to inform us as to who they feel we should be giving a hard time.

--The project coordinator should then determine what sorts of dealings these individuals have with the Federal Government and how we can best screw them (e.g., grant availability, federal contracts, litigation prosecution, etc.)

--The project coordinator then should have access to and the full support of the top officials of the agency or departments in proceeding to deal with the individual.

I have learned that there have been many efforts in the past to take such actions, but they have ultimately failed--in most cases because of lack of support at the top. Of all those I have discussed this matter with, Lyn Nofizger [President's California manager] appears the most knowledgeable and most interested. If Lyn had support he would enjoy undertaking this activity as the project coordinator. You are aware of some of Lyn's successes in the field, but he feels that he can employ limited efforts because there is a lack of support.

As a next step. I would recommend that we develop a small list of names--not more than ten--as our targets for concentration. Request that Lyn "do a job" on them and if he finds he is getting cut off by a department agency, that he inform us and we evaluate what is necessary to proceed. I feel it is important that we keep our targets limited for several reasons: (1) a low visibility of the project is imperative; (2) it will be easier to accomplish something real if we don't over expand our efforts; and (3) we can learn more about how to operate such an activity if we start small and build.

More: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci...gate/enemy.htm

There were also a (large) number of criticisms of both the Clinton and Bush (W) administrations using government agencies against citizens -- but they weren't sworn Congrssional testimony like the link above.

Anyway, that's why I'm not comfortable with the government making any more lists.

[DeltAlum]

bump -- just because I found the stuff edited into the post above.

[Rudey]

OK but here is the question I have.

They already have lists, right? How does this list change anything?

Originally posted by DeltAlum
They have done it before, and nobody wanted to believe it then.

The Nixon Administration had the White House Enemy's List and a lot of information was gleaned through the misuse of IRS records -- even things like which charities to which you contributed.

There was also documented evidence of the FBI infiltrating groups that wouldn't seem to warrant their concern at the direction of the White House to the late Director Hoover.

In some cases, power does corrupt.

ETA -- this was from the Watergate hearings:

"Dean Memo on 'Enemies'
Memorandum from (Presidential Council John) Dean to Lawrence Higby, former assistant to Haldeman, dated Aug. 16, 1971 and entitled "Dealing with our political enemies."

This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, Stated a bit more bluntly--how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.

After reviewing this matter with a number of persons possessed of experience in the field, I have concluded that we do not need an elaborate mechanism or game plan, rather we need a good project coordinator and full support for the project. In brief, the system would work as follows:

--Key members of the staff (e.g., Colson, Dent, Flanigan, Buchanan) could be requested to inform us as to who they feel we should be giving a hard time.

--The project coordinator should then determine what sorts of dealings these individuals have with the Federal Government and how we can best screw them (e.g., grant availability, federal contracts, litigation prosecution, etc.)

--The project coordinator then should have access to and the full support of the top officials of the agency or departments in proceeding to deal with the individual.

I have learned that there have been many efforts in the past to take such actions, but they have ultimately failed--in most cases because of lack of support at the top. Of all those I have discussed this matter with, Lyn Nofizger [President's California manager] appears the most knowledgeable and most interested. If Lyn had support he would enjoy undertaking this activity as the project coordinator. You are aware of some of Lyn's successes in the field, but he feels that he can employ limited efforts because there is a lack of support.

As a next step. I would recommend that we develop a small list of names--not more than ten--as our targets for concentration. Request that Lyn "do a job" on them and if he finds he is getting cut off by a department agency, that he inform us and we evaluate what is necessary to proceed. I feel it is important that we keep our targets limited for several reasons: (1) a low visibility of the project is imperative; (2) it will be easier to accomplish something real if we don't over expand our efforts; and (3) we can learn more about how to operate such an activity if we start small and build.

More: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci...gate/enemy.htm

There were also a (large) number of criticisms of both the Clinton and Bush (W) administrations using government agencies against citizens -- but they weren't sworn Congrssional testimony like the link above.

Anyway, that's why I'm not comfortable with the government making any more lists.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
They already have lists, right? How does this list change anything?

It just adds more possibility for adding to what the government knows about some peoples lives. I think they know enough.