Staff Editorial | Proposed student’s database unsettling

Alarming developments in the world of higher education have sparked mixed reactions among educators to reports from federal Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. On Sept. 26, Spellings gave a speech on behalf of her recently created Commission on the Future of Higher Education highlighting concerns about complacency among American colleges and universities, and subsequent inadequacies and decreased competitiveness with foreign universities.

One of Spellings’ proposed solutions to the complacency problem is a national database that would track students’ progress towards a degree, and would provide information to the institutions themselves as well as prospective students, parents, and, most notably, the government. She argued that such specific information could “be used to hold colleges and universities accountable for the number of students they graduate and other measures of institutional performance,” according to The New York Times (“Secretary Vows to Improve Results of Higher Education” by Sam Dillon, Sept. 27, 2006). This database would contain specific and detailed information about individual students, including social security numbers, geographic location, and family income.

The prospect of personal information becoming available on such a large scale is disturbing, particularly when it is not clear how the information would be used. While this information would help researchers to compare, for example, the amount of financial aid granted as compared to a student’s parents’ household income, Spellings’ report raises serious objections among students for confidentiality reasons. These objections are not unfounded: in May 2006, a laptop containing as many as 26.5 million social security numbers was stolen from a Department of Veteran’s Affairs employee’s home, raising concern about the security of government information. The prospect of a new database raises concerns about how—intentionally or unintentionally—such information will be used and who will have access to it.

In her Convocation speech, College President Catharine Hill discussed Spellings’ proposal, and raised objections “about the privacy aspects of such a database.” She said that the issue is “controversial” and “incredibly relevant to Vassar.” Hill noted that the debate surrounding it is one in which Vassar will participate.

Spellings’ statements about the decreased legitimacy of higher education is not likely to be a threat to the College, but the establishment of a student-specific educational database is certainly a threat to students. Vassar needs to consider the possible ramifications of the imposition of a database like the one Spellings proposes.

Hill wrote in an e-mailed statement that, while such a database would be helpful for accounting for transfer students, “there may be some ways to solve the data availability problems without risking too much on the privacy front. I’m less sympathetic to the notion of needing these data so that institutions can be held accountable.” She added that the use of a database to inform prospective students and parents of a College’s student body demographics is superfluous, as “there is already a tremendous amount of information available to students and their families [about colleges], including data reported already by schools to the federal government, as well as rating agencies. And, much of this information is available without the problems of the individual student data.”

The Commission’s reports are aptly timed, as Vassar is scheduled for its official review next year by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, the regional institutional accreditor. If changes need to be made to remedy complacency, as Spellings noted, it would certainly be worthwhile to re-examine the Commission and its effectivity. However, Middle States has evaluated colleges since 1919, and there is no need to add an invasive student-specific database to new evaluations.

Whether the solution is the installation of a self-review that accounts for Spellings’ reforms, or efforts as an institution to prevent the formation of a student database, it is imperative that the College act in response to Spellings’ proposition. The College’s reputation, and the privacy of its students, are at stake.

The Staff Editorial represents at least a two-thirds majority of the Editorial Board.