Universities and data protection

Safe space?

I don't usually listen to PM's Saturday version, which tends to the populist, but I was in the car yesterday for most of a really interesting exploration of the way that students having problems at university, particularly with mental health issues, can get into a terrible state without their parents knowing, as the universities can't or won't pass on information to parents about, say, a student who doesn't attend lectures, or fails to hand in essays, because of data protection issues.

I understand the argument, but it strikes me that universities are not being exactly even handed in their approach. On the one hand we had a university representative effectively saying 'Once they are 18 they are adults, this means that someone else [i.e. parents] can't see information about them.' And a little later we were told that some universities have sophisticated monitoring systems that register every time a student goes to the library, attends a lecture or fails to hand in work. But surely, once they are 18, the university shouldn't be able to collect/see such information about them?

This point was not raised, but I suspect that the universities would say 'Yes, but they signed something saying it was okay for us to do this.' Yet at the same time we had an academic saying that it would be difficult to let students sign something saying that it would be okay for the university to alert their parents if something is going wrong. What if they changed their minds, she asked? So? What if they changed their minds about the university knowing each time they went to the library?

This sounds very much like double standards, and universities being happy to work around data protection when it's for their benefit, but not when it's for student welfare. According to the programme around 90% of first year students would like their parents to be alerted if something seems to be going wrong. Perhaps it's time a little of those fees the students are amassing as debt should go to supporting them better?

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog