Some schools give out everything, while others destroy their records. What’s the difference? What are some of them trying to hide?
http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/04/22/ferpa-requests-yield-limited-access-files/
I doubt that they are hiding anything. They have established record retention policies that include retaining items that must be retained and shredding items that do not need to be retained. That is what records management is all about. Schools do not have the space (physical or computer) to keep everything. Some schools retain files for only the mandated length of time; others retain them forever. Some schools keep things they don’t have to keep; others only keep what they must keep. Some schools seem to be retaining things that are not supposed to remain in the permanent academic file … shredding those things is not hiding anything; rather, it is complying with either federal regulations or internal policies. Not everything is some sort of cover-up.
Your comments that they are just following document retention policies that they have already established apply to Yale?
“After several hundred students requested access to their educational files, the Undergraduate Admissions Office decided to delete its evaluative admissions data for matriculated students.”
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/03/25/admissions-office-records-no-longer-accessible/
If they don’t “have” to keep info, they are not required to do so. I am not going to try to guess why any school does what it does. I am just saying that not all records are required to be maintained.
and don’t forget, that individual states may have different doc retention requirements…
Again, it is NOT a case of documentation retention policies if they start shredding AFTER students start requesting, Please read the Yale Daily News article (link in post #2).
Also, it is NOT a case of document retention policies if the university has retained the information, but refuses to produce fully. Please read the Brown Daily Herald article (link in OP), or the Daily Pennsylvanian article (http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/01/penn-admissions-office-sees-explosion-of-ferpa-requests).
It goes without saying that “document retention policies” and “privacy” can be used quite effectively to cover for much mischief to begin with, but in these cases here they are not even bothering with the formalities.
sorry, no need to read college so-called newspapers. They RARELY have facts, particularly of both sides. So, a FOI request comes in, someone checks the doc retention policy and says, oops, we should’ve shredded these. Off to the paperwork gallows.
Regardless, to me, this falls under the classic line, ‘what does it matter’…if the “chosen” kids can obtain a copy of the notes on their applications? While the application may belong to the applicant, the Reviewers Notes probably do not.
btw: I would guess that applications are a grey area…(who truly ‘owns’ them?)…making them subject to FERPA or not.
Looks like nobody can answer the original question. If you don’t feel the question matters, you don’t need to reply.
Let me restate: the shredding took place AFTER the requests came in.
They are trying to hide a massive conspiracy designed to protect their tax exempt status while working actively for the overthrow of our government.
Happy now?
Exactly what do you think is in these records???
That was not constructive either. Why you are guys trying to silence this question?
it is comical that you think there is something of note here.
Do you work for a big company- and don’t they have regulations about document retention which are usually ignored until someone gets deposed (on a completely unrelated issue to your division or function) and then everyone goes nuts realizing that you’ve got documents sitting on someone’s credenza that were supposed to have been shredded five years ago???
This is SOP in the corporate world. There are retention requirements and disposition requirements but people are lazy and it’s easier to make piles in the corner of your office than to go through them once a year and get rid of the things you aren’t supposed to keep. I am guilty of the same. And I can assure you that there is nothing even slightly controversial in my piles.
This not about document retention policies.
This is about why certain schools are with-holding information – which they are allowed to do, except that otherwise they profess values of transparency, and demand it from others – that they have KEPT under their established document retention policies. This is also about why certain schools are changing their document retention policies when compelled to disclose.
Frankly, I think that Brown was smart to withhold details of the application review process and Stanford was rather stupid to share them. Applicants already try to game the system enough as it is. Giving away details that specific just ensures that this phenomenon will become even more prevalent and effective, to the point where admissions will be forced to resort to being almost all stat based (again!). Well, that and certain things that cannot be manipulated unless you risk lying through your teeth, such as what race you are.
I think you misunderstand the idea of transparency. I like to be transparent too, but I don’t show everyone my poker hand while I am still betting. Certain situations call for secretiveness because…well because the rest of the world isn’t always so honest. Surely you can see how that information would be misused by many.
Which college professes the value of transparency when it comes to students applications or academic records?
Schools are not required to disclose admission documents
In that article, a few paragraphs down, you’ll see this:
This same article provides the administration’s reasons for doing this, which include giving the reviewers more freedom to be frank in their comments (which they might not have if they knew that the applicants would see them) as well as the management burden of having to have a bunch of people come to the school with special appointments to review all of those documents.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure we’re all familiar with certain sleazy uses of records retention policies to destroy evidence of criminal and unethical conduct. But that doesn’t mean that every organization that chooses not to retain every scrap of documentation is up to something shady.
What criminal intent could there possibly be in an admissions file?
I am so not seeing a smoking gun here.
Who said there was criminal intent? I am saying that just because some organizations destroy documents for criminal purposes doesn’t mean that every organization that destroys documents is committing or concealing a crime. There are enough legitimate reasons not to retain admissions records that it doesn’t make sense to infer that there must be something shady going on.
Dmitri- agree 100%.
Which colleges profess values of transparency [of confidential records]???