Search

The maintenance of the confidentiality of student in formation recently has been a major concern among educational researchers and administrators. In this paper, the privacy issue is examined with respect to the in formation system which comprises the basis for the AGE Higher Education Data Bank. The system's functions are the acquisition of biographical and other data on approximately 300,000 college freshmen annually and continuing longitudinal research based on sub samples of these students. A brief overview of the relevant literature is provided. Broad differences and similarities of the ACE Data Bank and other environments are examined. Particular attention is devoted to evaluating devices for maintenance of confidentiality at each level of the information system: data collection, transmission, and analysis dissemination. The administrative and ethical regulations now in operation and the computer devices appropriate for preserving respondents' privacy are evaluated at each level of the system. Protection for the respondent and the researcher are discussed briefly in the context of extralegal harassment and liabilities. Recommendations and a partial statistical resolution to the "potential intelligence system" are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents an update on a higher education bill in the U.S. as of May 1972. Although higher education legislation continues to be delayed in a House-Senate conference committee by such thorny issues as public school bussing, general aid to institutions, and the program of student support, several important decisions have been reached. Two of these concern the administration's proposed National Foundation for Higher Education (NFHE) and the National Institute of Education (NIE). Put most briefly, the former is out and the former is in. The NFHE was designed in part as a response to those who argued that higher education was receiving short shrift of all sorts and was being criticized for lack of innovation at the same time that support for innovation was denied. Actually the proposal drew relatively little attention and more yawns than passion on either side. This was partly because many felt it to be an organizational exercise whose real merit depended entirely on its undetermined staffing and budget. As it is, the House-Senate conference sought to accomplish some of the same results without the bureaucratic fanfare. Thus, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was authorized to hire up to five top-level administrators and to establish an advisory commission to promote higher education innovation.

Recent innovations in the management of institutions of higher education represent a sharp departure from the traditionally conservative style of university administration. In a sample of state universities, the trend toward scientific management is illustrated by the emergence of offices of institutional research, the increasing reliance on quantitative data in policy analysis, and the use of computers in administration. Supporters of the new techniques contend that they will enhance the rationality of university decisions, while opponents charge that scientific management is irrelevant to most academic problems. New styles of management have had their most pronounced influence in institutions with recently acquired university status. In more established universities, scientific administration is attenuated by the simultaneous growth of faculty power and independence. But the new techniques have created an aura of managerial efficiency which aids all university administrators in their dealings with state legislatures and the public at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]