In a few days, the university's supervisory and analysis authority, the University Chancellor's Office (UKÄ), will submit the final report of its government assignment A review of the regulation (1993:1153) on reporting of studies, etc. at universities and colleges. Unfortunately, SFS is not happy with the proposal. In this blog post, SFS chairman Jacob Färnert reflects on study administration, personal data, law, priorities and the ability to protect society's resources.
A whole blog post about study administration and data protection regulation? I promise it will be interesting!
During an ordinary weekday in May 2022, I remember that a joy broke out in student political contexts when we received the news that the government commissioned UKÄ to carry out a review of Ordinance (1993:1153) on reporting of studies, etc. at universities and colleges. It is a regulation with a long and not very flattering name, as it is usually called in the sector 1153.
What is the regulation for? The 1153 regulates, among other things, the higher education institutions' study registers, Statistics Sweden's university and college register and the University and College Council's admissions register. What we students have probably had the most to do with, consciously or unconsciously, is the study register and the admissions register. The study register is used by the higher education institutions to document information about students with the aim of ensuring that information is documented about the person seeking education, studies completed, grades for education and degrees. At almost all universities, this is handled through Ladok, which is a national system for support in the various study administrative processes. The system is jointly owned by the universities in a consortium. The admissions register has another purpose, namely to help universities in admitting students. This is intertwined with Antagning.se, which all students are likely to have interacted with as it is the main way of applying to study in higher education.
How is it that such joy broke out among the student union movement? SFS has drawn attention to the fact that the regulation would need to be revised so that organizations that provide student accommodation could more easily carry out study checks. The background is that it must be guaranteed that student housing goes to students. In Stockholm, previous study controls have resulted in thousands of apartments are released to students. Since there are over 400 students in Sweden but barely 000 student housing, it is important that efforts are made to secure the availability of student housing. Easier handling of study controls is therefore desirable, and when the government made the decision on the review, we at SFS were hopeful that a change awaited. There was cheering not only in the student union movement, but also among the universities and study administrative circles. For a long time, study administrators have flagged that the regulation is outdated and needs to be updated to facilitate operations. It has also been pointed out by several authorities in the sector that the regulation is difficult to apply. Several government public investigations have also pointed out that the regulation needs to be reviewed. This seems to be a problem in general with regulating technology. Legislation doesn't stand a chance against the super-fast development of technology. Technical breakthroughs do not wait for long government investigations, consultation rounds and evaluation.
I was trusted by SFS to be a student representative in the reference group that UKÄ appointed and which would give input on the investigative work. Based on our previous ambitions to simplify study controls, I focused on that issue once the assignment started. However, it turned out during the course of the investigation that the issue of study controls would be very small in comparison to the other knots that the investigation tackled.
As I mentioned earlier, in Sweden we have a common admission to higher education. The universities have a great deal of coordination between each other when it comes to study administrative processes. The arrangement has several advantages, but above all it makes it easier for the students and it is cost-effective. Joint admission and coordination of study administrative processes also enable collaboration that benefits the students, for example making it easier to change universities, study at several universities at the same time or during the same semester or exchange abroad. It is important that the admission works well and generates as few problems as possible for the students. Applying for higher education is for many a big step in life where a lot is at stake. Then you need a study administration that works.
Isn't this amazing? A national system that protects public resources and at the same time ensures a smooth process for users? After some time of investigation, UKÄ has alarmingly suggested that there is no other alternative but to let the legislation knock the legs out of this scheme. In their report to the government, UKÄ assesses that there is no legal support for the system that currently applies where the higher education institutions have electronic access to the study register through direct access. The direct access means that higher education institutions can handle admissions in a fast and legally secure way, where administrators can check what students have for previous studies in higher education. UKÄ assesses that an authority cannot allow another authority to have direct access to information in a register given that the information is subject to confidentiality, which means that the recipient would not have the right to access the information during an examination in accordance with the provisions of the Publicity and Confidentiality Act with certainty . This means that the universities and others involved will not be able to use joint admissions and study registers. Instead, you must provide your own register. It is worth mentioning that the current joint admissions and study registers, which with UKÄ's proposal would go in the trash, have cost taxpayers billions. At a time when we should strive to reduce bureaucracy and make systems more user-friendly, UKÄ chooses a path that further complicates the processes. This increased workload will not only burden the employees at the higher education institutions, but also indirectly affect the students who can expect slower information, less legal process and more confusion when applying for studies.
The task from the government has also included investigating whether individual education providers should be covered by the regulation. An individual education provider is an organization that has received permission from the government to conduct higher education according to The Act (1993:792) on permission to issue certain degrees. Some examples of such organizations are Chalmers University of Technology, Stockholm School of Economics, Red Cross University and the Newman Institute. The investigation has suggested that individual education providers should not be covered by the regulation due to the fact that there is no legal basis for it. I can respect the argument and the current legislation but find it unfortunate. The result in practice is that the individual educational institutions are excluded from the possibility of using the admissions register and the study register. It is worth remembering that a fairly large number of students study at individual education providers, namely upwards of 30. Should they have worse conditions for studies compared to students at state universities?
UKÄ does not put forward these proposals for fun, but refers to provisions in our data protection laws. It is of course important and I care about the students' privacy, but I still fundamentally want to have faith that our public institutions follow the laws that we have set up, regardless of which systems we use. If the questions have to be put against each other, i.e. the scope of administration versus personal privacy, I personally want to lean towards it earlier. We students want to see more resources for higher education and as there are major warning signs that worry about the lowest teacher-led time of all students in Europe and continued cuts in teaching. Then we students do not want badly placed administration and the trust must be that the public institutions handle our personal data in accordance with current laws and regulations.
It is obvious that resources are scarce in today's socio-economic situation. From both the Ministry of Finance and the Riksbank's corridors, cries for savings and curbing inflation can be heard. At the same time, entry into NATO and serious gang crime mean that resources need to be put into tanks and the legal system. In such a situation, it is reasonable that we as a society protect processes and systems that aim to be cost-effective. It also rhymes with the government's political ambitions. Education Minister Mats Persson has expressed earlier in the year that the higher education institutions should monitor their costs for administration and take measures.
Admission to higher education is important. For many students, it is a big decision. It can mean completely changing the layout of everyday life, changing cities and changing lifestyles. My experience from having spoken to student union representatives and been to a student union myself is that, due to the fact that education is in many cases one's full-time occupation, students are very keen to get quick decisions.
That is why I, together with several actors from the higher education sector who were represented in the reference group, have chosen to reserve ourselves against the final report's proposals and positions that UKÄ comes to regarding the issue of direct access and the issue of own study register for each institution. We are all convinced that the sector's common system enables efficient resource utilization, which is important for service to the students and for continuing to respond to the demands placed on the universities. We need a modern and technology-neutral regulation that ensures efficient, transparent and legally secure handling of both applicants and students in a coordinated procedure.
I now appeal to the government to consider the sector's objections to the proposal and what consequences it may have. Let's also turn the question around - Should we adapt legislation to reality or should reality adapt to legislation? When so much is at stake, the former is a path to consider.
In December, I listened a lot to a famous Swedish troubadour from the 1960s and 70s who sang a lot of songs and ballads. To end this blog post and enliven the topic of study administration, I have written a ballad of my own in the spirit of the title.
In the land of studies, where the systems are strong, Ladok and admission, they shine like the best bark of the land. With order and order, in each stage of study, they provide guidance and support, at every turn and path. When student housing is called, where control is key, so every home should be the mirror of justice. With study checks, so carefully and clearly, housing is secured, for the students' speed. But UKÄ's proposal, in its labyrinth, creates anxiety and questions, in every student flint. The suggestion that floats, away from the ground of reality, risks creating, more bureaucracy and less healthy. We hope for wisdom, in the heavy moment of decision, to preserve what works, in the round of the study network. For the students' future, and their bright path, decisions are needed that support, not overthrow, their banner.