In the coming days, the university's supervisory and analysis authority, the University Chancellor's Office (UKÄ), will submit the final report on its government assignment. A review of the Ordinance (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 safeguard society's resources.
A whole blog post about study administration and data protection regulation? I promise it will be interesting!
During a normal weekday in May 2022, I remember that joy erupted in student political contexts when we received the news that the government had commissioned UKÄ to carry out a review of Regulation (1993:1153) on reporting of studies etc. at universities and colleges. It is a regulation with a long and not very flattering name, so in the sector it is usually called 1153.
What is the regulation? The 1153 regulation regulates, among other things, the study register of higher education institutions, the University and Higher Education Register of Statistics Sweden and the Admissions Register of the Swedish Council for Higher Education. 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 higher education institutions to document information about students with the aim of ensuring that information is documented about the person seeking education, completed studies, grades for education and degrees. At almost all higher education institutions, 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 higher education institutions in a consortium. The admissions register has another purpose, namely to assist higher education institutions in admitting students. This is intertwined with Admissions.se, which all students have likely interacted with as it is the main way to apply for higher education studies.
How did such joy erupt among the student union movement? SFS has drawn attention to the fact that the regulation needs to be revised so that organizations that provide student housing can more easily carry out student inspections. The background is that it is to guarantee that student housing goes to students. In Stockholm, previous student inspections have resulted in thousands of apartments are being made available to students. Since there are over 400,000 students in Sweden but barely 100,000 student housing, it is important that efforts are made to secure access to student housing. Easier handling of study checks is therefore desirable and when the government made the decision to review it, we at SFS were hopeful that a change was in store. There was cheering not only in the student union movement but also among the higher education institutions and study administration circles. Study administrators have long 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 general problem with regulating technology. Legislation does not stand a chance against the super-fast development of technology. Technological breakthroughs do not wait for long government investigations, rounds of consultation and evaluation.
I was entrusted by SFS to be a student representative in the reference group that UKÄ appointed and that would provide input into the investigation work. Based on our previous ambitions to simplify study checks, I focused on that issue once the assignment got underway. However, it became clear during the investigation that the issue of study checks would be very small compared to the other issues that the investigation tackled.
As I mentioned earlier, in Sweden we have a joint admission to higher education. The higher education institutions 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 things easier for the students and it is cost-effective. Joint admission and coordination of study administrative processes also enables cooperation that benefits the students, for example making it easier to change higher education institutions, study at several higher education institutions at the same time or during the same semester or do an exchange abroad. It is important that the admission works well and generates as few problems as possible for the students. For many, applying for higher education is a big step in life where a lot is at stake. Then you need a study administration that works.
Isn't this fantastic? A national system that protects public resources while ensuring a smooth process for users? After some time of investigation, UKÄ has worryingly suggested that there is no other alternative than to let legislation knock the legs out of this arrangement. In their report to the government, UKÄ assesses that there is no legal support for the current arrangement where higher education institutions have electronic access to the study register through direct access. Direct access allows higher education institutions to handle admissions in a fast and legally secure manner where administrators can check what students have studied in higher education. UKÄ assesses that one authority cannot allow another authority to gain direct access to information in a register given that the information is subject to confidentiality, which means that the recipient would not be entitled to access the information in an examination in accordance with the provisions of the Public Access and Secrecy Act. This means that higher education institutions and other parties involved will not be able to use common admissions and study registers. Instead, a separate register should be provided. It is worth mentioning that the current joint admission and study registers, which with UKÄ's proposal would go in the trash, have cost taxpayers billions. At a time when we should be striving to reduce bureaucracy and make the systems more user-friendly, UKÄ is choosing a path that complicates the processes even further. This increased workload will not only burden the employees at the higher education institutions, but will also indirectly affect the students who can expect slower responses, less legal certainty and greater hassle when applying for studies.
The government's assignment has also included investigating whether individual education providers should be covered by the ordinance. An individual education provider is an organization that has been granted permission by the government to conduct higher education in accordance with 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 inquiry has proposed that individual education providers should not be covered by the regulation on the grounds that there is no legal basis for it. I can respect the argument and the current legislation but I find it unfortunate. The result in practice is that individual education providers 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 30,000. Should they have worse conditions for studies compared to students at state universities?
UKÄ is not putting forward these proposals for fun, but refers to provisions in our data protection laws. It is of course important and I care about the privacy of students, 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 need to be put against each other, that is, the extent of administration versus personal privacy, I personally want to lean towards the former. We students want to see more resources for higher education and when there are major warning signs that worry with the lowest teacher-led time of all students in Europe and continued cuts in teaching. Then we students do not want poorly placed administration and the trust must be that the public institutions handle our personal data according to applicable 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 spent on tanks and the justice system. In such a situation, it is reasonable that we as a society protect processes and systems that have the ambition to be cost-effective. This also resonates with the government's political ambitions. Earlier this year, Minister of Education Mats Persson expressed that Higher education institutions should monitor their administration costs and take measures.
Admission to higher education is important. For many students it is a big decision. It can mean completely changing the structure of everyday life, changing cities and changing lifestyles. My experience from speaking to student union representatives and having been to student unions myself is that students are, because education is in many cases one's full-time job, very keen to get quick decisions.
That is why I, together with several of the actors from the higher education sector who were represented in the reference group, have chosen to reserve our position on the final report's proposals and positions that UKÄ comes up with regarding the issue of direct access and the issue of a separate study register for each higher education institution. We are all convinced that the sector's common system enables efficient resource utilization, which is important for service to students and for continuing to be able to respond to the demands placed on higher education institutions. 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 us also turn to the question – Should we adapt the legislation to reality or should reality adapt to the 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 ballads and songs. To end this blog post and liven up the topic of student administration, I have written my own ballad 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 on the ground. With order and order, in every stage of study, they provide guidance and support, on every path and road. When student housing is called, where control is the key, then every home should be the mirror of justice. With study controls, so carefully and clearly, housing is secured, for the students' speed. But UKÄ's proposal, in its labyrinth, creates concern and questions, in every student flint. The proposal that floats, away from the foundation of reality, risks creating, more bureaucracy and less sound. We hope for wisdom, in the heavy moment of decision, to preserve what works, in the round of the study fabric. For the future of students, and their bright path, decisions are needed that support, not overthrow their banner.