This is tiring

[JTrue]

"(A) For the purposes of this section the term “directory information†relating to a student includes the following: the student’s name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student."

Reading the paragraph following that, it looks to me like the individual institutions decide what they deem "directory information", correct? So there could be institutions that don't include degrees as part of readily available info, which could explain why the page JT linked to didn't include them in the description.

 

Yes, my understanding is that each individual school determines what directory information they will release.  As several others have noted in other threads, most universities will confirm whether a student has received a degree, given that it is explicitly permitted by the statute.

 

But even though it's explicitly permitted, the institution has to publicize exactly what categories they will release without prior consent to give parents/students a chance to notify them that they don't want it released. Any idea how and how often that's don?

As an educator (and like Char said), I don't EVER give out anything unless someone well above my pay grade forces me too.

[WWMJD]

 

 

 

"(A) For the purposes of this section the term “directory information†relating to a student includes the following: the student’s name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student."

Reading the paragraph following that, it looks to me like the individual institutions decide what they deem "directory information", correct? So there could be institutions that don't include degrees as part of readily available info, which could explain why the page JT linked to didn't include them in the description.

 

 

Yes, my understanding is that each individual school determines what directory information they will release.  As several others have noted in other threads, most universities will confirm whether a student has received a degree, given that it is explicitly permitted by the statute.

 

 

But even though it's explicitly permitted, the institution has to publicize exactly what categories they will release without prior consent to give parents/students a chance to notify them that they don't want it released. Any idea how and how often that's don?

 

 

It's done all the time.  I suspect USF students, for example, get a notification of this type as part of a stack of other notifications, documents, and miscellany when they enroll.  Very few opt out of this type of thing, for a whole host of reasons - most common is that people don't read / don't understand / don't care what this type of stuff says (ESPECIALLY college students).  You would be amazed at some of the stuff you've probably agreed to over the years in various license agreements, contracts, and terms & condition sheets... it just has (maybe?) never have bitten you in the ass.  Yet at least.  I tell people all the time they should read everything they receive and sign, but it's barely practical anymore and I would be a liar if I said I didn't do it myself as well.

[WWMJD]

 

 

 

 

"(A) For the purposes of this section the term “directory information†relating to a student includes the following: the student’s name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended by the student."

Reading the paragraph following that, it looks to me like the individual institutions decide what they deem "directory information", correct? So there could be institutions that don't include degrees as part of readily available info, which could explain why the page JT linked to didn't include them in the description.

 

Yes, my understanding is that each individual school determines what directory information they will release.  As several others have noted in other threads, most universities will confirm whether a student has received a degree, given that it is explicitly permitted by the statute.

 

But even though it's explicitly permitted, the institution has to publicize exactly what categories they will release without prior consent to give parents/students a chance to notify them that they don't want it released. Any idea how and how often that's don?

As an educator (and like Char said), I don't EVER give out anything unless someone well above my pay grade forces me too.

 

 

And this is unsurprising, since you (like Char) are almost certainly doing the right thing by not individually handing out various information on students to anyone who asks.  I'm certain your compliance department would want it that way.  But there are other channels to verify simple, basic info like this, and they go through people who understand (usually) what they are/are not allowed to disclose.

[JTrue]

Do we know the UK policy on releasing "directory" information since it's not uniform?

[WWMJD]

One example for those who are interested... UT, for example, not only discloses this info but puts it in a searchable database on the internet:  http://registrar.utexas.edu/students/degrees/verify

[WWMJD]

Do we know the UK policy on releasing "directory" information since it's not uniform?

 

They (apparently, according to the NSC website) participate in the National Student Clearinghouse, which is fully FERPA compliant and provides degree verification to prospective employers (and others).  I did the legwork since you seem interested... there is a $9.95 fee for an single verification (with volume discounts for more) and a $3.00 surcharge to verify a degree from UK.  So for $12.95, yes, they could have verified this info.

[charsibb]

One example for those who are interested... UT, for example, not only discloses this info but puts it in a searchable database on the internet:  http://registrar.utexas.edu/students/degrees/verify

 

 

Wow, that's mindblowing. Whatever happened to personal privacy???

[WWMJD]

One example for those who are interested... UT, for example, not only discloses this info but puts it in a searchable database on the internet: http://registrar.utexas.edu/students/degrees/verify

Wow, that's mindblowing. Whatever happened to personal privacy???

Yes, it's shockingly easy to obtain, which was kind of my original point. When I was participating in hiring, which I don't really anymore, I considered a check like this a prerequisite to consideration that would take place through HR before I even had someone's resume on my desk. I'm sure it doesn't work that way everywhere, but it kind of seems like what you would expect from a search firm since they kind of blew up after the George O'Leary fiasco. I hope this all causes them (and maybe some here) to reconsider whether it might be a better idea to do some of this vetting on the front end. Unfortunately, people lie - more often than most of us would like to think - and you need to protect your organization from them.

[Who'sYourData?]

 

 

 

 

At least Brett has the sense not to claim USF botched this mess. He still works well with the admin and did a much better job than others left reeling today.

Kind of strains your credibility when you bash the media for being overly negative toward USF and cite McMurphy - the man who has tried mightily (and blatantly) to bring the school to its knees.

What are you talking about? When did I bash the media "for being overly negative toward USF".

Besides, one can comment on a body (Congress) in general without such comments fitting everyone (your representative) in said body.

Nonetheless, you are appearing to be quite transparent, whether you mean to be or not.

 

 

You have certainly gone after Collin on this board... sometimes justified, sometimes not.  I'm not entirely certain what you mean by transparent, but I am a die-hard USF fan who is frustrated with the process and doesn't really have a horse in this race otherwise.  Part of the problem here is that everyone (on this board and in general) tends to look at things as black and white and it is human nature to "take sides."  Those two things as expressed here take two forms:

USF DID EVERYTHING RIGHT!

or

USF BUNGLED THIS ENTIRE THING!

 

The reality, of course, is somewhere between the two.  Once they found out, they indisputably did the right thing - they couldn't have hired him for a whole host of reasons after this discrepancy was discovered.  But I also think it's not totally unrealistic to think this whole process could have been a little cleaner.  Do you?

 

That, to me, is what is really tiring.  Each side (as evidenced by the first post in this thread, as well as others) just throws out the standard (and absurd) allegation of "HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A FAN IF YOU TAKE [X] POSITION?"

 

 

A little bit cleaner? By whom?

 

The dirt came from an unauthorized leaker.

 

Everything would have been clean in the end if everyone would have kept their mouths shut until; the process was over and they were authorized to speak.

 

Instead, somebody jumped the gun. THAT's the person to blame. Whoever it was.

 

 

Except THAT person could have easily been someone close to Masiello.  

 

In any case, USF didn't lie on USF's resume.  USF followed the right process.

[hbryan]

 

 

 

 

 

At least Brett has the sense not to claim USF botched this mess. He still works well with the admin and did a much better job than others left reeling today.

Kind of strains your credibility when you bash the media for being overly negative toward USF and cite McMurphy - the man who has tried mightily (and blatantly) to bring the school to its knees.

What are you talking about? When did I bash the media "for being overly negative toward USF".

Besides, one can comment on a body (Congress) in general without such comments fitting everyone (your representative) in said body.

Nonetheless, you are appearing to be quite transparent, whether you mean to be or not.

 

 

You have certainly gone after Collin on this board... sometimes justified, sometimes not.  I'm not entirely certain what you mean by transparent, but I am a die-hard USF fan who is frustrated with the process and doesn't really have a horse in this race otherwise.  Part of the problem here is that everyone (on this board and in general) tends to look at things as black and white and it is human nature to "take sides."  Those two things as expressed here take two forms:

USF DID EVERYTHING RIGHT!

or

USF BUNGLED THIS ENTIRE THING!

 

The reality, of course, is somewhere between the two.  Once they found out, they indisputably did the right thing - they couldn't have hired him for a whole host of reasons after this discrepancy was discovered.  But I also think it's not totally unrealistic to think this whole process could have been a little cleaner.  Do you?

 

That, to me, is what is really tiring.  Each side (as evidenced by the first post in this thread, as well as others) just throws out the standard (and absurd) allegation of "HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A FAN IF YOU TAKE [X] POSITION?"

 

 

A little bit cleaner? By whom?

 

The dirt came from an unauthorized leaker.

 

Everything would have been clean in the end if everyone would have kept their mouths shut until; the process was over and they were authorized to speak.

 

Instead, somebody jumped the gun. THAT's the person to blame. Whoever it was.

 

 

Except THAT person could have easily been someone close to Masiello.  

 

In any case, USF didn't lie on USF's resume.  USF followed the right process.

 

 

It was probably Masiello's agent that leaked the information.  Underlings in athletics wouldn't have the salary details and I expect that none of the leadership would even consider leaking it.  It had to come out on Masiello's end and a greasy agent is the likely suspect.