Joseph B. Treaster, a hotshot from The New York Times, thinks big data can determine if and when a student will graduate college. He begins by citing a practice employed by Georgia State’s nursing school. Using data analytics, the school predicts that students who receive a “C” in a math class are at risk of not graduating. This is a preposterous assumption because one, a “C” is still a passing grade and two, not everyone is an expert in multivariable calculus. Students who are studying human biology should not need to memorize how to derive the quadratic formula.

Treaster also references a system adopted by Stanford University in which undergraduate students use big data to determine which classes they should take. By relying on data algorithms to select their courses, students are neglecting other fields of study. Most students discover their passion for an overlooked subject by taking obscure elective and general education courses. If students take predetermined courses that are only related to their majors, they miss the opportunity to study interesting topics such as “Kanye vs. Everybody” or “Demystifying the Hipster” (both are real courses offered at Georgia State and Tufts University).

Echoing George Orwell’s totalitarian big brother, Treaster endorses the use of big data to track students’ daily activities. At the University of Arizona, the Center for Business Intelligence and Analytics monitors the behavior of freshmen who they think are likely to drop out. The school knows exactly when students swipe their ID cards to go to the library or gym, pay for a meal in the cafeteria or shop in the bookstore.

Part of the college experience is to enjoy being away from home and away from the watchful eyes of parents. This invasive form of data tracking infringes upon students’ freedom and can lead to more alarming ways of constant surveillance. As a college student myself, I would not appreciate USC knowing how much money I spend on junk food and what time I get back to my dorm room on Friday nights.

According to Treaster, the software and training required for universities to implement data analysis into their operating system could cost a half-million dollars. Similar to the University of Texas’ idiotic decision to blow$1.1 million on new lockers for their losing football team, colleges who invest money into big data are investing in garbage. Schools should instead entrust the half-million dollars into scholarships and academic tutoring.

Math grades and course selections cannot determine if a student will graduate, but defunding academic resources is a sure sign they won’t. In conclusion, big data does not fully explain why some students underperform. Colleges and universities should ban data analysis so they can save money and not stalk students.