Recently, Guangzhou Institute of Technology has sparked controversy by requiring students to submit consumption details for assessment purposes. The university's assessment requirements show that students need to provide Alipay or WeChat one week consumption screenshots. This requirement has sparked dissatisfaction among students, who believe it violates privacy and affects their personal lives. The school explained that this is a cultivation education project, and "submitting consumption details is considered from the perspective of cultivating a sense of diligence, thrift, and frugality in consumption." The staff of the Guangdong Provincial Department of Education stated that after verifying the relevant situation, they will supervise and rectify it. Although the school has stated that submitting consumer information is not a mandatory requirement, in the relevant assessment, if students do not want to choose this item, they can choose not to. But from the currently known information, we cannot discern how much choice students have, let alone that when the school makes a request and passes through various intermediate links, the optional options may have been simplified into mandatory ones. In relationships of unequal power, the principle of voluntariness may become a decoration. The school hopes to cultivate students' awareness of diligence, thrift, and frugality. The original intention of this education is not wrong, and it aims to guide students through the assessment of life practice, which also reflects a trend of "diversified assessment" in current higher education. If students can reflect on their spending habits and establish rational consumption concepts during this process, it can be called a form of 'cultivation education'. But there is no doubt that educators have overlooked the sensitivity of personal data information. A person's electronic wallet record is not just an exhibit displayed in public. The consumption details are a person's life map, which clearly corresponds to every detail of life, including dietary preferences, interests, social places, interpersonal communication... The privacy of these data is self-evident. No one likes to be peeked into life, and the consumption details are the curtains that cannot be lifted. Not to mention, once the data management measures are not rigorous, these records may accidentally be used as a topic of conversation for others or become information tools for others to profit from.? The Personal Information Protection Law clearly stipulates that the processing of personal information shall follow the principles of legality, legitimacy, necessity, and good faith, and shall not be processed through misleading, fraudulent, coercive, or other means. The collection of personal information should be limited to the minimum scope necessary to achieve the processing purpose, and excessive collection of personal information is not allowed. Even if the educational purpose has legitimacy,?? Schools may also find it difficult to prove the necessity of doing so. In addition, how can consumption records be used to measure whether students are diligent and frugal? If whoever spends less money is a thrifty expert, what if a student doesn't spend money from their own account, but someone spends money for them? If we are examining the proportion of consumption in different fields, then how can we define which type of consumption is considered frugal? Some people care about eating, some care about using, and some care about spiritual consumption? The "2024 China Youth Consumption Trend Report" shows that the consumption concept of this generation of young people is different from tradition. They are willing to spend money on novel experiences and hobbies, but at the same time, they value the "quality price ratio". Their slogan is "you can buy expensive things, but you can't buy expensive things anymore", advocating "the province should save, the flowers should bloom". The question is, if a student eats less than one meal a day but spends hundreds of yuan on a figurine, is it considered saving or wasting? In fact, a consumption survey conducted in 2024 among 11390 college students showed that their consumption psychology has gradually matured. 82% of college students do not use consumer finance because they are "really short of money". In their opinion, using financial tools more efficiently is to save themselves more "money". Over 98% of college students intentionally control their monthly consumption and usage limit. 95% of college students indicate that their monthly expenditure on consumer finance does not exceed 2000 yuan, mainly used for daily expenses such as food delivery, transportation, etc. That is to say, the growth rate of college students' consumption concepts may have exceeded the understanding of educators towards them. The practice of simplifying complex process education into quantitative indicators indicates that in educational innovation attempts, it is easy to fall into the mechanized operation of the evaluation system. Education cannot be cultivated solely through numbers and indicators. If schools only focus on using hard core data to "constrain" students, it will inevitably make people feel that they are conducting "consumption monitoring" and overlook the most essential function of education - guiding and stimulating autonomy. Of course, there is no need to completely negate the "cultivation education" plan of universities. For example, using anonymous methods to collect and analyze consumption structure, while concealing key information, encouraging everyone to share consumption experiences and discuss consumption concepts; If it is a directional assessment, the focus of the assessment can be shifted to behaviors such as consumption planning and second-hand trading practices, with more positive incentives. In any case, the innovation of educational models in universities has a fundamental premise, which is to respect the individual rights of students and the spirit of the rule of law. (New Society)