Well, my first thought is your editor might have wanted to make sure none of these people would go back on things they had said or water them down, because they'd suddenly felt some things were sensitive, or too blunt. So he/she would have thought it was superfluous, or even compromising, to give them a chance to see what quotes you had decided to use, let alone see the full article.
People who have been interviewed sometimes pull back or actively try to stop news outlets from using certain quotes, of course, whether their concern would be truth or the possible reactions of their buddies. Sometimes, people say things in interviews and later feel they have let down their guard; I know a couple examples of this - "No, you can't print this! Hey, that's not what I said, or, not what I meant!" (even if you have a tape and it's obvious they did mean just what was put into the article). And with high-profile interview subjects, newspapers do sometimes give a certain leeway in withdrawing or patching up statements after the interviewee has had a second look. But a student profile doesn't really sound like the kind of article where this would have been a top consideration, unless the student was engaged in something very controversial.
Anyway, what is put between quotation marks in newspapers, or cited as someone's spoken opinion, without any kind of quote marker but implied to be a quote, isn't always any direct, untouched quote. News reporters and, even more, staff writers and columnists do condense, spice up, occasionally pimp up what their sources have said, to help make the points the writer wants to make, and of those points the interviewed person may be unaware, or actually denying them (rightly or wrongly). That's fairly common practice at many newspapers, and people in the trade know it, though it's very rarely spelled out. And I'm sure many of us have seen sometimes how reporters are visibly working very hard - it comes through in the writing - to construct a story, or even to suggest a storyline that is not true, and never really, fully stated as such in the article, but the piece is written so that angle becomes the real line of the article, the red thread. For instance, writing an article about the aftermath of some air disaster where the government avoided stating something (an implication or a sideline fact) fully openly, but skewing it so that the impression most readers will get is that they were actually *lying* - and then you put the headline "THE GOVERNMENT LIED ABOUT /X/ -- Huge COVER-UP!" but the exact nature of the lie, in the headline, is left so generic that said headline is technically unassailable. Even though it is a - lie. Of course, quotations that have been doctored a bit or pulled out of context can be very helpful in getting there.