Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Whatever happened to Henry Simons? (fp)

Wow -- that's some very scary poll results (kw)

The scarlet ankle bracelet. (fp)

Every good article should have one idea. (fp)

Family values in market turnover culture. (fp)

Banks really create value: probably $58 billion in overdraft fees & credit card penalties in 2009. (fp)

A Citizens United dream: Exxon could have deployed 10% of its 2008 profits to outspend every presidential and senatorial candidate that year. (fp)

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets promises to adopt your pet if you are raptured. (fp)

Habermas doesn't tweet, but does interview well. (fp)

Lessig on Google, copyright, orphans, and the future of access to information. (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Kristina on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • PrometheeFeu on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards

    • PoNyman on Very scary poll results

    • Civ Pro King on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • ParatrooperJJ on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • Lotta on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Alan on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Colin Crowe on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Glomarization on Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail

    • Vinca on Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes

    • A.J. Sutter on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

    • Keri Brooks on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Illinois on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Ken Rhodes on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Ken Rhodes on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

  •  

    Site Meter

Facebook, Myspace, and College Admissions

posted by Daniel Solove

social-network1.jpgLast year, I noted that employers and others were increasingly looking at applicants’ social network website profile pages in their hiring decisions. Apparently, now college admissions officers are also using social network sites like Facebook and MySpace to make decisions on applicants. According to the Wall St. Journal:

A new survey of 500 top colleges found that 10% of admissions officers acknowledged looking at social-networking sites to evaluate applicants. Of those colleges making use of the online information, 38% said that what they saw “negatively affected” their views of the applicant. Only a quarter of the schools checking the sites said their views were improved, according to the survey by education company Kaplan, a unit of Washington Post Co.

Some admissions officers said they had rejected students because of material on the sites. Jeff Olson, who heads research for Kaplan’s test-preparation division, says one university did so after the student gushed about the school while visiting the campus, then trashed it online. Kaplan promised anonymity to the colleges, of which 320 responded. The company surveyed schools with the most selective admissions.

The article notes that most colleges don’t have policies with regard to when and how college admissions officers can use social network website profiles in making admissions decisions. The article illustrates that we need to make much greater progress in educating what I call “Generation Google” — the generation currently in high school and college who are chronicling their own lives and those of their classmates online — about the risks, consequences, and ethics of what they post on the Internet.

Moreover, many companies and college and graduate school admissions officers lack a policy or guidelines about the appropriate and inappropriate use of what they find online about a candidate. Policies are sorely needed, as there are many issues that need to be thought about:

* Should such information be used? When?

* How heavily should it be relied upon?

* What kinds of things should negatively impact an applicant? Information about sex life? Drug use? Drinking? Bad behavior?

* What steps should be taken to make sure that the information was accurate?

* Should a distinction be made between information that people post about themselves and information that others have posted about them, perhaps invading their privacy without their consent?

* What steps should be taken to make sure that the information used in fact relates to the applicant and not to somebody else with the same name?

* Should people be notified that information online was used against them and be given an opportunity to be heard to explain it?


 September 18, 2008 at 12:19 pm   Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Gossip & Shaming), Social Network Websites, Web 2.0   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (5)

  1. A reader - September 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    You know, I’ve often thought that there’s a real advantage in the way law schools tend to do admissions – GPA, LSATs, some other things in the margin. Undergraduate schools are a little creepy in the way they attempt to evaluate the whole of an 18-year-old’s life. Do they have a sufficiently compelling narrative to write into an essay? Are they well-rounded enough or, conversely, too well-rounded and not focused on any one thing? And now, what are their favorite books, movies, and what’s their alcohol consumption like?

    Which is not to say I think it’s necessarily a bad thing to look at a job applicant’s Facebook or MySpace profile to get a sense of their judgment or discretion. It’s just, colleges already use a lot of broad factors to evaluate kids applying for admission, many of which aren’t super relevant to academic performance. Adding more seems to make the whole process even more weirdly all-encompassing, and it can only increase the extent to which high achieving kids feel like they have to shape literally every aspect of their lives around being evaluated by colleges.

  2. Tyler - September 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    One thing I wonder is how much looking at Facebook or MySpace profile can affect the decision to admit based on factors that should not be considered such as race, disability or even attractiveness. That is not to say that they would explicitly consider these things, but just that they might bias a decision.

    Also, in the way of safeguards, what if it isn’t just someone else with the same name, but if someone intentionally creates a profile with another individual’s name and other identifying information and then includes content to make that person look bad. I know I’ve seen profiles that were not created by the subject of the profile, and while those were just innocuous jokes, it could be much more serious in the world of very competitive schools.

  3. Indy - September 19, 2008 at 11:33 am

    I would actually be interested if you have any thoughts about how it might work in reverse. For instance, a lawyer, properly concerned about privacy, does not have profiles on social networking sites. Lawyer applies to firm. Firm searches common social networking sites for lawyer’s profile, finds nothing. Firm rejects lawyer in part because he does not have such profiles. Firm’s Possible Rationale: Lawyer is unwilling to network, too introverted, etc. Do you see any danger of this type of thing happening, as we increasingly see an erosion of the meaning of privacy and the creation of social norms encouraging “publication” of personas?

  4. Bradjward - September 23, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    This whole survey is blown way out of proportion. Here are my thoughts:

    http://squaredpeg.com/index.php/2008/09/22/10-of-admission-counselors/

  5. Zac - October 20, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    To reference Solove’s book “the future of reputation,” he speaks of how individuals have many different identities that depend upon the environment the person is in. In public you act different than you would by yourself and the same goes for if you’re around your parents as to your friends.

    I think that employers or admission deans using facebook, myspace, or blogs as a factor in hiring or granting admission is mixing the identities that individuals have. Obviously these sources give some insight into a person, but usually it gives insight into the wrong aspect of that person’s identity.

    Mixing these identities is dangerous because it portrays people’s identities out of context. A person on facebook that depicts themselves at wild parties cannot be assumed to be an employee that will exhibit poor performance. These two areas of an individuals life should remain separate whether or not they are in public.

    In response to Bradjward’s link. Even if the survey demonstrates bad methodology, I think that it still deserves some thought about the implications that are caused by its findings. Assuming admission deans don’t do it as much as Kaplan claims they do, employers using it raises the exact same problems and there is much more evidence of this.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Adam Benforado
Mark Edwards
Michelle Harner
Kristin Johnson
Jeffrey Kahn
Alex Kreit
Viva Moffat
Adam Steinman










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress