"… The Social U, a company that analyzes social media data, surveyed college admissions officers. The results of the study reveal that 79% of college admission officials consider “quality of character” an important component of the admissions process.
In addition, 50% report checking applicants’ social media accounts. The study showed that 57% of admission officers involved in the study say they discovered profanity, evidence of prejudice, partying, drinking or drug abuse while reviewing applicants’ social media profiles. In fact, researchers report 69% of college admission officers report seeing a form of prejudice on applicants’ social media profile." …
How interesting! I was always under the impression that admissions officers simply don’t have time to check social media. Also quite shoocked about the figures. Thank so much for posting this.
Wow. I am a bit shocked. When I read of UC receiving over 100K applications this year, I question their ability to fully consider each and every one. To have the time to then visit social media accounts of them also to such a large percentage is hard to believe. I guess I just have the false image of these admission officers being overworked.
It does not say how the admissions officers were selected to survey. Perhaps only the least busy had time to answer the survey, so that could bias the response in favor of those who had time to look at applicants’ social media.
50% say they are checking social media but they are not saying (that I read anyway) that those who check do so for every applicant. And as social media becomes more important part of people’s lives (some people anyway – though seems like the young are more likely to use it and use it more often), I think it makes sense to check social media. A lot easier to fake who you are in a couple essays or an application than it is over a long period of time on your social media.
Employers often check social media now. I would expect to see more of that going forward.
I would assume they consider pondering social media accounts of either significant merit aid candidates, such as Presidential Scholars or those candidates on the bubble, when they’re choosing between (this kid or this kid). I doubt they’re checking the vast majority of acceptances and denials.
My D is being considered for a Stamps scholarship, and out of the blue, received an FB friend request from a current student in the program. It’s interesting that they found her on FB as she’s not easy to find. Her FB page has nothing of concern so she accepted the request.
My guess is that a lot of checking is tipped off by counselor and teacher recs that are ‘hedgy’ or don’t quite match what would be expected given a student’s grades, scores, and ECs. Curiosity after in-person interviews probably drives a lot of it too.
I doubt the admissions officers at prestigious universities like Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc. have the time to check this data. It must be smaller schools with less applicants.
Pretty much everyone I know blocks social media to strangers and virtually every senior in our HS changes his/her facebook name (so it won’t come up in a search) until the college process is complete.
I would question the 50% number and noted that no information/details was given in the article about how many adcoms were questioned, what types of schools they were from, what % of those questioned replied etc.
That said, it is irresponsible to have anything questionable on social media, especially when it can be accessed by the public.
There are programs where you can search social media for key words. When I ran a Food Stamp Fraud office, the program would pick up words like Food Stamp and sale together in the same post. Surprising how many people blatantly sell online. So, these data mining companies can provide programs based on whatever criteria they choose and it may be certain words or phrases that “hit” and they then check further into that particular applicant.