Social media kids: 'Perfect profile' may help with college

Social media requires profile management and editing a kids online persona is necessary, if they don't want their profiles affecting college admissions or job opportunities. Online spin control may be more important than we all thought.

AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File
Social media profiles have kids managing their own public personas. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg talks about the social network site's new privacy settings in Palo Alto, Calif, May, 26, 2010.

High school students are displaying serious online spin control skills in their college quests. It’s more like “public image management” than the reputation management so often referred to in online-safety discussions. In an interview for ReadWriteWeb.com, a high school teacher in Reno, Nev., called it “admissions jiu jitsu,” referring to his students’ workarounds for college and university admissions offices’ growing scrutiny of students’ social media profiles.

RELATED: Top 5 bullying myths - What you don't know about bullying

Though this is getting more and more parental and political attention, it isn’t new. I first wrote about the fictionalizing of social network profiles back in mid-2008, picking up on a paper by UK researcher and psychology professor Sonia Livingstone, who noticed that in many cases what’s seen in a profile is more a “placeholder” in a string of interaction between members of a peer network than a self-portrait or act of self-disclosure. The ReadWriteWeb piece (or its source) suggests that profile embellishing is a kind of deception, as in gaming a system in which adults are “digging for dirt” in what students see as their personal lives. Deception could certainly be the aim in some cases, but – as Dr. Livingstone shows – that view comes from the self-portrait perspective (that many adults have), the belief that a social network profile is just self-presentation. It doesn’t factor in other key properties of social media – the very individual, contextual, and dynamic nature of using it (expressed in Livingstone’s placeholder observation) – which point to a whole spectrum of intention and non-intention.

Array of image-management tactics

Beyond embellishment, a number of other image-management tactics have emerged. One is having another profile altogether – the “ideal-self profile.” Others include hiding one’s profile behind an alias or “amping up privacy settings,” as ReadWriteWeb put it. Some students deactivate their accounts for a while – leaving all their data and contacts intact but just unfindable for that period of time (which we’re now seeing can also raise suspicion about what they might be hiding). Social media researcher danah boyd described another, extremely short-term deactivation tactic that wasn’t aimed at college admission at all, but rather control (not just of privacy): A student would deactivate her Facebook account every time she logged off, so that “no one [could] post messages on her wall or send her messages privately or browse her content,” danah wrote in 2010.

Expert views cited by eCampusNews.com don’t discourage such workarounds. “College applicants shouldn’t shut down their various social media accounts.” What they should do is “heavily edit their online comments, photos, and videos.” The article pointed to fresh data on admissions practices, showing that “the percentage of applications that had been negatively affected by social media searches had nearly tripled, from 12% in 2010 to 35% in 2011.”

Have a presence in social media

Note the point about not shutting down social media. ReadWriteWeb heard the same thing from its sources: “Facebook is still popular enough that a college admissions official will raise a red flag if a kid claims he or she isn’t on Facebook.” Not using social media isn’t something to be (or act) proud of, where admissions and scholarships are concerned.

And scholarship providers are checking profiles too. A survey of members of the National Scholarship Providers Association found that one-quarter had “searched Google and social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and LinkedIn for information about applicants [though usually only on finalists],” one-third “denied a scholarship to a student based on their findings,” and one-quarter of the scholarship providers doing those searches “gave a scholarship based on information gleaned online,” eCampusNews.com reports.

RELATED: Are you a 'Helicopter Parent?' take our QUIZ!

Seeking positive more than negative

The positive part of that was seen by Bridgewater State University psychology professor Elizabeth Englander too, when she looked into admissions offices’ approaches. She found that, “although college admissions officers did say they looked applicants up online, they said they were generally looking for positive things about the kids [emphasis hers], and that that’s what they usually found,” she wrote in an email. “The negative problems that they really reacted to were the more extreme problems – evidence of serious substance abuse, or having joined a hate group, or posting videos of themselves engaging in crimes or violence.”

Related links

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.