Facebook Users Get Lower Grades In College 284
Hugh Pickens writes "According to a survey of college students Facebook users have lower overall grades than non-users. The study by Aryn Karpinski, an education researcher at Ohio State University, found that Facebook user GPAs are in the 3.0 to 3.5 range on average, compared to 3.5 to 4.0 for non-users and that Facebook users also studied anywhere from one to five hours per week, compared to non-users who studied 11 to 15 or more hours per week. Karpinski emphasized that correlation does not equal causation and that the grades association could be caused by something else. 'I'm just saying that there's some kind of relationship there, and there's many third variables that need to be studied.' One hypothesis is that students who spend more time enjoying themselves rather than studying might tend to latch onto the nearest distraction, such as Facebook or that students who use the social networking site might also spend more time on other non-studying activities such as sports or music. 'It may be that if it wasn't for Facebook, some students would still find other ways to avoid studying, and would still get lower grades. But perhaps the lower GPAs could actually be because students are spending too much time socializing online.' As for herself, Karpinski said she doesn't have a Facebook account, although the co-author of the study does. 'For me, I think Facebook is a huge distraction.'"
Re:When everyone is special, no one is special (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that hard, 1 A and 1 B is a 3.5 right there. Heck an A and a C is a 3.0. Most companies these days have a 3.0 minimum before they'll even look at your Resume/CV.
Maybe smart kids are less likely to be social and have friends so they aren't on Facebook? Why isn't the causation/correlation defined that way?
Interesting comment in the linked article (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When everyone is special, no one is special (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, first off, it's Ohio State.
:).
Second, this sounds like the kind of "study" done for a sociology class. Plenty of inflated grades among people who take Soc 101.
Third, it was a survey. It'd be interesting to see if there's a correlation between not using Facebook and lying about your GPA
Re:Look at that another way... (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet most successful CEO's, politicans, lawyers and other impressively successful types would use social networks a lot if they existed way back when. However, I'm sure most of their accountants and other people with great GPA's wouldn't.
Networking - it's been here forever.
Slackers (Score:3, Interesting)
A comparison could be illuminating (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Look at that another way... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:When everyone is special, no one is special (Score:3, Interesting)
In my experience, any 100 or 200 level class was easy, unless it was picked to be a "weeder" class (like organic chem). Then it was still easy, but required some effort.
I found that soc 101 & 102 were a joke, but maybe it's because writing is easy for me. Maybe those classes just played to my strengths.
Once I hit the 300s and 400s, classes were a bit harder (especially classes with instructors to whom English was brand new [pharmacokinetics especially])... but on a lark, I took some English lit 300-level classes, and they were jokes too.
some programs really are easier than others, and result in grade inflation.
Re:Maybe whoever did that study (Score:3, Interesting)
The average person using facebook is the average person commenting on youtube videos: incredibly stupid. Facebook does nothing better than any other method of communication, and you have to use a shitty interface and tolerate facebook users to do..what?
If you want asynchronous communication you can use any IM software out there, emails, forums, etc.
It's not true, though. Facebook is not as easy as email, IM, forums, etc. Everyone I know is on Facebook and all I need to remember to get in touch with them is their name.
I don't need lists of emails that are constantly needing updates; I don't need IM contact lists that are usually out of date as well; I don't need memberships at several forums and to remember who belongs to each.. just type a few letters of their name on Facebook and there they are. Persists through email changes, phone number changes, and all that.
Yeah, my good buddies who I hang out with every day I just phone. Everyone else I get on Facebook.
I'm not one of those fools who posts fifty thousand pictures of every stupid event that occurs in their lives. It's a communication tool and little more.
That mindset of "the average person who uses some trendy service I reject because I'm trendily un-trendy is stupid" really gets to me. I've never understood why techies find it cool to be arrogant and condescending.
Re:Maybe whoever did that study (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell...when it came time to study, even housecleaning seemed a better alternative at times.
So the worst students have the cleanest desks because they procrastinate by cleaning up.
At least that's in a nutshell the story I tell my boss every time he complains about my cluttered desk and 'til someone gives me a better reason not to clean up I'll stick with it.
Re:Look at that another way... (Score:3, Interesting)
People without social lives don't use social networks.
One of the things that surprised me most when I started being contacted by old high school friends was that the most Facebook-active of them were stay-at-home moms, the underemployed, and people who hadn't moved far from our hometown. These are the people who want you to play some game app with them, send cocktails/skateboards, "20 questions," "five favorite 'X's," and to sign up for causes. This has provided a valuable lesson to me that has caused me to go from checking/updating every day to checking maybe once a week. I just don't want to be in the bucket of using FB as my main social outlet, like they appear to do. Then again, they probably just have more time to devote to social interactions whereas I have hobbies and work that I like to spend my time on. MafiaWars is a good use of time for some people, but not for me. Bully for them.
Re:Maybe whoever did that study (Score:3, Interesting)
And in my opinion, sites that ONLY do social networking are stupid.
Maybe you just have no social life ;-)
Or, much more likely, maybe you don't organise yours the way I organise mine. Probably the same thing was said when telephones meant people stopped writing paper invitations.
I don't use Facebook very often -- I'll log in at most once a week to see if anything catches my eye. Most useful is the "Events" part. A friend living 200 miles away invited me to her housewarming party last week. Without Facebook, I'd have just gone on the train. On the Facebook event page, I could quickly see someone else's comment of "I'm travelling from X, and will drive anyone living nearby if they pay for some of the fuel". Excellent.
In a few weeks time, someone I know might start organising picnics in a nearby large park. About 10 of his friends (including me) will go, and we'll invite a load of like-minded people. Maybe 50 people will turn up. Of course, I could do that with email, or text message, or by phone, or face to face, but it's easy to click 15 names in a list and press "Invite". Of course I can mention it in conversation too, and then refer people to Facebook, where they can find the date, time, location, and any last-minute alterations.
I occasionally go to meetings organised by a local Humanist society. They have a Facebook group, so I get invites/reminders through that.
This could be done with a mailing list, but that means someone has to pay for it, or deal with spam, or managing subscribers. As it's on Facebook there aren't any of these problems, and with the Facebook calendar app the event appears in my Google Calendar.
New world? (Score:4, Interesting)
That brings up a good point. Even though the survey may not be totally scientific, I can definitely see a negative correlation between any outside activity and grades. Anything like Myspace, Facebook, World of Warcraft, or any time-wasting activity robs study time.
However, here's a thought. Current coursework focuses on constant cycles of memorization and testing in most fields. Is that really relevant anymore given the supposed "new world of work" we're about to enter? When I studied chemistry many moons ago, most of the non-lab coursework could only be aced if you studied relatively hard. Has that changed, given the fact that:
So, how much of this is Facebook and how much is just the changing college demographic? Should we change the coursework offered in schools?
To be fair, my opinion is that we should definitely not be forcing everyone through college. Previously, we had a good mix of job opportunities for different education levels, and everything worked out. Only people who were smart enough went to college, and it wasn't an admission ticket for entry-level work like it is today. The crass way to say this is "the world needs ditch-diggers too" but it's true. Having a mix of jobs for a mix of skill levels definitely makes society better.
Re:When everyone is special, no one is special (Score:2, Interesting)