Facebook Users Get Lower Grades In College

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.'"

Comments

Re:Maybe whoever did that study

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Okay, I'm an idiot and skipped the line which said that.

Who said correlation implies causation?

[chebucto]

The author didn't say that facebook causes lower grades, they said facebook users have lower grades.

Read the following (from the summary!) closely:

'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.'

Re:Who said correlation implies causation?

[ciderVisor]

and there's many third variables that need to be studied

So there's a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.......variable that needs to be studied.

Re:When everyone is special, no one is special

[Anonymous Coward]

"In other news, scientists prove FaceBook is just 'Another plot to take over the world. Enjoy.â' by Hulu. It offers the same Brain-melting mind-numbing lack of intelligence that was previously only seen by the likes of MySpace and Digg."

Anyhow, haven't respectable news pages, including the slash, banned surveys yet? After all, you can make 100% of statistics prove whatever you want depending on how non-objective your study is and how badly you skew the test parameters. I mean, how hard is it to find that "100% of people are Star Trek fans" if you take the survey at a Trekkie convention?

Re:More BS Stats

[Rambling Paladin]

You've confused correlation with causation. The latter is where A has a causal relationship on B, the former just means that A and B follow the same trend (and is what this researcher claims to have documented).

Re:When everyone is special, no one is special

[Anonymous Coward]

Real quickly: Live Journal was around at the time (I was aware of it back in 2002 myself), but was (and still is) a geek haven. MySpace existed at the time, but I didn't end up being aware of it or a part of it until 2005.

Re:More BS Stats

[pete-classic]

Again, you are using statistics speak when there is no basis for it. You say "probably" but you have no basis for that other than that is your opinion.

You say that I have no basis, but that's just, like, your opinion, man. Where's your research?!

This is a fucking Internet message board, not a scholarly journal. It is perfectly appropriate for me to propose the possibility of a correlation between these various factors. Further, any reasonable person would come to the correct conclusion that by "probably" I mean that I don't, in fact, have research to back up my statement, but that I would expect such research to do so.

I'd be fascinated as to why this use of language in this context is so surprising, and apparently upsetting, to you.

A correlation only exists if one thing has an effect on the other.

You just couldn't be more wrong. Please consult a dictionary. A correlation exists if two things are statistically related. Often they both proceed from a common cause. But even if no causal mechanism can be identified, a correlation is nothing more or less than a statistical relationship.

Here's a fine example. The Redskins predict election results. No one sensible would suggest there is any causal relationship here. But there is a highly improbable statistical relationship. Which is to say a clear correlation. (And it is not only likely, but necessary that if you start arbitrarily comparing big lists of measurements there will be uncanny correlations, which are absolutely meaningless.)

Before you criticize others you should really check your facts, and consider twice if the other person's position is reasonable.

-Peter

Re:When everyone is special, no one is special

[brkello]

I had the opposite experience. In honors/harder classes, there was the expectation that you were smart. In normal classes, they expected you to be stupid. So the worst grade you could really get in an honors class was a C and you had to try to do that bad. The worst you could do in a non-honors class is an F. So it was really easy not to try and get A's and B's in honor classes. The normal classes actually graded you harder.