Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
How can it be that everyone has a greater than 3.0 GPA?
I mean, I benefited from grade inflation in college, but it never pulled me over 3.0...
People without social lives don't use social networks.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Okay, I'm an idiot and skipped the line which said that.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Third sentence:
"Karpinski emphasized that correlation does not equal causation and that the grades association could be caused by something else".
And maybe whoever wrote the comment above should have
(1) learned that writing part of your post in the subject field makes it hard to read and is therefore stupid; and
(2) RTFA. Hell, RTFS, where it's made clear that they've considered that.
"Who is a non-user?" Facebook has become a very common thing. How big is the sample set of non-users compared to users? Is there any relevant personality trends that run through those who refuse to use Facebook?
With the proliferation of online degrees and most people moving their social interaction to social networking sites, college may soon be an extension of Facebook. 50 years from now Facebook University may be the most prestigious college in the United States. I don't know if I'm being funny or insightful, but all of a sudden I feel depressed.
You really expect those Facebook using clowns to cop to their 1.8 GPA?
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
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.'
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Sounds like Facebook users have a future career in Marketing :-)
Scott Adams wrote the truth when Dibert was sent to the Marketing dept: "Marketing.....2 drink minimum"
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Okay, I'm an idiot and skipped the line which said that.
Yeah, this is slashdot! We demand cogent and intelligent arguments. We will ignore you if you have not read the article!
And furthermore...
I for one welcome our new facebook using overlords.
[signature]
This just in: People with social skills generally do worse in their education than people who have no life and study all the time.
It would appear that Karpinski is a heavy facebook user.
Facebook is simply doing its part to combat grade inflation! However I still think its losing...
...a new study has found that people addicted to meth have a harder time holding down a job than people who are not addicted.
C'mon, seriously? We needed a study to prove this? Give me a break.
Usually I can support a study if it would actually make a difference. Given the general level of ignorance and lack of common sense in young adults these days, this will have about as much of an impact as trying to convince them that texting while driving is bad.
Isn't getting lower grades in the US considered cool?
At least that's the image the rest of the world have, people who get higher grades are unpopular nerds, that always get trapped in the locker by the athletes and never have a date.
To me, this is the same question as "Does marijuana make you unmotivated, or are unmotivated people more likely to enjoy marijuana?" This is based on the unproven assumption that people who smoke marijuana tend to be unmotivated.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
I managed to kill a LOT of time during my first shot at college in the early 90's playing Super Tecmo Bowl, practicing for the dorms' Street Fighter 2 tournament, and hanging out on BBS's (I had one of three computers in the 150 room dorm). Had the intertubes and Facebook been around at the time I'd have been killing time on there. When it came down to it I was just unprepared for college so after getting kicked out at the end of my second year, I took a year off to work and learn how much minimum wage sucks, then went back for a second attempt with a better perspective and had no problem buckling down.
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
There is only so much time. You can prefer to improve your social skills (unfortunately completely ignored in schools, while just as important), or your logic, art or sports skills. :(
If I were 16 again, I'd definitely choose social skills. No reason in being the best programmer in the known universe, when your can't even procreate.
Even worse, when you are not the best one in the known universe. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
" '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."
Yep, this has been happening since there were college.
I remember during one semester my roomie and I were looking for anything to distract us from studying organic chemistry. That semester, I learned to juggle. We'd study a bit, then someone would reach for the oranges..and we'd start trying to juggle, throwing oranges to each other while doing it.
Hell...when it came time to study, even housecleaning seemed a better alternative at times.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I actually R'dTFA to check, and it doesn't seem to mention what the average grades are for the total population.
Saying "Facebook users get 3.0-3.5, non-users get 3.5-4.0" means something very different if the average is 3.25, versus if the average of all users is 3.75. Are facebooker users dumber than your average student, or are the few users who don't have a facebook account smarter than the average student?
Maybe their next study will involve slashdot users. If the correlation suggests no social skills = high GPA, then we must all have 4.0's right ???
3.14159265358979323...
Pity the study did not compare the grades of students who used other social network sites. It might possibly be that Facebook attracted people of lower learning ability than some other sites did. Studying those relationships could be interesting.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
Don't worry scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.
Squirrel!
Nice job there. You admitted you've never even seen the website and yet show complete derision for it and anyone who uses it. Obviously anyone who has a need for something like it is an idiot because they don't have the same needset as you. No sane person would ever have a need for pull type communication. We should all just talk face to face. Nevermind my brothers are both nearly a 12 hour offset from my timezone. Nevermind that my cousin spends months at a time under the world's oceans. I agree that MySpace has a crap setup leading to eye-burning layouts, but 110 million people disagree that push type communication is the only valid way to communicate.
Yep, if they can't even quote the basic statistics behind the study then it's obvious BS. I joined facebook recently, does that mean my grade rate will plummet ? That's a bit difficult when I've already graduated with honours.
Yes - you nailed it.
This is the same problem with studies that "show" that high-school/college graduates make more than dropouts. There are plenty of race-discrimination "studies" with the same problem.
One doubts the reliability of the study - after all, one of the investigators is on Facebook!
"Could it be that the same quiet kids in high school that kept to themselves, studied and did well in school, are the same kids that are less likely to get into anything with the word social in it? I think its just more likely that facebook attracts the social people who spend less time worrying about schooling, and shows no interest to the people who are brainy loners."
Many on slashdot will have pertinent experience here - from my own pointed experience it is obvious that loners are more desperate than they are uninterested about socializing. The "brainy loners" are going to be the ones who social networking fails. They seem very likely to be among the first who try to make Facebook work. Their nascent social networks will simply die on the vine.
The operative quote is not "correlation does not imply causation". The operative quote is "you can lead a horse to water, ..."
One doubts the reliability of the study - but if there is any validity here, it is likely that the most highly socially skilled individuals avoid gimmicks and build their own networks, extending their own influence over the world directly. Interpersonal skill is another type of braininess.
Like Hendrix said, "Gimmicks, here we go again, gimmicks man..."
students who play video games, students who watch too much tv, students who eat junkfood, students who do drugs, students who
stay up too late, students who listen to heavy metal...
i question not the correlation between facebook and GPA, but the correlation between GPA and overall intelligence.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Those GPAs are ALL above 'Dean's List' at Georgia Tech. I didn't use facebook at all during college (GT got it my freshman year, first expansion I think) and still didn't come close to a 3.5, or even a 3.0. I can't see how colleges give out an average GPA above a B. Are colleges turning into public schools and just giving people 'A's?
I busted my ass at Georgia Tech, took an average of 18+ hours, and graduated in 8 semesters in mechanical engineering (which is virtually unheard of, it is a defacto 5 year program for all engineering degrees) with a 2.2ish GPA. Which is really more of a testament of the classes I failed because I didn't have to pass them that semester to stay on track (and I didn't drop anything) and my NO HOMEWORK policy (which basically started me at a 'B' or 'C' in every single class I took). I also spent almost every weekend racing bicycles for Georgia Tech, and drinking copious amounts of beer.
But out of all the people I know who took engineering at Tech, I can only think of 2 who were even close to the 3.5 mark. And those are the only people who I know were above the 3.0 mark.
Maybe I just went to the wrong school. But everyone CAN'T get 'A's can they?
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
You do not get graded for social skills but for your ability to reproduce knowledge.
I'd hardly say that everyone using Facebook is an idiot! ;) It's always seemed to me that the uni folk use Facebook and those that dropped out in year x use bebo / myspace. YMMV :)
Almost everybody I know from my uni uses Facebook, it's pretty handy as an event reminder and for keeping in contact with everyone, much easier than keeping a list of emails, and I wouldn't call most of these people idiots!
Perhaps the Myspace comment stands though
Don't panic
The study raises questions about the emotional cost-particularly for the developing brain-of heavy reliance on a rapid stream of news snippets obtained through television, online feeds or social networks such as Twitter.
I have seen both myspace and facebook and would suggest that myspace is significantly worse than facebook in terms of crud. Of course youtube comments trump both of them.
'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.'
That fits my experience as a parent exactly. I've found that if you deny your children access to one distraction, they will just find another.
There very probably is a correlation. More socially active students are probably more likely to be on facebook, and probably get measurably worse grades.
But I don't imagine that academic rigor is the top priority at a school where the average student makes a 3.5-4.0.
-Peter
TAs and whoever else can warn that cramming does more harm than good and doesn't lead to long-term retention of the information, but most of the students don't want long-term retention of dates and other errata. They only have to actually pay attention to the review session (if available) and then cram for an hour and bam, they've got themselves a respectable score on an exam. And the rest of the time? Well, I guess they can just hang out on Facebook.
I don't think the use of facebook has anything to do with these stats. Look at the types of people on facebook. Who are you more likely to find with a facebook account? The guy you see at every college party or the kid who spends 6 hours a night in the library. Facebook has become a place for college students to invite people to parties, post photos from those parties and contact others trying to find out what happened the previous night at those parties. Don't believe me? Look through a few photo albums from Public University Students. Maybe instead they should do a study on how drinking effects GPA.
And seeing as he made everyone who played Daikatana his bitch, I presume at least some of them were female and so he had a chance at pro-creating. What you mean nobody but me played Daikatana?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Could you at least RTFSummary before spouting?
In other words, nobody is claiming that Facebook is causing bad grades (yet) and you are attacking a Straw Man.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, I completely agree with this. Facebook is a huge distraction, and I don't allow myself to check it at all during the work day.
Slashdot, on the other hand...if only I could stop checking Slashdot, I could get some real work done!
.
QFT. That said, I have a hard time believing the article simply because of the fact that, as a college freshman, I know literally no one at my school without a Facebook. We even know a few of the reclusive studying types and they also have Facebooks. There seems to not even be correlation, let alone causation.
More details on the study are available in this news item from OSU.
Many variables are not considered directly in the analysis (at least in the brief writeup). For example, the sample has more grad students than undergrads, and grad students were found to be less likely to use Facebook. But grad students are selected from academic high(er) achievers, and graduate courses are generally graded with a higher curve than undergrad courses. That alone could explain the correlation. So why do less grad students use Facebook? Perhaps age plays a role (since not so long ago, Facebook was targeted only at undergrads). Similar arguments could be made regarding STEM students, who are more likely to use Facebook, but (I suspect) are also more likely to have lower undergrad GPAs. It is very difficult to compare GPAs across disciplines without controlling for the mean GPA.
Where did they find enough college students who don't use Facebook to get an accurate data set?
Steal my band's record! Seriously,
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. A correlation only exists if one thing has an effect on the other. If it is a coincidence that only the "cool" "not-so-smart" kids flock to facebook and then claim 'hey the average grade of facebook users is poor', that is not a correlation, that is, using facebook is not effecting grades, its not studying that is the real cause! If you could prove that facebook itself causes significant grade discrepancies then there would be a correlation. A better title of this sensationalist crap article would be: "Study shows kids who goof off get worse grades than those who don't".
Wait until this hits the MSM: "Researchers warn: Facebook lowers grades!"
The article was well written and avoided the correlation/causation fallacy that so many socialtech studies (or at least their reports) fall into.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
I suppose that to really look at the correlation you'd have to look at a lot of schools as different trends will show up in different environments. Tech Schools versus Liberal Arts etc. On the other hand I have a friend who's very anti social, but also isn't really very interested in studying either.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
So I should use Flicker, message boards, IM, youtube, and email, instead of just using Facebook?
But maybe people who make better grades, on average, have less time to pursue more frivolous activities whether those be Facebook or pocket pool.
I'd put money on finding out that on average the members of virtually any activity that doesn't directly relate to getting better grades have lower gpa's then those people who spend most of their free time.....attempting to get better grades.
There's a reason why most of the students who are in the 3.5 and up range constantly joke about "having no life".
My GPA at college was 2.6 when I didn't waste time on slashdot. Now, my GPA at gradschool is 4.0 while I waste a bunch of time on slashdot. ...maybe opportunity loss?
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.
I've always been a brainy loner and my grades have sucked for just as long. Explain that with your bipolar argument.
Let me give you a hint: people who have bad grades are the people who realise grades don't matter, knowledge does.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nice job reading a bunch of stuff I didn't say into my post. I stated that I was going by evidence of other social networking sites that I have seen; several people have POLITELY disagreed with me, you had to be rude about it. (Based on the polite responses, I may go take a look tonight after work - the firewall here blocks it - as apparently it's considerably less idiotic than the social networking sites I have seen.)
I never said that "anyone who has a need for something like it is an idiot". I understand that other people have a different set of needs than I do. Social networking sites may be the best solution in some cases - I just can't think of any.
As for communicating with others in different timezones or those who are unavailable for long periods: E-mail will wait to be read until your brothers are awake; forum posts are always available and can be responded to; a personal blog would allow your submariner cousin to catch up what you've been up to when he surfaces.
Obviously there is a niche for social networking websites; I just don't understand the appeal of them, and I don't see how they could be a better solution for communicating with friends than other methods that were out before social networking sites.
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
I think you just made a really important point that needs to be modded up. (I'm going to settle for commenting instead though.)
A high GPA isn't everything... In fact, I'd argue that it's quite overrated.
A truly "well balanced" individual is quite likely someone who got at least "average" grades in school, while devoting a lot of time to social skills as well.
In the "real world", it's every bit as much "who you know" as "what you know" that determines your fate. If you happen to excel in a very specific area that's in high demand? Then yes, you might be able to get away with being a total "loner" and social misfit, while still earning a great salary. Even so, life shouldn't be all about the money.....
I don't doubt that some students waste too much time on Facebook. It's loaded with "fun but useless" stuff to do. (I'm still wasting time myself with this silly "Farm Town" game. It's like a really BAD Sim City or something ... but keeps you hooked because you have friends playing too who count on you to help tend their farms, etc.) But I still think no study of Facebook's impact on students would be complete without researching the possible GOOD it did some of them too? How many people got jobs with the help of Facebook contacts? How many were given useful advice that helped them with a project they were doing? Did anyone get venture capital money for a start-up business thanks to Facebook contacts and communications, perhaps?
Serious students are serious students. Kids who are just there to hang out and have fun will dick off whether it's on Facebook or at a kegger at the frat. Correlation != causality, etc.
rooooar
It wouldn't be surprising if people lied (or at least were mistaken) about their GPA. (Indeed this was something I didn't at first think about when I read the piece.) However, grade inflation is real. (Lots of data at that link.)
If those GPAs are on a four-point scale, the main thing this study tells me is that college is too easy.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
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).
For me, it's not about a "trendy service that I reject because I'm trendily un-trendy". A stupid idea is stupid whether it's trendy or not, and a good idea is good whether it's trendy or not. And in my opinion, sites that ONLY do social networking are stupid. (I also think Twitter - the great trend of the past month - is stupid.) Slashdot's friends/foes system is an awesome addition to this site - but none of us are on this site for the social networking aspect of it; we're all here because we want "news for nerds" and any social networking that happens is a bonus.
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
> students who spend more time enjoying themselves rather than studying might tend to latch onto the nearest distraction
;)
Wow. We never called it that. But we were told it we latched onto it too often we could go blind.
Bark less. Wag more.
I hate to actually bring it up, but the only place GPA really matters is getting a scholarship and keeping it. What the actual number is at the end of your program rarely matters. What does matter is your "networking" with others to get yourself a job. I'd think that the facebook crowd could in theory have better work related networking going on. It depends on if you socialized with various recruiters or folks from your major a couple of years ahead of you. Both sets could put you slightly ahead of others.
What I had to laugh at is that this thing makes a 3.0-3.5 seem like the end of the world. I'd actually think that the bulk of the grades in college would fall into that range! 3.25 was the cut off GPA for the scholarship that I had.
"Hours spend studying" is a useless metric. Teachers want to see 5 hours of studying multiplied by the number of classes that you are taken for you to get an A or B. I can tell you there were times that I spent that much, but I rarely needed to spend more than 5 hours a week total studying in college. I made it out with a 3.5 at the end. I can't tell you how much Quake, Red Alert or just time wasting that I spent back then. I'd actually want this divided up into smaller slices, and to see if this is actually true. I recall many folks flunking out after a single semester of college. If you made it through 3 semesters with your scholarship, you were likely to make it through all 4 years of college.
Dude... this is slashdot. Having a three-digit Facebook userID is like having 666 tattooed on your forehead, except less cool among the Satanist and counterculturalists.
I'm no real oldtimer (chips & dips was before my time), but sheesh... don't brag about a three-digit Facebook ID on slashdot lest ye wake the low UID slashdot dragons.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
71 undergrads and 43 grads, one university, nothing normalized for anything except hours on facebook and self-reported GPA.
It's hard to even pull that much since it appears that this is only a poster presentation.
I'd love to see a real study of 1000's of students from colleges and universities around the world. Even better, to also consider tools other than Facebook, but I'd settle for just the one tool.
I don't doubt that there is some potential for the results to be accurate but there's way too little information and way too many variables that haven't been taken into consideration. And the story is being picked up by the wire services as "proof" that social tools are harmful.
For me, it's not about a "trendy service that I reject because I'm trendily un-trendy". A stupid idea is stupid whether it's trendy or not, and a good idea is good whether it's trendy or not. And in my opinion, sites that ONLY do social networking are stupid. (I also think Twitter - the great trend of the past month - is stupid.) Slashdot's friends/foes system is an awesome addition to this site - but none of us are on this site for the social networking aspect of it; we're all here because we want "news for nerds" and any social networking that happens is a bonus.
I don't see how Facebook is any different from IM or email, other than the reasons I gave above (persistence, centralization). If one uses Facebook purely as a way to get in touch with friends, why are MSN and email un-stupid? I'm unconvinced you reject it for any reason other than its popularity and that it's cool to hate popular things.
'I'm just saying that there's some kind of relationship there, and there's many third variables that need to be studied.'
I think she's lying about not using Facebook.
Tell him you're studying a new art form that merges chaos theory with Feng Shui. He doesn't want to mess up your coding by disturbing your Chaos Qi, now does he?
The enemies of Democracy are
... while college students who use Facebook have GPAs generally ranging from 3.0 to 3.5, and college students who do not use Facebook generally have GPAs ranging from 3.5 to 4.0, those people who use MySpace don't have ANY GPA! They didn't bother attending college...
So perhaps my 3.88 gpa could have been a 4.0? Who cares! I'd rather have the ability to be somewhat social... Also, in my experience, the only people who didn't have facebook by the end of my college experience where those who were anti-social and/or very odd people.
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.
I would go further and suggest this relationship is utterly trivial. Wow, students with more time on their hands spend more time on Facebook. You would likely find a similar correlation between students who have lower grades and who spend less time studying and the number of movies students watch. They just plain have more time to do other stuff if they are not studying.
Currently hooked on AMP
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.
Oh, and the most useful thing is using it as an email address book. I know what Amy looks like, but can't remember if she's zx90238@some-university.blah, or drop_dead_gorgeous@hotmail.com (or .co.uk?), or if I even have her address.
I have an address book in GMail, and one in Thunderbird, but they're more difficult to sync, and take more effort to keep up to date.
The researcher discussed here says her findings have been exaggerated. See: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3711/does-facebook-lower-academic-performance-its-still-too-soon-to-say
In other news....
New study finds link between people who sit to pee and chance of winning the lottery. More at 9.
wasnt there an article somewhere where someone made a connection between pregnancy and time spent on video games? He was making a point that you can find a link to almost everything if you look hard enough.
Smoking cures cancer. Smoking also cures stupidity. check darwinawards . com for some stupid stuff
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.
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
I haven't RTFA (and I'm not about to), but if the summary is correct then the average GPA of all college students must be well above 3.0. Is this true nowdays, or am I missing something here? I know things have changed since my day, when a "B" grade meant "well above average," but this is ridiculous!
A follow-up article shows that users of the popular social networking site MySpace tend to have an even lower GPA (1.5-2.5), although results were skewed as most applicants weren't able to provide any complete, coherent thoughts.
The study also showed that many Facebook users were actually former MySpace users. Further research will have to answer the question: in terms of average GPA, are MySpace users bringing Facebook users down?
Users of 4chan not available for comment.
-David
Either you're also jesting in good fun, or my attempt at humor rattled your nest as it buzzed the tower ;)
As stated, what you wrote is quite obviously false. It is true, though, that a rather small minority of the people who have bad grades realise that grades matter little, and go for knowledge.
My GPA is 3.93, and I have Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter accounts, among others (/.??). Could I nab a 4.0 if I deleted my accounts? probably not. I use social networking sites to kill (non-study) time. Probably because I am one of those aforementioned people without a real social life. (Not really, I just happen to be 27, while all my peers are 18, so partying with them would be silly.) However, the article makes sense to me. I see people checking their Facebook accts all the time in class, under the guise of taking notes with their computer. These are the same people that complain that they failed the pop quizzes and that the exams are too hard. Everyday I am amazed at the number of people that have no desire to actually learn in college. How did they graduate high school??
"Trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to fish with a bowling ball." -- IndieTits
'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.
Facebook gives employers the ability to go online and quickly see whether the job candidate is easily distracted. Other kinds of distractions are more difficult to unearth, requiring such things as having the applicant piss into a cup.
Have gnu, will travel.
Maybe whoever posted this comment should have learned some basic reading skills. It was right in the summary - didn't even have to click a link. Attention all correlationisnotcausation tag lovers: repeating this phrase does not make you appear smart or interesting. The ability to parrot common criticisms of research studies does not actually make you smarter than the researchers.
...no two people are not on fire.
Almost everybody I know from my uni uses Facebook)
I've got two comp-sci professors friended on facebook and the entire honor's crew (who are required to have grades >=3.6) at my school is pretty active on it. The two friends I've got not on it (with awesome grades) aren't on 'cause they've got no time for yet another thing.
I'm wondering how the study was done, 'cause if the vast majority of facebook users have lower grades, it could just be 'cause the vast majority of students have lower grades. The outliers are interesting in that way, and I'd love to see the actual numbers. The non-users interest me in that respect, but I wonder if the school used in the study had any effect on the results.
open source modern art: laser taggi
I'm still waiting for the study that finds a link between high grades and financial success.
It seems to me, the more brains you have, the more the dumb people want to exploit you. Do you really think it matters whether some kid can regurgite a 3.5 or a 4.0 GPA ? Will that make our world less fucked up ? No. I'd rather have happy social technically-comfortable Facebookers than an arrogant pool of world-ending bookworms.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Perhaps you should re-read your dictionary. A correlation requires a bit more than a "statistical relationship". The relationship needs to be further quantified to include a relationship such that systematic changes in the value of one variable are accompanied by systematic changes in the other. Yes this is an internet message board, and yes you can propose the possibility. I am not upset, you seem to be more upset as you are the one swearing and ranting.
It's not a mess. It's my stack based chronological filing system.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A much more likely 'cause' for the result
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
You better have a damn good GPA, otherwise you have neither the social network nor the academic marks. From my own observation, often high intelligence individuals who are extremely focus on their works exhibit lack of interest in social matter, they prioritize it to be lower than their work.
I knew one of my physics classmates, who were the Gold Medal winner (top graduating students for academic achievement: highest mark in the entire University) doesn't have Facebook so obviously taking the sample size of college student who doesn't face a Facebook account would seriously skew the GPA result. Beside I doubt he has much time to spend elsewhere if he really wanted to understand quantum gravity.
I'm a casual curser. Though I admit that I am stymied by your persistence in being wrong.
Since you seem to have not clicked the link, allow me to paste the Merriam-Webster definition of correlation.
Note in particular that it doesn't say that there's a reason other than chance alone, simply that it's not expected on the basis of chance alone.
For someone who is bent out of shape over people not supplying adequate evidence to satisfy you, you have offered surprisingly little in support of your position. And you seem reluctant to address evidence placed before you. I've looked it up in four more dictionaries and have found nothing to support your position or to undermine mine.
-Peter
I am a casual curser too!
Since you insist:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=correlational+statistics
I digress, and apologize. I merely wanted to illustrate that the sensationalist title of "facebook users get lower grades in college" is an irresponsible claim, especially given the lack of detail in the reported "study". To claim that there exists even a casual relationship is difficult given the evidence provided, and that is just opinion for the record.
Fuckin' A.
Well, there you go. This is an interesting definition, in that it varies from the simple statistical definition, but doesn't go as far as causality. I would propose that it isn't as useful as the more common definition I have been working under. I don't understand the value in getting away from the pure observational nature of the more general definition.
If you want to get into a discussion of responsibility in Science journalism you'll get much less argument out of me ;-)
-Peter
I'm in the local coffee shop a lot. And I can sit in the back and see that at any given time, half or more of the student's computer screens have facebook on them. Personally I only got FB after I needed the developers API. (To develop a FB app for said coffee shop). At first I was on it a lot since suddenly I was in contact with a lot of people I've not heard/seen about in a decade.
But now, I usually check FB on my iPhone once in the morning, once in the afternoon browse the news and answer any PM's and that's about it.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Hmm, maybe not. You appear to be the first commentor to that effect. The tags preceed your post in the text flow, but maybe they can be added after commenting has begun? Then you wouldn't be redundant, but the tag would..
Anyway, correllation is not causation probably is meant to convey that using Facebook may not cause lower grades in college.
That's funny. Maybe it's just that users of Facebook are stupid. Then it would be their stupidity causing them to both get poor grades in college, and also to use Facebook.
...
For me, it is a more useful definition and here is why. For two variables to be truly correlated is to say that one thing (specifically that thing) causes a change in another, in this case, the act of using facebook causes an individual's grades to drop. That is a strong statement. Watering down the definition leads to less rigor in the process of determining cause and effect. Keeping the more stringent definition is a reminder that in order to have a valid analysis all variables need to be carefully identified and controlled to prove there is even a casual relationship.
The more stringent definition becomes really important in things like pharmaceutical research where one wants to determine the correlation between a drug and a reaction in the body. If using a drug by ingesting 1 8oz glass of water with a pill showed the desired effect one might say there is a correlation. If the reality is that it is the 8 oz of water causing the change then there may be a false report of correlation. Keeping the strict definition in mind we must, as scientists, remember that we need to isolate the variables in order to really prove the existence of any relationship.
My opinion is that the whole facebook thing is just a form of goofing off and that it is not the act of using facebook specifically that causes a drop in grades, only that goofing off causes a drop in grades. You could replace "facebook" with "watching the simpsons" and may observe the same thing, ergo, I still question whether there is even a casual relationship.
Seriously, its all about networking folks.
Think Deeply.
I have a high GPA and I choose not to use Facebook because I don't trust the company and dislike many aspects of its structure. Perhaps the correlation is along the lines of the smartest people being the ones who avoid it? (Not to brag of course.) Of course, I don't have a stellar social life, either.
This news gives parents of high schoolers an additional reason (at a minimum) to monitor and place time limits on social networking.
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
Karpinski emphasized that correlation does not equal causation
I stopped reading the summary here and checked the tags. Sure enough, it's tagged correlationisnotcausation. Way to be predictable, Slashdot. >_>
IMO, they should have done a more broad study - do these facebook users who get lower grades also do other stuff on the web? These non-facebook-users who get 10 more hours of study done than the users: do they use the Internet for anything other than email, Google, and research?
The people who did the study even acknowledged that there's a ton of third variables that need to be checked. As it stands, this looks like just one big slam against facebook.
I have a facebook account, but I am WAY more addicted to /. and GameFAQs than I am to writing the most random crap for blurbs to use to "update my status". My lack of study isn't facebook. It's /. and gfaqs.
This story isn't even news until there's something significant worth reporting, instead of just trying to make one company look bad.
P.S.: "many third variables" is the worst way they could possibly have phrased that, I think. There's no fourth or fifth or nine-thousandth variable? They're all #3? Whatever, I think I got the point; I guess that's all that matters.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
I'm getting straight C's due to my regular slashdot usage.
fun
The news should be "Internet Users Get Lower Grades In Highschool and College". My grades were in an inverse ratio proportion with my bandwidth.
Slashdot Users Get Lower Intimacy Relationship In General
*ducks*
Yet another stereotyping at work