On Leiter's discussion of grad students and social media

I'd like to comment briefly on Brian Lester's discussion of whether graduate students should use social media. I've been thinking about it the past several days, and a facebook post by Rachel McKinnon and this 2011 NewAPPS post by Mark Lance really crystalized my thoughts about it.

In his post, Leiter addresses a graduate student who asks whether it is strategically good idea for grad students to be on social media. Brian's answer is that grad students should avoid social media, as first impressions are "sticky." Although, in full disclosure, I do not have a tenure-track job myself, I have a few thoughts on the issue I would like to share: a couple of thoughts first about the strategic question, and then another thought about a broader personal question. 

First, Lance makes an interesting counterpoint to Brian's point about first impressions being "sticky."  As Lance points out, when it comes to the job market, you're not looking for a "good batting average" (lots of interviews); you're looking for a home run (to impress at least one search committee so thoroughly that they will want to hire you).  Provided you don't behave totally inappropriately, getting yourself out there and being yourself would seem to be a better way to hit the proverbial home run than playing it safe and staying away from social media. Assuming that first impressions do indeed "stick", as Leiter claims, I think (and so does Mark) that (A) you can't try to be everything to everyone, and (B) if you are authentically yourself, chances are you will make a good impression on someone just being yourself. As Rachel writes,

This post from a couple years ago was linked in the Leiter thread on social media/public image. I think it bears reading, for a couple reasons. One of them is that I think Mark's entirely right that while taking a stand on some (relativelycontroversial) topic may alienate some potential employers, it may make one a stronger candidate to others. And since the odds of getting a job are bad enough as it is, alienating a few but endearing oneself to others is probably a big net gain. 

I myself had experience with this. I wrote some high profile pieces in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and I was shopping around a paper on stereotype threat/attributional ambiguity and trans issues (which is *not* my primary research focus) which was making some waves in various (often feminist) circles. Huge risk...but I think big rewards. 

While rumour has it that this acted against me at the voting stage (though not explicitly raised during discussions) for one job, I know that this work had a positive impact for other positions (one of which I eventually pulled out of to take the job I'll start next year).

Similarly, as K. Pogin writes,

Amen. I've been warned multiple times in various contexts that I could be committing career suicide. If that ever turns out to be right, I'll be better off elsewhere anyhow.

Second, I'm just not sure that first impressions are nearly as "sticky" as Leiter makes them out to be. For example, I think when I was a grad student, I came across for a long time as a very closed-off and insecure -- but I think I've grown a lot since then, and I think (or at least hope!) that I make a very different impression on people today. And I know other, far more successful people than I who had middling reputations in grad school at best. None of this stopped them, or prevented them from getting jobs. Provided you don't say overtly inappropriate (e.g. racist, sexist things), you can always reinvent yourself, grow, and make a new impression on people. 

Finally, I would like to suggest that although the job market is tough, it can be bad for the soul to operate from a place of fear, staying off of social media out of a strategic concern for one's reputation. I think many people in our discipline have an absolutely stultifying preoccupation with looking good to everyone that results in a culture of fear and self-censorship. For a while in grad school, I lost my love for philosophy. Why? It wasn't any problem with my grad program (which was great).  It was the overall climate of the discipline that got to me: I grew sick and tired of "walking on eggshells" all the time -- of always worrying about "saying something stupid" that might make me look bad. I don't know if "always watching what you say", or staying off of social media, will help you get a job. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But what I am pretty sure of is that it is incredibly oppressive. And I know I couldn't go on living that way. So, I say -- with Mark and Rachel, I think -- just be yourself. Maybe some people won't like you, but some probably will. Have faith in that.

Comments

[elisa freschi]

Still, Leiter's comment may have some utility when it comes to the following point:
Many of the Facebook-natives (i.e., of the people ---mostly younger than I am:-)--- who have been growing up with Facebook) just do not realise that it might be possible to be in a relationship without announcing it on FB, to have a great photo of oneself wihtout posting it, to conceive a random thought on something without putting it down on one's status and so on. These people might post their photos and, more embarassing, their thoughts while drunk and might end up regretting it the day after (this attitude has nothing to do with the appeal to be oneself and not be coward).

To all of them, it might be safe to recommend an increased caution: wait 5' minutes before posting whatever comes to your mind. OR, even better (in my opinion): Have a distinct profile for your friends and for your colleagues and post whatever you feel like only on the first one.

Personally, I try hard not to be negatively biased by anyone's opinions on controversial issues, as long as they are philosophically argumented, whereas I would probably not be able to avoid being negatively impressed by sheer superficiality. Would not you?

[Rachel]

That's more of a comment on *how* to use Facebook and social media, not on whether one should use it at all. Brian was essentially advocating a ban, rather than diligence. The effect of such a policy would be to produce a rather bland public persona. Mark Lance's point, as well as mine, is that you don't *want* to be bland and "safe."

[elisa freschi]

@Rachel, I personally agree with your point (why would I blog and comment whenever I think I can contribute if I would not?), but was trying to address the initial point, i.e., the question raised by Leiter's blog's reader and Leiter's answer (while thinking of the recent discussion re. sexting and the intelligent comment that it is difficult to make younger people aware of the fact that what X did was "morally wrong" since they do it all the time).