Top Law Schools

I've heard word that Adcomms Google/Facebook stalk you, especially if you're on the border of being accepted/non-accepted. Any truth to this?

...

manu6926 wrote:Unless you mean TTT, I don't think they have any time for that.

Actually, there's been evidence of TLS stalking by Stanford, Michigan, and Vandy, and those are only the ones I know of. So it definitely happens.

Danger Zone wrote:

manu6926 wrote:Unless you mean TTT, I don't think they have any time for that.

Actually, there's been evidence of TLS stalking by Stanford, Michigan, and Vandy, and those are only the ones I know of. So it definitely happens.

This argument takes for granted that

a. stalking is unequivocally happening on various levels
b. Stanford Vandy, and, Michigan are thee only schools stalking
c. TLS stalking is the only form of adcomm stalking
d. evidence exists that stalking is happening
e. evidence is there w/o citing evidence

Correct Answer: e

cite source, please.

Use the search function retard.

Its more like they are already on here anyway and sometimes put two and two together. If you think adcoms aren't watching the c/o thread then you're mistaken. I know people personally and on here who've been outed by deans of admission, and have also heard a dean of admission from a T20 say that he "browses TLS on my lunch break."

also,

Pneumonia wrote: Quit being insufferable.

manillabay, a number of regular posters here have reported that adcomms at their schools have talked to them about their TLS posts - that is, they knew that the student (or applicant) was posting here and under what account (WUSTL as well as the previously named schools). I don't know how this translates to Google/Facebook stalking, but I'm sure the latter happens too (especially since it's easier than matching an account here with an applicant. Not that the latter's very hard, either).

A. Nony Mouse wrote:manillabay, a number of regular posters here have reported that adcomms at their schools have talked to them about their TLS posts - that is, they knew that the student (or applicant) was posting here and under what account (WUSTL as well as the previously named schools). I don't know how this translates to Google/Facebook stalking, but I'm sure the latter happens too (especially since it's easier than matching an account here with an applicant. Not that the latter's very hard, either).

wtf in what context?

I know people who have posted w/r/t choosing between X school and Y school, and had adcoms contact them outside of TLS to discuss their questions/throw $ their way/etc.

james.bungles wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:manillabay, a number of regular posters here have reported that adcomms at their schools have talked to them about their TLS posts - that is, they knew that the student (or applicant) was posting here and under what account (WUSTL as well as the previously named schools). I don't know how this translates to Google/Facebook stalking, but I'm sure the latter happens too (especially since it's easier than matching an account here with an applicant. Not that the latter's very hard, either).

wtf in what context?

WUSTL adcomms knew who we were at ASW, tls username and all.

..

sublime wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:

james.bungles wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:manillabay, a number of regular posters here have reported that adcomms at their schools have talked to them about their TLS posts - that is, they knew that the student (or applicant) was posting here and under what account (WUSTL as well as the previously named schools). I don't know how this translates to Google/Facebook stalking, but I'm sure the latter happens too (especially since it's easier than matching an account here with an applicant. Not that the latter's very hard, either).

wtf in what context?

WUSTL adcomms knew who we were at ASW, tls username and all.

But they were cool about it. Ad is
180

Oh yeah, I mean honestly I found it to be really funny. It makes complete sense for them to do if they have the time, and I don't think many people would need to worry about it.

OP, just assume that they do check fb and google you. Clean all of that up. Even if they don’t, you should make sure that your online presence is positive.

Somewhat off topic, on my first day of class this quarter my professor asked who had googled him. It was a 50 person class and a little over half the class raised their hand. He then went on to take out a stack of papers and exclaimed that “well, I googled all of you... lets see what I found.” He would call out a student’s name, have them raise their hand, and then started spitting out facts about them.

I thought it was awesome, hilarious, and a great way to emphasize that you should always be aware of your online presence.

dd235 wrote:OP, just assume that they do check fb and google you. Clean all of that up. Even if they don’t, you should make sure that your online presence is positive

too late

If you deactivate Facebook can they still see your pictures and prior posts?

redbull12 wrote:If you deactivate Facebook can they still see your pictures and prior posts?

no..

manillabay wrote:

redbull12 wrote:If you deactivate Facebook can they still see your pictures and prior posts?

no..

Ok.

redbull12 wrote:

manillabay wrote:

redbull12 wrote:If you deactivate Facebook can they still see your pictures and prior posts?

no..

Ok.

Just make your profile private and change your weird ass prof pic. Do that regardless in fact.

manillabay wrote:

Danger Zone wrote:

manu6926 wrote:Unless you mean TTT, I don't think they have any time for that.

Actually, there's been evidence of TLS stalking by Stanford, Michigan, and Vandy, and those are only the ones I know of. So it definitely happens.

This argument takes for granted that

a. stalking is unequivocally happening on various levels
b. Stanford Vandy, and, Michigan are thee only schools stalking
c. TLS stalking is the only form of adcomm stalking
d. evidence exists that stalking is happening
e. evidence is there w/o citing evidence

Correct Answer: e

cite source, please.

Try this one:

A Flaw in the above argument is that it

A) Cites what is likely an unrepresentative sample
B) Assumes what it sets out to prove
C) Mistakes a necessary condition for one that is sufficient
D) Mistakes a lack of evidence of something for evidence of a lack of something
E) Assumes without warrant that Adcoms at top schools have comparably less free time
F) All of the above

Correct Answer: (F) All of the above!

Answer Key:

A) Argument mentions just three schools, 'nuff said...

B) Argument Core: "There exists evidence of stalking, therefore stalking definitely occurs." (No supporting "evidence" is offered)

C) "If Adcoms are not stalking, they have little time to do so" DOES NOT LOGICALLY EQUATE TO "If Adcoms have little time, they are not stalking".

D) Implies lack of evidence that most non-TTT schools would stalk

E) Self-explanatory...offers no evidence supporting disparate schedules between TTT schools and non-TTT schools

A. Nony Mouse wrote:manillabay, a number of regular posters here have reported that adcomms at their schools have talked to them about their TLS posts - that is, they knew that the student (or applicant) was posting here and under what account (WUSTL as well as the previously named schools). I don't know how this translates to Google/Facebook stalking, but I'm sure the latter happens too (especially since it's easier than matching an account here with an applicant. Not that the latter's very hard, either).

If they are ever caught using unsubstantiated information AGAINST applicants, they could be in trouble. There are already states prohibiting employers from requiring that applicants give their accounts and passwords because of flawed information as well as "privacy" concerns.

Courts have recently found that, where media platforms purport to endow their users with various levels of privacy, social media users have reasonable expectations of privacy (ex. Facebook).

Although social media is theoretically "public", accounts can be made up by impostors. I can see a class action lawsuit coming, where the outcome is a court requiring that adcoms advise students explicitly (in advance) that they will seek extraneous information about them by perusing social media, etc. If applicants then want to block/close their accounts, they should be free to do so.

As of now, students have no reasonable expectation that Adcoms will use such info, and they have no way to guarantee that schools are viewing authenticated accounts and reading posts by applicants instead of impostors.

Another problem is the faulty technology used by some sites. Comments and posts can be attributed to the wrong posters because of distortion a caused by pop-ups, etc. Adcoms need to be upfront with applicants if they want additional information.

It could also expose schools to discrimination suits. It's one thing to seek demographic information on applications (for diversity purposes), but it's quite another to deny seats because of political beliefs/affiliations or perceived lack of physical beauty.

I guess no one remembers Dean Pless then

You get caught with ONE prostitute and everyone forgets your name

Re PDaddy's post - I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what adcomms do, just relaying what people here have reported. Obviously a private Facebook account is one thing, but I'm not sure applicants have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they post here or on sites covered by Google. And while it would likely be illegal discrimination to use some info (such as race, ethnicity, religion), I don't think "being an ass on the internet" constitutes a protected class.

Which is just to say that people should think about their posting here and elsewhere as public, because it is. (The lounge isn't captured by Google and isn't accessible unless you're a registered user and logged in, but there's nothing stopping an adcomm from making an account. I don't know that anyone's had adcomms talk about their lounge posting as opposed to their on-topic posting, though.)

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Re PDaddy's post - I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing what adcomms do, just relaying what people here have reported. Obviously a private Facebook account is one thing, but I'm not sure applicants have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they post here or on sites covered by Google. And while it would likely be illegal discrimination to use some info (such as race, ethnicity, religion), I don't think "being an ass on the internet" constitutes a protected class.

Which is just to say that people should think about their posting here and elsewhere as public, because it is. (The lounge isn't captured by Google and isn't accessible unless you're a registered user and logged in, but there's nothing stopping an adcomm from making an account. I don't know that anyone's had adcomms talk about their lounge posting as opposed to their on-topic posting, though.)

I don't think "being an ass" on the internet is reflective of a person either..

You would say that Manilla. And can we stop wasting everyone's time with this nerdy LSAT bullshit? You're free to look it up for yourself on these forums, but I've seen three separate incidents where people have reported being contacted by the office of admissions regarding their TLS posts, and thought it would be helpful to relay that to you. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. It's no skin off my ass.

Danger Zone wrote:You would say that Manilla. And can we stop wasting everyone's time with this nerdy LSAT bullshit? You're free to look it up for yourself on these forums, but I've seen three separate incidents where people have reported being contacted by the office of admissions regarding their TLS posts, and thought it would be helpful to relay that to you. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. It's no skin off my ass.

I never indicated I didn't believe you. I actually am the one who stated that I had heard of Google/Facebook stalking. So your arguing against the mirror. I just wanted to see what you were referring to. I don't know how to look something like that up, either. I'm not a google search expert, sorry.