I just read an article that drew some correlations between grades and Facebook use. The gist was that students who used Facebook were typically a 1/2 letter grade below students who didn’t. You can check out the article here.

The really difficult thing about assessing these types of claims is that many angles have not been covered BEFORE the “results” are released. Yes, the writer makes it abundantly clear that she has no slant and that their is more to study, but why make the claim if you have to disclaimer it into oblivion? It’s akin to the tv show COPS showing a man chased down by a small battalion of officers who then beat the mass out of him while cuffing him and then running the disclaimer, “All suspects are innocent till proven guilty.”  Guilty as sin!!

Imagine the legions of overzealous parents that have now banned Facebook in their households to their children’s disbelief.  They’ve relegated Facebook usage to second shift after Saturday morning cartoons, if anyone still watches them. Kids will be forced to Facebook in dark desolate alleys.  What really bothers me about these studies is in many instances their is no historical context give for the subjects that are included. In other words, were these individuals already performing below non-Facebook students prior to the study? Were their study habits filled with other tasks?

Granted, I haven’t taken any master’s level statistics, or even undergrad level coursed. But I smell a rat. Interesting article, I just hated the dangling connotation.