But wouldn't the chapters have gotten a picture of her with her rec anyway? Those are more likely better photographed/lit than her pictures on FB.

No one, no matter what the situation, should feel compelled to have a Facebook page - private, public, or at all. That's what the OP's question was, not how to clean up her page.

This. I made a post about recruitment on Tumblr and a sophomore in a sorority found me and then facebook stalked me through the "class of 2015" page. And that's just with knowing my school and first name. :/

I just reread your post. We don't get pictures with the applications like we used to and we get very few recommendations at our school. We use facebook to figure out sometimes who it is the girls have talked to especially if there are 5 Megan Smiths going through!

Ha, I probably should have said application, but as far as using it as a rationale for the poster-making as TD was, you are probably screwed without recs anyway at that kind of rush, so it's a moot point.

Sometimes, sometimes not. For example, while your prom picture is gorgeous, it there can be a huge gap between that and your look when you walk through our door.

The same could be said about default photos on FB. I know several people on FB who don't bother changing their defaults simply because they prefer using ones where they look the most flattering...even if it means using the photo taken in 2008 at your high school banquet.

Saw a story on CNN this morning while I was working out with warning about employers using facebook as an additional part of background checks....

How?

This is my question with all of this. How can you assume something from a site on a computer, with no concrete evidence? Just because I choose to join a group called "How To Rob A Bank" it doesn't mean I have the slightest intention of robbing a bank, or that the police wouldn't be wasting their time in the extreme asking me about the latest bank robbery.

It's all starting to be a rewind of when in the 1950s if you were a member of any union, left-wing group or anything with "peoples" in it, you must be a Communist.

At the university where I'm a chapter advisor, the Panhellenic President sent out a stern message last week re. our school's "Class of 2016" FB site, expressing concern from the Exec. Council about FB, and sorority members communicating with PNMs publicly through the site over the past month. The Exec is viewing many of the posts as "dirty rushing". I think posts on FB can affect both sides negatively during Recruitment. I think I'd just stay away for the duration, because everyone is checking....

If I saw that on a totally public page, I wouldn't think "She's a bank robber." But I would think, "This person doesn't have good judgment about how to present herself to the world." In my industry, good judgment about appearing professional to clients and protecting our brand is essential. The Facebook page would be a real negative factor for that candidate.

This reminds me of what my sister was told when she was in college. This was also WAY before Facebook, but she attended the Disney College of Knowledge, and in her lectures, the students were told to take any cutesy crap off their answering machines. Even if you are such a Disney fan that you go work there for a summer for basically free, you should NOT put some Mickey Mouse voice on your machine. They want professionals. If Disney doesn't think it's funny, what is IBM or Deloitte going to think? I think the advice can be extrapolated to Facebook and the bank robber comment above. Are you a bank robber? Probably not. Are you a goofball who won't be a dependable, responsible grown up? Maybe. It's not about facts; it's about impressions.

I'm so sick of this bullshit, that how you appear is more important than what you do. It might be about "professionalism" on the face of it, but as I said, I believe it's quickly going down the tunnel to outright discrimination that can be explained away with bullshit reasons.

I truly envy my graphic designer/IT friends who can be the surliest sons of bitches on earth, can have any internet presence they want and no one cares - because it has NOTHING to do with how they actually DO their job. We're getting away from that more and more and it's pathetic.

/rant

I'd also like to throw out there that this social media checking goes both ways. Polly PNM might be trying to check out Jane XYZ's info on FB to find out more about her group. If you're puking into a trash can in your bra & panties...it can be seen as representative of your group.

I know many groups have a social media monitor, but it's always good to be mindful of representing your own group.

In the legal industry, if Googling your name leads to tweets about getting wasted and the aforementioned image of you puking in a trash can, you will not get hired. We don't care what you do on your own time; we care that you put it on Twitter with your real name. Lawyers are entrusted with billion-dollar secrets. They advise clients about what to reveal and what to hide. We're looking for people who understand how to make good choices about what's fit for public consumption. If I were hiring file clerks for a construction company, I probably wouldn't care about one's sense of discretion, but legal jobs are another story.

I don't believe that's equivalent to discriminating against political minorities, nor a smokescreen for the same. Donating money to a widely disliked candidate (whether Bachmann or Sharpton) won't raise an eyebrow in our industry.

Uh...how you appear has been important long before the Internet existed. Same shit, different toilet. The Internet has simply given easier access to people's stupidity. The onus is on the employee/GLO aspirant/applicant and not the employer/GLO/school or company.

If people are so butthurt over that, they can do whatever the hell they want and deal with the consequences. It isn't about discrimination but rather about how everyone doesn't need to know your life: what's on your mind and what you are doing. However, if people choose to put their lives on the Internet they are relinquishing complete control over who accesses the info and how the info is interpreted. Such is life. Wooptywoop.

Do you really believe that? It simply hasn't been used against them YET.

I shall use a Criminal Minds example because I find it amusing. Penelope Garcia was able to live off of the radar and do all sorts of things on the Internet. Then the government discovered her and forced her to work for them. After that, her FBI bosses found her playing Internet games and she got in trouble for the implications of her Internet games. Long story short, shit catches up with people. Sure, you can say "it's my life, it has nothing to do with YOU" but you can't control what people do with the information. And discrimination claims are extremely rare because they are difficult to prove--plus, many people are full of shit when they claim discrimination on such grounds.