University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Digital semiotics and dimensions of student fit: how online reputation and e-pinion influence college admission

(USC Thesis Other)

Digital semiotics and dimensions of student fit: how online reputation and e-pinion influence college admission

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 1

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT:

HOW ONLINE REPUTATION AND E-PINION INFLUENCE COLLEGE ADMISSION

by

Arnold Laanui, Jr.

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Arnold Laanui, Jr.

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 2
Dedication
I dedicate this work to my beautiful wife, amazing children, loving parents, devoted teachers and
inspirational students.
“If you see nothing, if you say nothing, if you do nothing, you will be - nothing.”

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 3
Acknowledgements
An effort of this magnitude could not have been attempted, much less completed, without
the support of many others over the course of many years. I would like to thank my high school
sweetheart and wife, Paulette, for her never ending patience. In particular, I'd like to thank her
for allowing me to pursue my passions and supporting my aspirations, not only for this endeavor,
but past exploits and the adventures yet to come. I'd also like to acknowledge my children,
Tabatha, Alana and Dylan, who inspire me to be a better father, better teacher, better student and
better person.
I'm also grateful to the following who contributed in infinite ways to my development as
a lifelong learner:
 to my mother - who taught me to type and edit and always nurtured my writing,
 to my father - who taught me to stare down adversity,
 to Grandma Agnes - who taught me that God helps those that help themselves,
 to Uncle Johnny - who taught me that theories can't heat your water, but
practicality and ingenuity will,
 to Sister James Therese - who taught me that educators are farmers of the future,
 to every coach - who taught me that pain is merely weakness leaving the body,
 and to Greg - who taught me to seize each day. Carpe diem brother.
Thank You. I could not have done this without you touching my life.
I'd also like to thank the faculty of the University of Southern California and my
dissertation committee who have influenced deeply my understanding of the world and my role
in it. In particular, I'd like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Melora Sundt, Dr. Robert Rueda, Dr.
Monique Datta, Dr. John Pascarella, Dr. Julie Slayton and Dr. Brandon Martinez for their
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 4
support, wisdom and dedication to my learning. While on the topic of the “Trojan Family,” I'd
like to offer a special “Mahalo” to Dr. Thanh Truc Nguyen and Dr. Pua Higa who kindly
introduced me to U.S.C's Doctor of Education program and thankfully saw something in me that
I did not.
Last, and certainly not least, I'd like to express both gratitude and congratulations to my
fellow Ed.D. students in the 2011 Hawaii cohort. “Ma ka hana ka 'ike.”

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
Abstract 8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 10
Background: How Fiber Stitched Web 2.0 and Social Networks 12
Social Networks in Education 16
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 21
Methodology 21
Importance of the Study 22
Limitations and Delimitations to the Study 24
Definitions 27

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 29
The Growing Power of Online Identity 29
Human Capital and the Role of Signaling Theory 32
Signaling Theory and the Creation of Reputation 36
Online Reputations Impact on College Admission 38
College Admissions and the Evaluation of Online Reputation 42
Competence 45
Character 45
Social Capital: The Power of Reputation 47
Online Content 49
Signaling Theory as a Computational Model 53
Conclusion 60

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 62
Research Question 63
Methodology 64
Sampling and Population 66
Observations 69
Interviews 71
Document Review 73
Data Collection and Analysis 74
Data Collection 74
Instrumentation 79
Data Analysis 81
Limitations 83
Researcher Bias 83
Summary 87

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 6
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 89
Participant Demographics and Characteristics 90
Findings 94
Findings for Research Question 1 95
Summary: Research Question One 101
Findings for Research Question Two 102
Summary: Research Question 2 117
Results for Research Question Three 118
Identifying Student's For “Institutional Fit” 119
Investigating Allegations of Student Misconduct 125
Summary Research Question Three 130
Summary of Chapter Four 131

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER STUDY 133
Summary of the Findings 133
Limitations 140
Implications for Education 146
Implications for Privacy 150
Implications for Equity 153
Future Research 155
Research in the Area of College Admissions 156
Research in the Area of Predictive Analytics 157
Research in the Area of Digital Existentialism and Cyber Cartesianism 159
Conclusions 161

References 164

Appendix 187

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Percentages of Technology Use Amongst American Teens 14
Table 2: Google’s Free Services and Applications 17
Table 3: Participating Institution's Code, Region, Class and Ranking 68
Table 4: Meta-Themes and Coded Dimensions and Descriptors 82
Table 5: Interviewee Coding 91
Table 6: Table of Observation Types 143
Table 7: Table of Interview Types 144

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 8
Abstract
Every Fall, millions of graduating high school seniors apply for admissions to college.
While on the path to enrollment, college admissions officers across the country assess each
prospective student against their institution's criteria for admittance. As a rubric for assessing
college readiness and "fit," admissions officers have historically used a variety of cognitive and
noncognitive measures in their evaluation process. A review of the literature has revealed
abundant research on well-known student assessment tools to include standardized tests scores,
grade point averages, academic transcripts, personal statements, participation in extracurricular
activities, letters of recommendation, work history and volunteer service.
However, a recent wave of media reports allege that college admissions officers have in
increasing numbers used the Internet and social media to investigative prospective students.
Stories of such activity have prompted college hopefuls to scrub their online content by deleting
questionable posts and pictures. Some students have questioned the validity of such collegiate
practices and alleged that colleges and universities have chilled their right to speech and invaded
their privacy. To ascertain the scope of this alleged behavior, this study seeks to answer a) how
widespread the use of the Internet has become among these professionals, b) under what
circumstances do college admissions officers review web-based content and c) how college
admissions officers use digital data in the course of their work. To answer these questions, this
study draws on elements of signaling theory, human capital theory, and semiotics to form a
framework that best describes how college admissions officers interrogate the Internet and form
"e-pinions" of student candidates. This framework, collectively referred to as the "Four Cs,"
proposes that college admissions officers assess students based on their academic competency,
personal character, social capital and online content.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 9
As a qualitative study, elements from critical research and case study research have been
adopted and used to craft a study protocol that included field observations at select universities in
four states, a review of the Common Application, as well as unstructured and semi-structured
interviews of college admissions professionals from six high ranking colleges and universities.
The findings of this study suggest that online information and the e-pinions they generate
become highly relevant when assessing students for signs of campus "fit", validating
extraordinary student claims of achievement, reviewing supplemental data on an application, or
investigating allegations of online indiscretion or misconduct. The findings also suggest that
college admissions officers do not actively pursue online reputation as part of their normal
protocol, but "reserve the right" to exercise “due diligence” when applications warrant
confirmation from online sources. Lastly, the data of this study has revealed Google and
Facebook to be the dominant search engines for college admissions officers participating in this
study.

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In 2011, 3.1 million students graduated from high schools within the United States
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). That same year, over 2.1 million graduating seniors, or 68%
of the graduating class, applied for college admissions (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). As
part of their admissions process, colleges and universities have used a variety of performance
indicators as a means of evaluating prospective students and predicting academic success
(Rebbapragada, Basu, & Semple, 2010). Collectively, these indicators are referred to as
admissions requirements. Each year, high school seniors throughout the United States review
these admission requirements and submit millions of college applications with the belief that
they have met the bar for acceptance (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Prior to receiving their
acceptance letters, each student was evaluated by their institution's admissions department on the
merits of their application and past achievement.
Many of these requirements are well known and include a student’s grade point average
(GPA), scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or the American College Testing (ACT)
exam, academic honors, volunteer service, extracurricular activities and employment history
(Kagen, 2012; Rebbapragada et al., 2010). Other proxies for admission may also include high
school size, class rank, academic rigor, and letters of recommendation (Chang, 2006; Gilroy,
2007; Kagen, 2012; Rebbapragada et al., 2010) Colleges use these admission requirements as
indicators to predict preparedness and thus, the likelihood of collegiate success, for incoming
freshman (Chang, 2006; Gilroy, 2007).
In recent years, news articles and surveys suggest that the Internet and social media are
playing an increasingly important role in college admissions (Hechinger, 2008a; Luckerson,
2012; Mills, 2012). Some of these significant roles are well known. For example, in 2009,
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 11
approximately 85% of students applying to a four-year college and university applied online via
the Internet (Clinedinst, Hurley, & Hawkins, 2011) Additionally, universities and colleges have
been using the Internet and social media for years to supplement their recruitment of students
(Chang, 2006; Rebbapragada et al., 2010), to identify prospective students who may drop out
after enrollment (Parry, 2012a; Rampell, 2008), and to improve the collegiate learning
experience (Luan, 2002; Parry, 2012b). Lastly, a growing number of college admission officers
have advised that they use the Internet and social media as part of the student review process. In
2011, 20% of college admission officers admitted to “Googling” prospective students (Kaplan
Test Prep, 2011). One year later, this number grew as 27% of colleges acknowledged the use of
Google during their applicant review process (Kaplan Test Prep, 2012b).
Relevant literature on the predictability of collegiate success has explored a variety of
non-cognitive measurements to include research in the areas of high school activities and
accomplishments (Davey, 2010), student leadership and community involvement (Noonan,
Sedlacek, & Veerasamy, 2006), athletic success and participation in sports (Sedlacek & Adams-
Gaston, 1992), academic self-efficacy (Robbins et al., 2004) and positive self-image (Noonan et
al., 2006; Robbins et al., 2004). A review of the literature has also revealed the existence of
various questionnaires and assessment instruments that measure personality and character traits
as predictors of success (Noonan et al., 2006; Sternberg et al., 2010). However, given the
exponential growth of the Internet and rapid rise of social media, there are no known research
studies that have examined digital presence or online reputation as a predictor of collegiate
success at the time of this writing. This study will focus on how college admission officers use a
candidate's online reputation as a predictor of collegiate success in the college admission
process (Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Lenhart et al., 2011).
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 12
Background: How Fiber Stitched Web 2.0 and Social Networks
Toward the end of the 20
th
century, fiber optic networks began to revolutionize
communication by exponentially expanding the bandwidth of the Internet (Cormode &
Krishnamurthy, 2008). With this expansion, Internet users were able to conduct research online
and publish their findings at an unprecedented level (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Cormode &
Krishnamurthy, 2008). With the ubiquity of personal computers and the expansion of the World
Wide Web, Internet users for the first time were able to work in highly collaborative online
environments (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). These environments soon evolved from self-
published blogs and photo sharing sites to social media sites populated by billions of users
around the world (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008; Solove, 2007). By the early 2000s, these
newly deployed fiber optic networks afforded Internet surfers an entirely new experience through
a dramatic increase in network bandwidth, upload speed, and geographic penetration. In addition
to using the Internet as a digital library and place to research data, web users began using the
Internet as an incubator for ideas and as a place to collaborate on projects (boyd & Ellison, 2007;
Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). Web-users became more connected than ever before and no
longer used the World Wide Web as a means of retrieving information; they now used “Web 2.0”
as a platform to publish information (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). With these changes,
Internet users were overnight transformed from a “consumer” of Internet information into a
“producer” of online content. As testimony of this transition, consider the millions of comments,
videos, photos and tweets posted to the Internet by teens each year (Rideout, 2012).
In recent years, the use of social networks amongst teens has skyrocketed. In a 2007 Pew
study, only 55% of American teens used a social networking site (Lenhart & Madden, 2007). A
few short years later, the use of social media by American teenagers grew by millions (Lenhart &
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 13
Madden, 2007; Lenhart et al., 2011). By 2011, the number of teen users of social networking
sites increased dramatically to approximately 80% of the American teen population (Lenhart et
al., 2011). Recent surveys indicate that 48% of 6
th
-8
th
graders now use some form of social
networking and 95% of all teens 12-17 years of age use the Internet
Lenhart et al., 2011; Project Tomorrow, 2012). With millions of teens using the Internet
and leaving both deliberate and unintentional traces of their activities online, online reputations
have become massive untapped reservoirs of information. These pools of personal data are
created by user posts as well as the posts and online activities of friends, family and associates.
Online reputations are massive reservoirs of information of an unprecedented scale, which can
provide intimate views into the lives of teens and college applicants.
Many teens report that they prefer face-to-face contact with friends and family (Rideout,
2012). However, when digital technologies became more ubiquitous, students rushed to various
web-based platforms as the perfect, low cost alternative to message boards and telephones.
Evidence of this shift was revealed in a 2012 survey conducted by Common Sense Media, that
demonstrated 90% of American 13- to 17-year olds have used online social media (Rideout,
2012). The same 2012 survey also revealed the following percentages of technology use amongst
American teens aged 13- to 17-years:

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 14
Table 1
Percentages of Technology Use Amongst American Teens
Digital Technology Percentage of use
Used any social media 90%
Texted 87%
Visited a social networking site 83%
Used email 77%
IM’d 63%
Used a video chat 59%
Text chatted in an online game 45%
Visited a Virtual World 35%
Headset chatted in an online game. 29%
Written/commented on a blog 28%
Used Twitter 27%
(Rideout, 2012)
It wasn’t long until highly collaborative online environments, began to populate the
Internet (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). By the turn of the 21
st
century, the public began to
distribute its growing corpus of digital content via new forms of online presence known as
“blogs” and “social networks” (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008; Solove, 2007). According to
boyd and Ellison [sic.], social networks are: “web-based services that allow individuals to:
(a) Construct a public or semi-public profiles within a bounded system;
(b) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and
(c) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the
system. (2007, p. 2)
At the heart of every social networking site is the public or semi-public profile page of
the individual user ). These profile pages allow users to publish information about themselves
and other users with similar interests. The public display of these connections and the ability to
leave messages on the web pages of individuals with similar interests plays a crucial role in the
collaborative nature of social networks (boyd & Ellison, 2007).
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 15
The recent and rapid growth of social networks is staggering as millions of worldwide
users have opened social networking accounts. Each day, countless petabytes (i.e. a trillion
kilobytes) of information are posted online to include over 4 billion videos streamed each day on
YouTube, over 462 million users of twitter, over 170 million Google+ users, and over 61 million
monthly users of Yelp (Smith & Kipp, 2012). In September 2012, Facebook reported in its
quarterly report that it has 1.01 billion users accessing its site each month (Associated Press,
2012). The technology industry has recently coined a phrase that describes this unprecedented
scale of web-based data, to include the cached network data of when, where, and how an
individual logs on. Tech companies have simply refer to this massive pool of information as
“big data” (Daysart, 2013; IBM, 2013; M. Madden, Cortesi, & Lenhart, 2012; O’Leary, 2013).
“Big data” is more than a reference to size and the search-ability of massive digital content. For
those able to collect and process this information, “big data” represented the opportunity to
uncover hidden trends, gain new insight and pursue answers to questions that were previously to
daunting to ask (Daysart, 2013; IBM, 2013; O’Leary, 2013). Additionally, built into the social
media experience are online reputation systems. These reputation systems vary according to the
nature and purpose of the site, but are ubiquitous across the social media experience (Dellarocas,
2010). For example, tumblr.com, a photo sharing blog site allows for user comments. Yelp.com,
a restaurant and service review site, employs simple user statistics and short posts. Xbox Live, a
gaming site, uses badges and ranking systems. User created profiles also serve as reputation
systems as they allow site visitors and participants to learn otherwise hidden elements of a user's
personality, characteristics and tastes (Dellarocas, 2010). The purpose of this study, therefore,
will be to investigate how the colleges use the Internet and social networks to learn a candidate's
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 16
online reputation and to explore the influence online reputation has on the college admission
process.
Social Networks in Education
With billions of users logging-on to “update their status” or “tweet”, it was inevitable that
the content of the Internet and the utility of social networks would dominate the discussion of
21
st
century learning ( danah boyd, 2010; Frangiosa, 2004; Pape, Sheehan, & Worrell, 2012). As
students rush to social networks as a means of communicating with friends, schools have been
rushing to the same online platforms as a collaborative learning tool and as an critical cost-
saving solution to more expensive forms of networking (Pape et al., 2012). Almost every school
has embraced the multitude of free online services to save funds and has integrated digital
technologies as part of their pedagogy (Iconis, 2003). Faced with shrinking revenues, growing
classrooms and shorter class time, educators have migrated en mass to online platforms and in
the process, have taken many students with them (Pape et al., 2012)). Students and educators
alike use web based applications, many with an online social nexus, to build distinctive learning
environments. Once online, students and educators may select from an endless number of
available applications to filter, assimilate, utilize and publish billions of pieces of online data.
For example, a prospective student may use Google and one of its many services
(http://www.google.com/edu/teachers/index.html) for school related activities as well as for
personal communication with family and friends. Google’s impressive list of free services is
made available at no cost and includes, but is not limited to, the following applications:

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 17
Table 2
Google’s Free Services and Applications
Service Corresponding Google Application
email gmail
online storage google docs
file sharing/collaboration google groups
maps google maps, google earth
calendars google calendar
telephone service google voice
online book google books
book analytics google ngram
3D modeling google sketchup
library searches google scholar
teacher/classroom web pages google page creator
photo sharing/editing picasa
video sharing youtube, youtube for teachers
online surveys google quiz and poll
blogging blogge
software design google code
Internet searching google search, google alert
web browsing google chrome
translation in 80 languages google translate
thousands of online applications chrome store

Many students using these applications enable socially oriented features on the site to
share new content, re-blog previously posted material, or invite public discourse and comments.
Thus, a significant part of an online reputation is the data trail that results when college candidate
uses one or more of these online services and its public sharing features.
Interestingly, most of the literature on the topic of social networks and the Internet has
focused around the meta-theories of privacy, prevention and pedagogy. When educators debate
the pro and con issues surrounding the use of social networks, discussions often turn on topics
related to digital content (i.e. what's shared online) and teaching methodologies (i.e. how content
is shared online). Learning institutions enter the discussion seeking a more secure online
environment free from hacking, harassment, pornography and copyright violations (Frangiosa,
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 18
2004). Students, on the other hand, argue for a more social, online environment with less filtered
content to conduct research, share information and collaborate with others (boyd & Ellison,
2007). There is, however, another discussion that centers on the discovery of a student’s online
reputation and the use of that digital presence as an unspoken secret within the college
admissions process (Luckerson, 2012).
Statement of the Problem
Since the rapid rise of social networks, online profiles have played a greater role in the
college admission process (Hechinger, 2008a). When you couple the vast amount of information
disclosed by teens and young adults on the Internet with the high stakes and cost of a college
education, it should come as no surprise that colleges have begun looking to the Internet as a
means of vetting prospective students (Cohen, 2011; Hechinger, 2008a; Lytle, 2011). As
evidence of this trend, a number of highly ranked universities have confirmed that they will not
hesitate to review a prospective applicant’s online presence as part of their admissions process
(Kaplan Test Prep, 2012a; Luckerson, 2012; Schaffer, 2013).
A 2008 survey of 500 top colleges and universities revealed that approximately 10% of
college admission officers review social networking sites as part of their evaluation (Hechinger,
2008a; McLaughlin & Vitak, 2011). However, the percentage of admissions officers reviewing
social media has been on a steady climb over the past few years. In 2011, 24% of college
admissions officers admitted to using social networks in the vetting process of their applicants
(Kaplan Test Prep, 2011). In 2012, the number of college admissions officers reviewing social
media rose to 26% (Kaplan Test Prep, 2012a). For the 2013-2014 collegiate freshman class,
31% of college admission officers admitted to using social media in the vetting process of their
applicants (Schaffer, 2013).
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 19
While the percentage of admissions officers using Google has risen by only a few
percentage points this year, what has proved poignant is the impact of derogatory information
discovered online. In 2011, the percentage of admissions officers who uncovered derogatory
information was only 12% (Kaplan Test Prep, 2011). In its 2012 survey, researchers at Kaplan
Test Prep reported that of those college admissions officers who did use Google and social
media, 35% uncovered information that negatively impacted a student's admission (Kaplan Test
Prep, 2012a). Furthermore, according to 2012 study released in the Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine, approximately 1/3 of high school teens and approximately 4/5 of college
students have sent a graphic “sext” (i.e. sent or received a sexually suggestive message or
transmitted a nude photograph or video of themselves via digital technology) to a partner or
paramour (Szalavitz, 2012). In light of these facts, it is believed that college admission officers
are using online reputations and big data to identify noteworthy students.
The use of online profiles to identify and validate applicants is even more profound at
professional schools, graduate schools and in competitive job markets. Of 265 MBA programs
surveyed in 2012, 32% reported Goggling applicants and 27% reported the use of Facebook to
learn more about the candidate (Kaplan Test Prep, 2012a). Of 123 law school programs
surveyed in 2012, 47% reported the use of Google and 36% reported the use of Facebook to
learn more about a prospective student (Kaplan Test Prep, 2013). Additionally, according to the
Journal of the American Bar Association, some law firms have begun to use “success metrics” in
algorithms that process online data to predict which job applicants show signs of becoming a
successful lawyer (Daysart, 2013).
Despite the decisive sound of these statistics, a thorough review of the literature revealed
that the multi-year Kaplan surveys were they only research instruments used to measure how the
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 20
Internet impacted college admission officers. Furthermore, in February 2013 and November,
2013, the primary research of this study contacted the researchers at Kaplan responsible for the
administration and analysis of their study. These individuals apprised this study that while 500
admissions officers received the 2012 survey, less than 300 responded. For both its 2012 and
2013, Kaplan was reluctant to share raw data regarding the type of respondents or demographics
of their responding institutions. Kaplan did, however, advise that they sent their survey to the
top 500 institutions of higher learning as listed in the U.S. News and World Report's Annual List
of Best Colleges in America. Thus, with only Kaplan’s annual surveys citied in the literature,
there is clearly a knowledge gap concerning the role online reputations play in the college
admission process.
This phenomenon presents a variety of unknowns regarding the formula that college
admission officers might use to include online reputation as a predictive model for collegiate
success. As alluded to earlier, in scenarios where derogatory information is discovered online,
very little is known about how college admissions officers intercept and interpret these discrete
facets of online presence. Important questions remain: exactly which students' online
reputations are being searched, what circumstances prompt a search for online reputations, how
are the elements of online reputation discovered, who in college admission gathers online
reputations, when in the application process are online reputations used, how comprehensive are
the search mechanisms to gather online reputations, how expansive and comprehensive is the
web search for online reputations, how skilled are the college searchers who gather online
reputations, how is an online reputation assessed for collegiate competence, value and/or risk,
what texts or pictorial representations are semiotics of collegiate competence, value or risk, who
interprets online reputations for signs of competence, value or risk, and how are online
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 21
reputations being used vis-à-vis more traditional indicators of collegiate success like GPAs,
SATs, application essays and student interviews?
Purpose of the Study
With millions of students seeking to enroll in college each year, research is needed to
identify the factors most likely to influence the admission process. Understanding how online
reputations are collected and construed by college admissions departments will better inform
candidates on how to create and curate their online content. Thus, the purpose of this study is to
explore the extent by which a candidate's online reputation can influence the college admission
process. The reciprocal relationship between a college's institutional mission, the practices,
beliefs and motivations of its college admission officers and the curating of online reputations
through the analysis of “big data” fuel the primary research questions of this study:
1. How prevalent is the use of online reputation in the college admission process?
2. Under what circumstances do college admission officers seek out, access or make use of
an applicants’ online reputation as part of the college admissions process?
3. How do college admissions counselors use information generated from applicants’ online
reputations during the admissions process?
Methodology
Qualitative data collection methods will be used throughout the course of this study.
These methods will include interviews of college admission professionals, observations of
various recruiting presentations, and the collection and analysis of the primary document for
college entrance, the College Application.
While the phenomenon of online reputation is fairly new, the poignancy of a good or bad
reputation has been timeless. Therefore, to understand the influence of an online reputation, we
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 22
will examine the research questions from the vantage point of two key concepts: signaling and
social capital theory. Simply stated, signaling theory describes the relationship between
observable characteristics and actual qualities (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2010a;
Donath, 2007a; Karasek III & Bryant, 2012). Originating in the sciences of economics and
biology, signaling theory explains how unspoken messages of skill, ability, status, education,
intelligence and affiliation are socially conveyed. These signals tend to appear in highly
selective and competitive situations such as job hiring (economic signaling) or mate selection
(biological signaling) (Avery & Levin, 2010; Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2010b;
Karasek & Bryant, 2012; McAndrew, 2002; Spence, 1973).
Social capital theory describes how individuals work in groups and perform as part of an
extended network. Whereas human capital theory seeks to explain how education and training
can enhance individual performance, social capital theory emphasizes how individuals gain
resources through relationships (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). These theories have often
been used to describe reputational systems and will provide the theoretical platform from which
we can interrogate our research questions.
Importance of the Study
Interestingly, a number of colleges have criticized the reliability of entrance exams like
the SAT as a predictor of college readiness (Gilroy, 2007). In their attempt to find a more
holistic evaluative measurement, some colleges have turned to mining online data and online
reputation as a way to identify the best applicants and predict collegiate success (Kaplan Test
Prep, 2011; Rebbapragada et al., 2010). Thus, with the increased emphasis on utilizing Internet
data at the college recruitment stage, a student’s digital information and online reputation have
become more valuable now than ever before.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 23
In his 2007 book, entitled The Future of Reputation: gossip, rumor, and privacy on the
Internet, George Washington University Law Professor Daniel J. Solove offers a plausible
explanation as to why we have evolved into a culture of individuals who “google” each other.
According to Solove, the Internet is the most powerful communication tool since the advent of
the printing press (Solove, 2007). The Internet has re-envisioned classic modes of
communication and redistributed power to the masses by eliminating cost barriers and increasing
speed (Solove, 2007). Furthermore, the Internet’s worldwide architecture has made
unimaginable amounts of digital data archivable and searchable (Solove, 2007). In light of these
technological innovations, a proxy of our actual selves has been generated on the Internet – the
collective byproduct of our deliberate online behavior and the residual digital data of our modern
lives. For Solove, the technological union of our web-based activities and our digital residuals
has given birth to an accurate representation of our true selves. This cyber proxy for our true
selves is what we’ve come to call our online reputation. In light of Solove’s interpretation,
prospective college students must take care to manage a reputation that exits in the real world as
well as in cyber space.
Astute high school college counselors who are aware that admission officers have been
trolling social media sites, have repeatedly warned their students to “clean” their online presence
(Hechinger, 2008a; Kaplan Test Prep, 2011). This “cleaning” has evolved into an annual ritual
whereby college hopefuls delete scandalous posts, change profile names, un-tag photos, and
erase foul language from their social networks lest it be discovered by a college admission
officer (Luckerson, 2012). Concerned that this trend would negatively impact the students
potential for admissions and post-graduation employment, faculty members, school
administrators, and parents have also begun to warn students of their “questionable” online
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 24
content and the appropriateness of their online activities (Hechinger, 2008; Kaplan Test Prep,
2011).
However, many students, parents and high school administrators are still unclear on
exactly what online data students must purge, delete, “un-tag,” or make private in order to
protect their online reputations. Furthermore, many are uncertain as to why students have to
scrub their online profiles in the first place. This uncertainty has caused speculation and
arguably hysteria amongst many prospective students who are unclear as to exactly what it is that
colleges are looking for when they are “googled” online or “friended” on Facebook (Hechinger,
2008a; Luckerson, 2012; Mills, 2012).
This study gathers evidence to bridge the knowledge gap of how online reputations and
our interpretations of web based digital artifacts effect the path to college. This study also offers
a deeper understanding of how our inferences, impressions and “e-pinions” [sic] of online
information effect numerous other communities and professions. Others possibly benefiting
from this study may include high school counselors, high school administrators, parents,
scholarship committees, college admissions departments, career counselors, recruiters, human
resources professionals, law enforcement investigators, athletic coaches, talent scouts and others
who engage in the practice of “googling” prospective students or employees.
Limitations and Delimitations to the Study
As a matter of practicality, limitations were anticipated in the course of this study.
Additionally, delimitations were self-imposed as a means of practicality. Both boundaries are
recognized below as logical logistics assisting in the furtherance of this study. Limitations of the
study revolve around when the study was conducted and what type of digital data was considered
as evidence of online reputation. Delimitations of the study included who participated in the
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 25
study, where the study was conducted, and the technical means by which data was gathered. The
limitations and delimitations are described in further detail below.
When the study was conducted: In preparation for this study, preliminary interviews
were conducted in spring, 2013. A preliminary finding revealed that the accessibility to college
admissions could become highly restricted and very limited if interviews were to be conducted in
the spring. With thousands of files under review and significant enrollment deadlines in April
and May, respondents became less available during these months. Fortunately, the preliminary
study also revealed that signaling behaviors would more likely be seen during the Fall at the peak
of the admissions season when millions of prospective students would submit their applications
to institutions of higher learning. As a result, this study was conducted early in the college
recruitment cycle with data collection occurring from October to December, 2013.
Notwithstanding this preferred time frame, it is important to note that the data collected and
analyzed only represents a snapshot in the annual timeline of college admissions.
What was examined: As previously mentioned, the magnitude of “big data” is
unprecedented and is measured in terms of petabytes (Madden, 2012). Therefore, the amount of
data that comprises a legitimate online reputation is vast. A study examining the full scope of
online reputation is impractical, as it would mandate access to powerful computer equipment,
advanced web crawlers, cutting edge algorithms, and trained assessors. The sheer magnitude of
online data imposed a limitation on the study and forced our investigation to emphasize discrete
facets of online reputation that included the self-published postings of college applicants and
their online friends. This study focused primarily on how college admission officers make sense
and meaning of the digital artifacts that comprise online reputation. These digital artifacts
included actual web pages, search pages, web-based photographs, blogs, micro-blogs such as
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 26
Twitter, and social networking sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, Instagram , Snapchat,
Kik, etc..
Who participated: A delimitation of the study includes the purposeful sampling of college
admission professionals. Preliminary studies and interviews in the furtherance of this study as
well as an examination of key theoretical components in the areas of signaling and social capital
theory, have helped to identify the select subjects of this study. A detailed description of the
participants and their respective institutions follows in subsequent chapters.
Where the study was conducted: Due to finite resources and financial constraints, a
second delimitation of the study is that not all participating campuses could be visited.
Additionally, those same fiscal constraints working in tandem with early decision and early
admission deadlines mandated that the majority of interviewees residing outside the State of
Hawaii participate in telephonic interviews. Where practical, college admissions professionals
were interviewed in person. Furthermore, to the extent fiscally possible, interviews and
observations were conducted on the campuses of four of the six participating institutions. In one
instance, a college admission professional was interviewed in person when their collegiate
recruiting endeavors afforded them a trip to Hawaii.
How the study was conducted: As previously mentioned, a number of interviews was
conducted via telephone or teleconference. Unfortunately, telephonic interviews are less reliable
than in person interviews which a) allow for a more natural conversation, b) allow the
interviewer to more readily observe nonverbal cues such as body language and hand gestures, c)
allow for the interviewer to more readily listen for verbal cues such as tone and pace, and d)
allow for the leakage of more authentic responses on the part of respondents (Matsumoto,
Hwang, Skinner, & Mark, 2011; Navarro, 2012; Wood, 2006). While in-person interviews would
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 27
have been more accurate, a delimitation of the study included the gathering of data via telephone
or via email.
Definitions
Digital data. For purposes of this study, digital data is the most general form of
electronically created information that can be stored and shared in an electronic format. Digital
data can be created through a variety of electronic tools and devices to include, but not limited
to, computers, laptops, tablets, digital recorders, digital cameras and cell phones. Digital data
can also take a variety of forms and be have diverse configurations to include, but are not limited
to, spreadsheets, word documents, newspaper articles, applications, photos, text messages,
videos, graphics, icons, URL web addresses, etc.. As the most general form of electronic
information, digital data includes both web-based and offline electronic information.
Online information. The generic term used to describe digital data that is found on the
Internet. Like digital data, online information can take a variety of forms, have various points of
origin and be created by a plethora of electronic mediums. However, online information is
distinguished by the fact that it is digital data that is retrievable from the Internet.
Online reputation. Online reputation is more than just a face page at a singular website
or on a social network. An online reputation is an amalgam of digital information that can be
gleaned from the vast and varied sources of “big data.” Personally identifying information on
popular social networking sites like facebook, tumblr, bebo, flickr, socialcam, google+, myspace
and instagram are extraordinarily visible. This accessibility has made the notion of a social
networking profile to be synonymous with one’s online reputation. However, as previously
mentioned, an online reputation is more than that and also includes posts made by other
individuals, posts made by groups or organizations about a particular student, and the web
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 28
analytics of network traffic. Thus, online reputation includes, but is not limited to, first party
content and data created by a student (i.e., a photo, poem, newspaper article, video, etc.), third
party content and data created by others (i.e., data created by another individual that speaks of
the student) and linkage data (i.e., information that graph and measures a student activities and
influence on the Internet, across social networks and in mediate public spaces.)
E-pinion. The inference, impression, or opinion generated through the review of digital
artifacts, web-based data, and segments of online reputation. Whereas online reputation speaks
to the scope and variety of digital artifacts found online, an e-pinion refers to the interpersonal
semantics and heuristic assumptions one makes when he/she intercepts, interprets and evaluates
online data.
Profile page. Profile pages are the home page of a user on a social networking site. This
page can have highly accurate personal identifying information to include, but not limited to, a
name, a photograph, a hometown listing, a date of birth, lists of schools attended, graduation
class dates, music preferences, religious affiliation, reading preferences, marital status, movie
preferences, etc.
Social networks. Social networks are web-based services that allow individuals to: a)
construct a public or semi-public profiles; b) articulate a list of other users with whom they share
a connection; and c) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within
the system” (boyd & Ellison, 2007).

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 29
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The Growing Power of Online Identity
In the field of marketing, the concept of product identity is often referred to as
“branding.” For marketers, branding is a way of establishing a unique public image in order to
set yourself apart from others (Campelo, Aitken, & Gnoth, 2010). In order to establish this
uniqueness, marketers may use visuals and graphics, collectively referred to as a “visual
identity,” which is a means of expressing symbolic characteristics and intangible attributes
(Alessandri, Yang, & Kinsey, 2006). Visual identities can also be used to express the functional
traits and tangible characteristics of a person, product, company or organization (Alessandri et
al., 2006; Campelo et al., 2010). Skilled marketers use visual imagery to enhance the public
perception of a brand and thus positively increase one’s reputation (Campelo et al., 2010).
Through the persuasive use of images and rhetoric, marketers build product identity by building
familiarity, recognition, and social capital (Campelo et al., 2010).
However, the value of a brand and the power of reputation associated with that brand, can
be influenced by forces that are beyond the control of the brand holder (Brunk, 2010). One of
these influences includes the impressions, inferences, stereotypes and biases that arise when one
encounters a person, product, company or reputational element of that entity. “Research relating
to inferences has strong links to categorisation theory, which suggests that individuals use
category representations based on perceived similarity to assign a subject to a category in order
to give it meaning, understand and draw inferences about it” (Brunk, 2010).
Much like companies and business, college students have used social media as a platform
to build a personal “brands” and develop an online identity. Thanks to advances in digital
photography, smart phones, and the availability of increased bandwidth, building a personal
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 30
brand has never been easier. These technological advances have allowed social media users to
migrated from the text intensive blogs of the 1990s (e.g. WordPress); to the micro-blogs of the
2000s (e.g. Facebook and Twitter); and to the visual social media of today (e.g. YouTube,
Tumblr, Instagram, and Pintrest) (Walter, 2012). In this digitized environment, photography and
graphic design have become shorthanded ways of communicating and creating a brand (Walter,
2012).
These technologies, when coupled with power and ubiquity of the Internet, have created
conditions that have made our online identity far more valuable than at any time in our past.
Perhaps most importantly, the publication of online reputations has made it easier than ever
before to craft interpersonal impressions, or “e-pinions,” of individuals based on online content
(D. C. Evans, Gosling, & Carroll, 2008; Sam Gosling, 2008a; Kim, Choi, & Park, 2012). Prior
to Web 2.0, our identities were restricted to small nodes that were typically bound by geographic
region (Solove, 2007). Today, bandwidth has, in virtual space, flattened geographic boundaries.
Today, a node existing on a social network could have access to millions of individuals around
the world (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Solove, 2007). The breadth and depth of the Internet has made
the discovery of our reputations effortless (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Solove, 2007; Strahilevitz,
2007).
The searchability of the Internet, when coupled with the replicability of digital
information has made it easier than ever before to share, manipulate, and publish a reputation
(Alessandri et al., 2006; Campelo et al., 2010). Data mining capabilities of the Internet have
effectively merged online and offline identities (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Strahilevitz, 2007). As a
result, both the opportunity and ability to encounter a digital artifact or facet of online reputation
has never been greater.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 31
According to Kaplan Test Prep's most recent surveys, college admission officers have
dramatically increased their use of Google and Facebook (Kaplan Test Prep, 2011, 2012a;
Schaffer, 2013). The same survey reports that college admission officers have increasingly
discovered information that had a negative impact on student admissions (Kaplan Test Prep,
2012a). Kaplan's survey revealed that the percentage of college admission officers who found
derogatory information of students was only 12% in 2011 (Kaplan Test Prep, 2012a). In 2012,
the number of college admission officers who reported coming across derogatory information via
the Internet rose to 35% and included incidents of alcohol consumption, plagiarism, and the use
of vulgarity. These circumstances are so powerful that it is now effectually irrelevant as to
whether your reputation resides in actual or digital space. In the words of Michael Fertik, co-
author of Radically Transparent, “Your online reputation is your reputation. Period” (Fertik &
Thompson, 2010b, p. 16).
In order to recognize how online reputation and e-pinions can influence the college
admission process, an extensive review of literature was conducted. In the following pages, this
study will explore signaling theory as a conceptual framework that explains how identity is
constructed (and occasionally destructed) through the Internet and social media. This study will
then illustrate how academic competence, personal character, and social capital, as expressed
through online content, serve as the building blocks of online reputation. Next, the study will
explain why colleges and universities would want to seek online reputations, as expressed
through these “Four C's” (e.g., competence, character, capital, and content) as part of their
admissions process. Lastly, I will explain how elements of online reputation can create heuristic
assumptions and powerful e-pinions that supplement or supplant traditional indicators of college
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 32
“fit” by unofficially, and perhaps unintentionally communicating to college admission officers a
prospective student’s aptitude, acumen, and ability to persist in college.
Human Capital and the Role of Signaling Theory
Human capital theory offers that people will invest both time and resources to improve
their productivity and market values. Individuals who engage in these behaviors perform as
rational, economic-minded actors with the hope that they will recoup a higher return on their
training investment and educational efforts. Most often, the return that most hope for is the
length of time during which they will earn higher wages whilst in the work force (Dobbs, Sun, &
Roberts, 2008; Lochner, 2004; Verhoglyadova, 2006). Thus, human capital is often measured by
quantifying what skills someone brings to the work force (Putnam, 2007). Gauging skill and
value in others is readily seen in the American P-16 educational system. Student skills and
aptitudes are measured by quantifying their ability through tests and by ascribing letter grades
and percentages as indicators of their achievement and ability. High grades are often accepted as
an indicator of the practice (i.e. homework) and effort that the student invested in preparing to
achieve those marks.
Within this larger discussion of values in the labor market is the ideal that market
participants negotiate their value as part of an economic bargaining process. Thus, in a
competitive marketplace for highly skilled and productive labor, laborers tout their proficiency
and abilities to potential employers with the intent of a) attracting the most lucrative employers
with highest paying jobs and b) deterring other competitors from entering the market. “Signals”
of ability could be through familiar forms of human capital, such as holding a skill rating,
certification, diploma, or degree. Additionally, these signals could be in the form of social
capital, which may include “where” you earned your certification or degree. Signaling theory is
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 33
embedded within this economic ideology and refers to the myriad of observable behaviors that
occur when one advertises his/her skills, abilities, and associations (Connelly et al., 2010a;
Lofstrom & Tyler, 2007). These behaviors help employers recognize the value of prospective
employees (Spence, 1973). As this study demonstrates, prospective college students exhibit
similar signaling behaviors. This study applies the theory that many of these signals can be
observed through the Internet and understood as influencing the thoughts, actions, and behaviors
of those seeking or receiving the signals. Collectively, the Internet signals produced by a
prospective student will amount to her or his online reputation.
At its most rudimentary, signaling theory is the notion that, as social beings, each
individual transmits both deliberate and subconscious signals about his/her value (Karasek III &
Bryant, 2012; Spence, 1973). These signals are in turn perceived by others as predictors of
value, risk, outcomes and societal status (Connelly et al., 2010a; Hörner, 2008; Karasek III &
Bryant, 2012). Ultimately, these signals communicate one's worth, value, and significance to
society.
Initially posed by economist A. Michael Spence in 1973, signaling theory sought to
explain the behavioral phenomena associated within markets that face the challenge of
asymmetric information (Spence, 1973). For example, Spence was curious as to how potential
employers avoided the risk and uncertainty associated with new hires. Spence explained that
employers significantly reduced the uncertainty of hiring by closely analyzing the signals of
productivity associated with a potential job applicant. In Spence’s study, education level was
identified as a significant predictor of employee productivity (Spence, 1973). Likewise, in the
context of this study, it is believed that online reputation may also serve as a significant predictor
of student productivity to college recruiters. A review of student’s online content can serve as an
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 34
indicator of that student’s educational competence and personal character. Much like when a
student submits an essay as part of their application, student postings to the Internet can
demonstrate language ability, cognition, and worldview. Online reputation serves as a window
into that student’s life and offers college admissions departments a more holistic understanding
of the candidate.
Essentially, signals are a form of persuasion. Signaling takes place when one party seeks
to influence the perceptions of others. Signalers hope that by displaying certain behaviors or
“props,” those who see the signal will engage in predictable or favorable actions on behalf of the
signaler (Hörner, 2008). To illustrate signaling theory in a different social setting, married
individuals frequently wear wedding bands that represent both a financial and emotional
commitment to their spouse. Wedding bands are more than social conventions. Wedding bands
signal to others that the wearer has appealing qualities worthy of a long-term commitment and
that the wearer is highly valued. This signal also has the predictable effect of deterring other
competitors and potential suitors.
Spence argued that the cost associated with signaling one’s education correlated with
one’s productivity (Spence, 1973). Higher education, per Spence, equated to higher productivity
and ultimately higher profitability for a potential employer. This higher level of profitability,
was also correlated with a future employee’s ability to demand a more valuable condition and
higher wage (Hörner, 2008; Spence, 1973). Spence reasoned that job candidates were rational
actors who recognized the cost-benefit analysis of obtaining a higher education as path to a more
financially rewarding job (Spence, 1973).
Because education is expensive and time consuming to obtain, Spence identified
education as an indicator of job performance. According to Spence, the low-productivity worker
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 35
is the one unwilling to invest in his/her own education. The notion of investment cost is an
important concept in Spence’s theory as it was positively related to the cost of signaling (Hörner,
2008; Spence, 1973). Spence observed that the significant investment associated with education,
to include the expense of tuition, rigor of curriculum, and time to obtain a diploma, stratified the
market and credentialed those employees who made the larger investment. Spence reasoned that
those individuals who were willing to make a significant investment in their education would
deter low-performers from entering the marketplace by using their education as a credential for
job competition (Connelly et al., 2010a; Spence, 1973).
Skills and training allow individuals to compete in the marketplace for higher education
and higher paying jobs (Reich, 2006). In these competitive marketplaces, individuals (as well as
institutions and organizations) engage in signaling activity to communicate a broader spectrum
of otherwise private information (Hörner, 2008). Within these environments, market participants
strategically hold asymmetric information that other parties do not have the means, time, or
privilege to access (Hörner, 2008; Spence, 1973).
There is, however, a key difference between this study and Spence's seminal work. In
Spence's analysis, educational levels and diplomas are a conventional and deliberate signal of
skill and training. Certainly, an online reputation can also be intentionally crafted by college
candidates to tip the scales of asymmetry to signal otherwise hidden elements about a student's
competence, character, and college readiness. However, the powerful tension underlying online
reputations is that online reputations are arguably a more valid indicator because they can also be
crafted with far less bias. Online reputations are unconventionally created through the digital
breadcrumbs of our online lives and through the posts of others who blog about us online.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 36
Online reputations are also unintentionally shared through the many public and unsecured portals
of the Internet and social networks.
Signaling Theory and the Creation of Reputation
In addition to the Spence's view of economics, the notion that social signals convey
messages of value, worth, and status has appeared in a variety of other disciplines including
sociology, anthropology, marketing, advertising, consumer psychology, and evolutionary
biology. Each discipline acknowledges that in order for a reputation to be viable, an external
sign of that reputation must be shared and perceived by others. In signaling theory, reputations
are expressed as verifiable pieces of information that allow both individuals and groups to
recognize good from bad and value from risk (Connelly et al., 2010a). These “perceived features
and actions” provide observers with clues about some hidden characteristics and qualities
(Donath, 2007a, p. 233). These hidden clues are essentially one’s reputation. Thus, a historic
review of signaling theory can add to our theoretical framework of online identity, reputation and
trust in the college admissions process.
In 1899, Thorstein Veblen, a Yale educated sociologist and economist, published The
Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. In his work, Veblen
promulgated the notion of conspicuous consumption, which asserted that the ultimate motivation
for consumer behavior was ostentatious displays of wealth (Ryan, 2007). According to Veblen,
as soon as individuals were able to secure their basic necessities (i.e., food, water, shelter,
clothing, and safety), individuals would seek conspicuous displays of economic power.
Consumers would then alter their consumption patterns and channel discretionary wealth toward
expensive signals (Ryan, 2007). Per Veblen, when economic transactions take place, individuals
not only buy items and services, they also buy the display power and “status” of these items and
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 37
services (O’Cass & Frost, 2002). Thus, from a theoretical perspective, conspicuous consumption
supports the epistemology of signaling theory in that both are public displays and that both
attempt to influence behavior in others. Furthermore, both theories are premised on the ideal that
self-esteem and public respect serve as both an intrinsic and extrinsic motivator of human
behavior (Hörner, 2008; Lofstrom & Tyler, 2007; Wisman, 2009). Similarly, prospective college
students are motivated to post online content because such activities feed their self-esteem
(Marwick & boyd, 2011). Likewise, college admissions departments are also motivated to seek
these displays in their attempt to identify students who demonstrate values in line with their
mission, which is to say, students of high competence and high character.
It is important to note, however, that while both theories are considered forms of social
persuasion, the intentions and motivations behind signaling theory and conspicuous consumption
are very different. Individuals who engage in signaling behavior seek to persuade a rational
actor toward making a value-based, economic decision. Individuals who engage in behaviors of
conspicuous consumption, however, seek to provoke envy in others through superior
demonstrations of their economic power and social status (Miller, 2009; Ryan, 2007). Thus,
where conspicuous consumption seeks more to impress, signaling theory seeks more to influence
(Miller, 2009). This study will demonstrate that in the competition for higher education, both
behaviors can manifest themselves through a candidate's online reputation.
As previously mentioned, signal theory is most applicable in circumstances where there
is asymmetrical information about some value or characteristic that market participants want to
share (Avery & Levin, 2010; Epple, Romano, Sarpca, & Sieg, 2006; Karasek III & Bryant, 2012;
Spence, 1973). This construct of signaling theory rests on the premises that there exists (a) a
“signaler” with private information about a condition; (b) a “receiver” interested in ascertaining
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 38
the existence and veracity of this information; (c) a “signal” that represents itself as the truth
about a condition; and (d) an anticipated outcome from having transmitted one’s signal (Alós-
Ferrer & Prat, 2012; Connelly et al., 2010a; Hörner, 2008; Karasek III & Bryant, 2012). In
applying this schema to our discussion of college admissions, this study will define the signaler
as any prospective student applying to college. The study will also define the receiver as any
college admission department, recruiter or officer seeking the most qualified applicants. We may
also define the expected outcome as favorable admission to the applicant’s college of choice.
However, while it may be easy to define the signalers and receivers in this limited
market, it is not so easy to define the scope and nature of the signal itself. In the case of college
admissions, the literature indicates that a positive signal to transmit would be a message of “fit”
(Avery & Levin, 2010). Specifically, each student wants to convey to their intended college that
they have the competence, character, enthusiasm and intention to enroll (Avery & Levin, 2010;
Thomas, Kuncel, & Crede, 2007). Thus, if we liken college admissions to a market place
defined by asymmetric information, any valid signal could be interpreted as an indicator of
college preparedness and student “fit.” Signals in the form of digital content and online
reputation can become increasingly important as a means of filling informational gaps and
helping colleges make rational choices about admissions. Collectively, these signals serve as
predictions of collegiate success and student value, or, conversely, serve as predictions of future
value or future risk to the colleges that receive these signals. This study examined how college
admission officers uncover such signals, authenticate them as a legitimate representation of a
candidate, assess this data for signs of competence, character, social capital and college
readiness, and draw inferences and e-pinions from discrete elements of online reputation.
Online Reputations Impact on College Admission
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 39
If we accept the presumption of college admissions as an asymmetric competition for
information, we could assert that both parties, students and colleges alike, are in competition to
put their best foot forward so as to attract each other. Furthermore, both parties will also be
inclined to research the other in the hopes of ascertaining value and “fit.” Once acceptance
letters are received, students weigh the cost of attendance against the provenance of the
university and its ability to fulfill the students' career aspirations. When it is time to make an
investment in college, many students will take out loans to attend the university with the highest
ranking on their “accepted” list (Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006). Simply stated, competitive
students want to attend the best colleges and take the time to research those colleges.
Likewise, many competitive colleges want to admit high performing students and take
the time to research those candidates. In this environment, a few prestigious colleges and
universities are considered elite institutions with highly “competitive” admissions. At these first
tier institutions, numerous students with credentials that surpass the entrance requirements of
most universities are competing for a limited number of admission letters. At these highly
competitive schools, character indicators and other noncognitive variables such as leadership,
determination, volunteerism, altruism, etc. are used to identify and distinguish the most
achieving students (Hurwitz, 2011; National Association for College Admission Counseling,
2009a). Elite institutions, therefore, are more inclined to investigate a prospective student’s
noncognitive variables in search of distinguishing signs that make that student unique.
Preliminary interviews leading to the subject of this dissertation have revealed that selective
universities are more inclined to investigate a student's online reputation in their attempt to
uncover a candidate's character indicators and noncognitive variables.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 40
In this competitive environment, the effective signal is the signal that is heard and
recognized. Therefore, getting noticed by your target audience is the key to successful signaling
(Karasek III & Bryant, 2012). Each year, colleges are frequently flooded with noisy signals from
prospective students (Epple et al., 2006). In order to be noticed, receivers must perceive,
recognize, and be acquainted with a student’s signal (Campelo et al., 2010). Receivers must also
have the presence of mind to weight the signals' significance as well as evaluate its authenticity
(Alessandri et al., 2006; Campelo et al., 2010; Epple et al., 2006). They must also be prepared to
interpret and discount false signals, such as online gossip and fictitious postings (Jøsang, Ismail,
& Boyd, 2007). Examples of such postings include hate speech from rival students, fictitious
online profiles, and gossip by disinterested or unqualified parties. Much like the old transistor
radio, getting your message across will depend on the strength of the signal (i.e., its power
output), the clarity of the signal (i.e., its signal quality), the quantity of the signal (i.e., its
frequency), and the quality of the signal (i.e., its amplitude).
Within this complex framework, colleges and students both use the Internet to research
each other’s status and build their respective online brands (O’Cass & Frost, 2002). Emerging as
the most effective means of packaging and distributing that brand is the online social network.
Both colleges and students use social networks as a recruitment tool (Chang, 2006; Connelly et
al., 2010a; National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2009b). Also, many
students have also reported their suspicion that colleges are using social media and “friending”
prospective students as a means of gaining access to their social networking site (Luckerson,
2012). Whether purposefully done or not, a student who requests information via a university’s
facebook page or website has allowed that college to gather online data about him/her.
Sophisticated database products collectively known as “web analytics” are collected, collated
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 41
and sold to colleges by numerous sites like Google and Facebook and services like Zynch, CapX
and Hobsons. These rich databases include numerous categories of digital data to include email
addresses, zip codes, screen names, image identification and word recognition. For example, if
digital data is publicly accessible and if social networking settings are disabled, web analytics
can provide colleges with postings students may have made about their intention to enroll.
Students who engage in online social networking communicate their future worth to a
prospective college in both knowing and unknowing ways. While on social networks, students
can demonstrate their language ability, reasoning and creativity through a range of self published
digital content that include text messages, blogs, short videos and digital photos. On social
networks, digital content may include student status updates, commentaries, messages, “friends”
lists, “liked” pages as well as postings, “pins” and “spam” from other users.
Individuals and organizations search the Internet for this content and can minimize risk to
their reputation (Beal & Strauss, 2008). Educational institutions that conduct online
investigations of prospective students also save valuable time and money by identifying the most
qualified students with the intent to enroll (Parry, 2012a, 2012b). When a college or university
goes online and identifies the exact student they want, colleges can more easily build a diverse
college campus; create a more efficient classroom learning environment; improve a student’s
persistence; increase college graduation rates; improve post-graduation employment rates; and
improve the university’s reputation as a competitive college (Chang, 2006; Dobbs et al., 2008;
Luan, 2002; Parry, 2012a, 2012b; Raju, 2012)
In accordance with the literature on signaling theory, it is believed that this behavior is
more frequently exhibited in highly competitive admissions scenarios. Those colleges and
universities with “open” admissions policies will grant admission to students who need only
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 42
present a high school credential (e.g. high school certificate, GED, or diploma). Other campuses,
typically four year colleges and universities, that maintain “selective” criterion will grant
admission to students who met traditional academic entrance standards, such as GPA, SAT scores
and class rank (National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2009a). However, at
highly competitive institutions, college admission officers are searching for the most competitive
students amidst a rising tide of tens of thousands of student applications. In order to interpret
these signals, this study demonstrated that cyber savvy admission officers use the Internet, social
media, and online reputations to identify high achieving students with a likelihood of future
collegiate success. Thus, the purpose of this study was not only to demonstrate that colleges
unofficially resort to the Internet as a means of vetting potential students, but to also illustrate
that this phenomenon is seen most frequently at selective colleges that face tough decisions about
whom to admit. To shed light on this phenomenon, this study asserted that college admission
officers who engage in this practice evaluate online reputation by assessing the “Four Cs” of that
student − Competence, Character, Capital and Content.
College Admissions and the Evaluation of Online Reputation
To better illustrate how signaling theory and the “Four Cs” apply to college admissions,
the student admission process is compared to a similar scenario − the employee hiring process.
In many ways, there are striking resemblances between the recruitment processes of colleges and
the recruitment processes of corporations. First, the college recruitment environment and the job
market can both become highly competitive markets as students and employees alike compete
for the most lucrative opportunities and most productive candidates. For example, the
competition for admissions has risen, as the number of college applications have increased, and
the number of college seats have remained stagnant with little growth (Bound, Hershbein, &
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 43
Long, 2009). Furthermore, as an increasing number of workers in the work force become
college educated, an increasing number of students are battling for the limited number of
admissions to the nation’s highly ranked and elite universities (Bound et al., 2009). For these
students, admission to a prestigious university is a means of securing a more competitive
diploma, and ultimately a higher paying job (Bound et al., 2009).
Second, as with any competitive market, the college admissions and employee hiring
process can be characterized by the economic negotiation that occurs between the recruiting
college and a potential student (Epple, Romano, Sarpça, et al., 2006). In this negotiation, each
party makes sequential moves while relying on asymmetric information (Epple, Romano, Sarpça,
et al., 2006). In the world of corporate recruiting, the ability to reach out to the right job
candidates with information about vacant positions is a challenge for human resource
departments. At the same time, corporate recruiters are reaching out to candidates, their human
resource department is getting bombarded with resumes from potential hires. Similarly, in the
world of college admissions, recruiters are frequently bombarded by signals about the
characteristics and predictors of potential students (Epple, Romano, Sarpça, et al., 2006). SAT
scores, Advanced Placement scores, sports participation, extra-curricular activities, letters of
recommendation, and evidence of leadership or community service are a few of the signals
college recruiters review. Additionally, many students pursue early decision or early action as a
means of signaling their intention to enroll in order to secure a higher likelihood of admission
(Avery & Levin, 2010). Collectively, these indicators signal to a college recruiter that the
student applicant is both able and willing to become a member of that college's student body.
As in the world of corporate hiring, recruiting colleges also attempt to attract the right
student by transmitting a variety of signals to prospects. Highly competitive colleges advise that
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 44
all are welcome to apply, but subtly transmit messages that they are actively pursuing the most
qualified and promising candidates. Emails, newsletters, invitations to admissions events,
college web pages, rankings in U.S. News and World Report, the publishing of admission
requirements, and the release of sample data with academic profiles from the previous class are
just a few of the signals that recruiters share with prospective students.
Third, in both college and corporate recruiting, market participants attempt to persuade
each other by signaling their respective value. Corporations seeking future talent attempt will
lure the most competitive recruits by offering incentive packages, signing bonuses, child care
facilities, corner offices, and profit sharing opportunities. Similarly, colleges “pitch” prospective
students with their institutional achievements, paid campus visits, and enrollment incentivizes to
include scholarships and financial aid packages (Epple et al., 2006). Those seeking employment
will meet with numerous recruiters, but not share with those corporations information about
other job offers. Likewise, students hedge their large financial investment by not advertising to
their colleges the full spectrum of schools to which they have applied (Avery & Levin, 2010).
Students may also signal their intentions via the early admission process or by “holding out” till
decision deadlines approach in order to evaluate the variety of financial aid from competing
schools (Avery & Levin, 2010; Epple et al., 2006).
In these highly competitive scenarios, both corporate and collegiate recruiters are looking
for information to help them determine if there prospective is right for their organization or
institution. Both are attempting to determine if their candidate is high achieving. Both are
attempting to determine if their candidate will “fit” in the office or on campus. The signaling
spectra used to determine this “fit” − Competence, Character, Capital and Content − will be
addressed in turn in the pages below.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 45
Competence
Traditionally, college admission officers at selective institutions will evaluate two
primary classes of signals: academic competence and personal character. The first category of
signals reflects the conventional measures of academic ability. These markers rest on the
premise that the best indicator of future academic performance is past academic achievement.
Academic competence is often reflected in letter grades, prior academic rigor, grade point
averages (GPAs), writing samples, ACT scores and SAT scores (Ayán & García, 2008; Clinedinst
et al., 2011; Davey, 2010; Robbins et al., 2004). Collectively, these variables are commonly
accepted as signals of academic persistence and achievement (Davey, 2010; Noonan et al., 2006;
Robbins et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2007).
Prior research has indicated that high school grade point averages and standardized test
scores are excellent predictors of collegiate achievement (Ayán & García, 2008; Noonan et al.,
2006; Robbins et al., 2004). However, when ethnic and lifestyle factors are considered, research
has also revealed that these traditional predictors are most apt for White students(Sedlacek &
Adams-Gaston, 1992) and students of high socio-economic status (Robbins et al., 2004).
Character
Pundits of traditional competency measurements will assert that GPA and achievement
test scores are poor measures of student ability and poor predictors of collegiate success.
Variations in the areas of high school curricula, high school grading standards and high school
graduation criterion can create disagreements when comparing GPAs amongst different schools
(Noonan et al., 2006). College admission officers who wish to know more about their
prospective students will assert that character assessment should also be part of the admission
process. These officers argue the shortcomings of a GPA and a SAT score and assert that
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 46
scholastic standards only measure student potential across one dimension (Davey, 2010;
Sternberg et al., 2010).
To overcome this deficiency, many admissions departments at a number of highly
selective institutions take a more holistic approach by evaluating the “full” applicant. To get a
deeper understanding of a prospective student and his/her ability to succeed in college, many
institutions also evaluate candidates by assessing numerous character indicators. These
institutions consider a range of character oriented variables to include socio-economic
conditions, status as an underrepresented minority, exceptional student talents, student fit, legacy
status, athletics, and alumni interviews as part of a larger student evaluation (Avery & Levin,
2010; Brian L Connelly, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011; Hurwitz, 2011; Noonan et al., 2006).
These noncognitive variables and character indicators are may be revealed though letters
of recommendation, personal statements and alumni interviews (Clinedinst et al., 2011)
(Clinedinst et al., 2011; Joyner, Cox, White-Harris, & Blalock, 2007; Thomas et al., 2007)).
These character indicators can also be accessed through nontraditional means. Nontraditional
evaluations encompass a wide array of variables and may include demonstrations of prior
achievement, student pedagogies, career aspirations, personal motivation, student gender, high
school profile, parental expectations, social support, club involvement, participation on an
athletic team, social skills, self-confidence, community service, part-time employment and
eagerness to enroll (Ayán & García, 2008; Clinedinst et al., 2011; House & Prion, 1998; Noonan
et al., 2006; Robbins et al., 2004; Sedlacek & Adams-Gaston, 1992; Thomas et al., 2007). The
intent of this dissertation was to explore yet another nontraditional sign of character −
specifically, online reputation, as a means of learning these additional dimensions about a
potential candidate.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 47
Social Capital: The Power of Reputation
In addition to traditional assessments of academic competence and personal character,
recruiters who use online reputation might also want to assess a prospective student's “social
capital.” Per Putnam (2007), there are various forms of capital – each with the ability to
contribute in some way to the overall advancement of human productivity. Among the more
familiar forms of capital are “fiscal capital,” which is a measure of access to financial wealth and
monetary instruments and “physical capital,” which is a measure of access to tools, buildings,
supplies and other tangible items pertaining to physical infrastructure (Darity, 2008; Putnam,
2007).
Among the more nuanced forms of capital are “human capital,” and “social capital.” As
implied earlier in this chapter, human capital is a measure of the skills one brings to one's job.
For Putnam, human capital is the education, training, and experiences that help one perform
some task or job. However, Putnam asserts that social capital is far more powerful than human
capital (Putnam, 2007). Social capital is a measure of how individuals work within groups,
organizations and networks. Essentially, social capital is the value of relationships. It includes
the value that a group gives to an individual as well as the value that an individual brings to an
organization, association or network. It is a measure of how effective an individual is amongst
others members of his/her own kind as well as members of different groups (Putnam, 2007). In
sum, social capital is more essential than human capital in securing competitive jobs and
opportunities in the work force.
Putnam’s theory of social capital is premised on the notion that increased possibilities,
opportunities, and quality of life are attributed to the scope, quality, and quantity of social
connections (Darity, 2008; Hauberer, 2011). The key ingredient in building these connections is
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 48
a dependable reputation carefully crafted through repeated demonstrations of reciprocity and
trust (Darity, 2008; Hauberer, 2011)
As in the case of signaling theory, other disciplines to include marketing, psychology,
sociology, law, linguistics, and information science have also explored social capital and
described it in terms of trust, confidence, and reputation (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Ellison et al.,
2007; Fertik & Thompson, 2010a; Goffman, 2005a; Goldman, 2010; Hauberer, 2011a; Marshall,
2012; Solove, 2007). While these disciplines are contextually different, each discipline has
recognized the role of reputation in building social capital. Sociologist Erving Goffman applied a
dramaturgical analysis to social interactions and rested on the premise that all social relations are
public performances (Goffman, 2005a; Pettit, 2011). In Goffman’s view, every individual
performs a “drama” depending on the social environment he/she is in (Goffman, 2005a; Pettit,
2011). Thus, the entire world is a stage wherein every social association may be equated to an
audience (Goffman, 2005a). While we are “on stage” within varying social environments, every
individual tries to influence others as to how they are perceived (Goffman, 2005a; Pettit, 2011).
Per Goffman’s theory, we use clothing as costumes, objects as props and our tone, language, and
gestures as dramatic cues to influence our audience (Goffman, 2005a). The selection and use of
these signaling vehicles serve as the means by which individuals and organizations attempt to
influence observers and the public (Goffman, 2005a). For Goffman, social capital and a good
reputation is the successful by-product of a good performance. Goffman's ideology can be
extended to the proxy of our lives that live on the Internet and the validity of our online
reputation. Figuratively speaking, the Internet is a metaphor for the “stage” and the textual and
graphical posts shared online are the “props” individuals use to dramatize self-image and
reputation.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 49
Legal theorists have also explored social capital in terms of reputation and recognized the
value of reputation in social connections. Building upon Solove's definition of reputation as a
“shared collective perception about a person” (Solove, 2007, p. 30), University of Santa Clara
law professor Eric Goldman, refines reputation to include “information about an actor’s past
performance that helps predict the actor’s future ability to perform or satisfy consumer
preferences” (Goldman, 2010). Michael Fertik, Harvard Law graduate and founder of the online
reputation management company Reputation.com offers a more direct explanation and defines
reputation as “…the sum total of how you are seen by the public. It is all the facts and
judgments that people make of you” (Fertik & Thompson, 2010a).
In light of the above, social capital is more than a measure of one’s network and
associations. It is a measure of one's reputation, which includes a complex ethical-based
appraisal of one's integrity and trustworthiness. Individuals, organizations, products, and
performances, which gain high reputation also gain social capital.
Online Content
A student’s Internet activity, specifically, the use of social networks, has proven itself to
be the perfect reservoir for information about identity and future value. The searchability of
online profiles and the duplicability of digital content have made it easier than ever before to
share, manipulate, and publish data and the reputation that accompanies it (Alessandri et al.,
2006; Campelo et al., 2010). To illustrate this point, in 2011, online media experts attending the
Mashable Media Summit explained that individuals, organizations, and government agencies
have increasingly turned to Google, Facebook, and Twitter as a means of evaluating someone's
identity (Peterson, Dierks, Harding, & Mitchel, 2011). As evidence of this trend, over 90% of
corporate recruiters have been documented as turning to social media as a way to learn more
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 50
about prospective candidates (Whitney, 2012). Only a few short years ago, it was government
agencies that were entirely responsible for authenticating an individual's identity.
In addition to vetting a student's identity, college admission officers who view student
profiles may also predict future value or risk. In order to make this evaluation, colleges turn to
the bits of data that make up and define a student's online reputation. Often these are bits of data,
such as pictures, activity logs, postings, videos, etc. that are attached to a student's name when
they are searched online (Fertik & Thompson, 2010a; Marwick & boyd, 2011b; Solove, 2007).
These traces of data may come in many forms to include the online content that the student has
produced, the online content that the student has found on other sites and copied to his/her site
and the online content others have produced about the student and shared somewhere on the
Internet.
As previously mentioned, individuals create, produce, and engage in activities that signal
their value to others. In 1920, German sociologist and economic historian Max Weber asserted
that one way society stratifies its social classes is through recognizable signals of social status
(Szelényi, 2011). Like the aforementioned theory of conspicuous consumption, signals are
recognizable indicators of power, wealth, and prestige that are used to regulate the amount of
esteem and privilege bestowed within the different strata of a society (Szelényi, 2011). Consider
the professional labor force where lawyers, physicians, and college professors traditionally signal
their expertise by displaying their diplomas, wearing regalia, and publicizing their doctoral titles
at the end of their names and signatures. These public displays serve as signals that warrant
these professionals to a level of competence. These displays of authority also entitle the signal
bearer to offer his/her service, demand a higher wage, and be held in high social esteem. Often
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 51
diplomas proclaim as much by stating language to the effect of, “the bearer of this diploma shall
be entitled to all honors, rights, privileges, and immunities appertaining thereto.”
Weber’s framework easily applies to the college admission scenario and can provide
insight as to how observers may interpret online content. For example, consumer research
indicates that students are more likely to invest in goods/services that show off status and success
(Byrne, 1999). If this is true, the college admission behaviors of both prospective students and
universities will be heavily influenced by a need to show off one’s social status. Per Veblen,
behaviors of this sort will factor into the college admission process as institutions evaluate the
pedigree of prospective students for signs of collegiate success and post-graduation profitability.
The best students will be those who transmit the best signals and have the most robust online
content. Online content such as posts about a student's GPAs, scores on the SAT exam, National
Merit scholar credentials, and/or sports team activities shed much insight in to the competence,
character, and social capital of the applicant.
The analogy of professionals displaying social signals may also serve as a metaphor as to
how college admission officers view an online reputation. It is well documented that some
colleges are inclined to consider high school profile and academic rigor in the admissions
process. These symbols may easily be discerned through the review of a candidate’s social
networking profile. If publicly accessible, most students with social networking accounts will
post comments about their high school experience. Often, photographs and textual postings of
school functions ranging from sporting events and proms to robotics tournaments and homeroom
antics appear on these pages. Additionally, students often post content about their fellow
classmates in addition to posting comments about themselves. A thorough review of this content
by college admissions officers can quickly leave an admissions department with an accurate
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 52
impression of a student’s achievements, social status, access to resources, and ability to navigate
amongst peers.
Through his book, Spent: Sex, evolution and consumer behavior, Geoffrey Miller of the
University of New Mexico offers insight as to these impressions are drawn. Per Miller (2009),
the conscious and subconscious choices we make as consumers are driven by our biological
needs to advertise ourselves as potential mates. To explain his hypothesis, Miller draws from the
field of psychology to advocate that there are six behavioral characteristics that define our ability
to make social connections. These characteristic traits include the five primary personality traits
of psychology – openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism – as
well as a measure of what Miller refers to as “general intelligence.”
According to Miller (2009), these “central six” characteristics serve as social cues of our
status, advertise our potentiality as mates and predict our consumer behaviors. Miller advocates
that the most powerful signal is that of general intelligence. Displays of our intelligence not only
demonstrate genetic quality, but also demonstrate our potential for future income. Consumer
choices of this sort often reveal themselves as public displays of college branding. Public
revelations of college attendance and intelligence are frequently seen on license plate frames,
bumper stickers, window stickers, t-shirts, and diplomas. Miller’s theory explains in part why
consumers who attend highly selective universities are more willing to display their affiliation
with that institution as opposed to consumers with the same degree who attend less prestigious
universities. Bound et al. (2009) note, “Under this signaling type of framework, a degree from
an elite college becomes more valuable” (p. 121).
Online content's role in influencing a reputation is so powerful it is now effectually
irrelevant as to whether your reputation resides in actual or digital space (Solove, 2007). In the
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 53
words of one college freshman, “… if you're doing stupid things on your Facebook, that's how
people will perceive you” (Lytle, 2011, p. 1). Thus, open disclosure, public accessibility, and the
sheer volume of digital content, as revealed through the postings and signals of social networks,
have transformed Internet profiles into a valued part of the admissions process (Lytle, 2011).
Consequently, students who communicate their positive characteristics and intentions are
rewarded with an admissions letter and the possibility of demanding a higher wage upon
graduation. Those students who communicate the wrong value, or worse, convey a signal of
risk, will fail to be admitted.
Signaling Theory as a Computational Model
In light of the above, a prospective student's online reputation can be expressed through
the “Four Cs” of that student: academic Competence, personal Character, social Capital and
digital Content. Online academic competence includes all discoverable digital data, which
demonstrates a student's academic aptitude. Academic competence can be demonstrated through
something as blatant as the reposting of one's SAT score on a social networking site or sharing of
grades on a personally published blog. Online personal character includes all the discoverable
digital data, which illustrate recognized character indicators of collegiate success. Online
personal character can be inferred through photographs of a student volunteering at a homeless
shelter, videos of a student competing in the state championship football game, or social
networking notes thanking the college candidate for his/her help on a recent school project.
Online social capital includes all the discoverable digital data, which illustrate a college
candidate's network of friendships, associates and social influence. Examples of online social
capital can be as diverse as the total number of Facebook friends, the total number of “likes”
posted on a social networking site or a photograph of a student wearing gang street gang
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 54
paraphernalia while “throwing a gang sign.” Online digital content includes the vast corpus of
digital data attributable to the college candidate. It includes an assessment of originally
produced and self-published data as well as an evaluation of digital material that is “reblogged”
from other sites.
Collectively, these variables provide college admission officers with a means to
authenticate and evaluate a student’s identity. In consideration of these variables, a prospective
student's online reputation can be expressed by using the following formula:
Online Reputation = Competence + Character + Social Capital + Digital Content
At this juncture, it is worth noting that while signaling theory is well vested in multiple
disciplines, the authenticity and validity of online reputation can be easily manipulated and
misinterpreted. First, social networks are a relatively new phenomenon and there is no clear
standard for defining content, legitimacy or liability for what is online. Online publishing has
posed an increasingly difficult challenge to long-established legal tenets such as libel, slander,
and copyright. The responsibility and potential liability of social networks in this context is
currently being debated and has yet to be fully defined.
Second, social networks have a tremendously large following that includes the vast
majority of Internet users. However, the viability of these platforms is often subject to the fickle
winds of the very consumers they serve. It is entirely possible that a social networking venture
could reach millions of users within months of its launch, and then quickly fall by the wayside.
Consider, for example, that some of the world’s largest and most popular social networks have
faded in their use and popularity in just a few years. Compuserve and AOL chatrooms were all
the rage in the late 1990s, but have far less traffic today (Goble, 2012). Additionally, the world’s
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 55
most popular websites, to include MySpace (2003), Facebook (2004), Tumblr (2007), Pintrest
(2009), and Instagram (2010) have been around for 10 or fewer years.
While some of the social networks listed above continue to grow, the popularity and
social acceptance of other websites have waned. This waning of interest signals that both the
quality and quantity of messages on some sites may be more powerful than the same post on
other sites (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Rheingold & Weeks, 2012; Solove, 2007). Thus the
distribution of a message on one social network or blog, as opposed to another more or less
popular site, could easily bias the potency and quality of a post (Ormerod, 2012).
Further biasing the semiology of online data are the inferences and impressions people
naturally do as a shorthand while evaluating reputation (Brunk, 2010; Conlin & Dickert-Conlin,
2009; D. Evans, Gosling, & Carroll, 2008; SD Gosling, Gaddis, & Vazire, 2007; Kim et al.,
2012; Wansink, 1989). In the fields of advertising and marketing, researchers have previously
explained how consumers make inferences based upon their knowledge of a product (ex:
handguns), their knowledge of the attributes of that product (ex: : a Springfield model 1911
pistol), their knowledge of a company (ex: Springfield armory), their knowledge of the business
category (ex: arms manufacturers), and their knowledge of a region (ex: “made in the U.S.A.”)
(Wansink, 1989). In recent years, these reputational inferences and impressions have also found
their way into the examination of online presence and online reputation. In 2012, Kim, Choi and
Park used the term “e-impressions” to describe twelve meta-impressions that were constructed
after the review of online blogs (Kim et al., 2012). These “e-impressions” included descriptors
such as rough, warm, analytical, amicable, conservative, creative, polite, polished, strong,
premeditative, small minded, and sociable (Kim et al., 2012).
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 56
Similarly, Dr. Samuel Gosling of the University of Texas had been conducting research
into the impressions and inferences that can be made on social networking sites such as
Facebook. Like, Dr. Geoffrey Miller, Gosling uses the Big Five personality dimensions
(openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) as a rubric for
constructing personality profiles from activities and posts conducted on social networking
websites. (Back et al., 2010; Evans et al., 2008; Gosling, 2008b; Gosling et al., 2007; Miller,
2009). According to Gosling's research, personality inferences can be construed through social
networking sites because these online venues serve as both the repository for deliberate claims of
identity and the warehouse of “behavioral residue” that inadvertently conveys clues of our
behavior (Gosling et al., 2007). This study uses the term, “e-pinion” to represent the “e-
impressions,” online personality inferences, and heuristic assumptions made by college
admissions officers who evaluate elements of online reputation.
Third, while many have touted the Internet as a means of promoting equality through
information transparency, more recent discussions argue that large, “weighted” networks carry a
disproportionate amount of influence (Ormerod, 2012). In his 2012 book, Positive Linking: How
networks can revolutionize the world, British economist Paul Ormerod argues that a digital
network's ability to rapidly promulgate information can easily trick consumers into making
decisions that are biased by popular opinion. Ormerod argues that fair assessments of character
and quality are increasingly difficult to make in an online environment that easily magnifies false
and subjective opinions. Stated another way, it is very easy for bad information to spread like a
virus via social networks. When this happens, a landslide of false rhetoric can easily bury valid
information.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 57
Fourth, while it has been established that the vast majority of online teens use social
networks, we are still uncertain as to what extent college admission officers are familiar with
social networking. Due to this uncertainty, we must question whether the college recruiters who
use these networks also have the means of thoroughly vetting and authenticating their sources of
digital information.
Consider the consequence when a highly competitive student is denied admission due to
his online association with other less appealing individuals. In these instances, a productive
student can become the victim of negative cross branding. For example, one student might be
highly conscientious of his social networking profile by posting only mature and engaging
content. That same student may have family members or friends who are not as conscientious.
This online friend might post images of drug use, nudity or some other socially unacceptable
vice. By being linked to this user, our good student can become a victim of “guilty by
association,” as admission officers craft a derogatory “e-pinion” and look upon him or her less
favorably. This study suggests that if college recruiters and admission officers do not have a
valid means of authenticating their digital information or do not afford students a means to
appeal the admissions’ decisions made with this information, colleges may inadvertently (or
deliberately) filter out those highly competitive students.
Lastly, signaling theory, when applied to social networks is lacking in one crucial area.
Specifically, signaling theory fails to acknowledge the deliberate design and economic model of
the Internet. With the ubiquity of powerful search engines and social networking sites, “click
happy” users rarely consider the business models and corporate practices of their favorite sites.
The business model of social networking sites and Internet search engines is to generate revenue
− over 100 billion dollars in revenue − through the sophisticated selling of advertisements and
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 58
the advanced collection of market data (McIntosh, Bugeja, & Cottrell, 2008). The collaborative
online experience of Facebook, Google+, YouTube and other social networks is not built around
the altruistic idealism of democracy, transparency, and information sharing. Nor is it built
around the pedagogy of the student. Rather, the experience of these sites is driven by the
revenue generating actions of the user (McIntosh et al., 2008). For example, Google offers a
variety of free services to both students and learning institutions, which may include, but are not
limited to, online storage of digital data, email accounts, video lessons on YouTube, photo
sharing on Picasa, and learning applications via a custom web browser. However, school
administrators, parents, and students rarely consider that by using these services, they may be
placating - for better or worse - the business intentions of a corporation that is beholden to
stockholders, firmly entrenched in advertising and driven to collect data from millions of
students, many of whom are underage. Ultimately, your position on the Internet’s ability to
compromise privacy or enhance freedom of speech is irrelevant as all sides of the debate are
surprised to learn that the design of social networks has little to do with education or free speech
(Friesen, 2010).
To generate their revenue, Google and other social networking sites design experiences to
attract users to their websites. For example, Google has lightning fast search capabilities because
a search for digital information on Google's search engine is not searching the web, but rather
Google's index of the Web (Google, 2014). By using automated software called “web crawlers,”
Google is able to search vast expanses of the web and archive its findings in a massive web
server called “the index” (Google, 2014). Therefore, search queries via Google don't navigate
the user to a web host, but rather direct the user to Google's index of the web (Google, 2014).
Additionally, the results of a Google search are based on a number of variables to include, but
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 59
are not limited to, the searcher's online identity, geographic location, computer and cookie
settings, exact use of search terms, and the deployment of complex, proprietary algorithm that
predicts what you are looking for, offers topical alternatives and presents data based on Google's
page ranking system (Google, 2014).
Google, like many social networking sites, also deploys sophisticated and seamless
monitoring tools to track a user’s online activities, profiles, demographics, language use, Internet
settings, geographic locations, educational backgrounds, “likes,” “dislikes,” ages, marital
statuses, and friends as a means of precisely identifying your preferences as a consumer (Friesen,
2010; Groom & Lamb, 2010). These highly specific and targeted data points are then harvested
and sold to advertisers, marketers, and corporations as a revenue generating activity. Google
then uses its monitoring software and algorithms to strategically release advertisements in a
highly precise way as to increase the likelihood of making a sale to Google users (Friesen, 2010).
In an online environment where Google commands the vast majority of the world's web-
based searches (Sullivan, 2014), Google's numerous query “filters” and presentation methods are
highly significant to this study. For example, the results of an online Google search are not
presented in a vacuum (Hariri, 2011). Google searchers must navigate their way around
advertisements as well as search returns that may be pertinent, moderately relevant and/or
inconsequential to what the searcher is looking for. During this process, searchers may generate
“e-pinions” about the data they are encountering. Furthermore, research indicates that Google
users generate inferences based on the order and page ranking of the online data they encounter
(Hariri, 2011). In light of the above, merely using Google creates an impression, subjectivity and
bias in individuals who use its search engine (Hariri, 2011).
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 60
Lastly, university admissions are a big business, for which third party companies like
Cappex (www.cappex.com), Zinch (www.zinch.com), and Hobsons (www.hobsons.com) harvest
“big data.” Web analytics and data from “Google” are also sold to colleges, universities and
technology firms who deploy their own powerful data crunching algorithms to identify high
achieving candidates and reveal trends in recruitment, enrollment, grade matriculation and
college graduation (Barnes & Mattson, 2009; Chang, 2006; Grush, 2013; Luan, 2002; Parry,
2012a; Raju, 2012). These businesses provide students with college matching services,
scholarship search engines, and social media platforms. According to a university college
admission officer who was interviewed in preparation for this study, these same businesses also
sell products and services to colleges, which may include student reports and match lists of
interested students.
Conclusion
While the concept of an online reputation is relatively new, the idea that we all have a
reputation has been around for centuries. Of reputation, American statesmen and inventor
Benjamin Franklin stated, “It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one
bad one to lose it.” More recently, media billionaire Warren Buffet reflected upon reputation by
stating, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and 5 minutes to ruin it” (Tuttle, 2010). In
consideration of these remarks, a student's online reputation has become more vulnerable than
ever before. With the increased emphasis on data mining, a student’s digital information and
online reputation have also become more valuable now than ever before (Gilroy, 2007;
Rebbapragada et al., 2010). Colleges have used this digital information as a way of predicting
collegiate success and have used a variety of performance indicators to include online reputation
as part of their admission process (Kaplan Test Prep, 2011; Rebbapragada et al., 2010). In light
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 61
of the above, prospective college students must take care to manage both their real and online
reputation.

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 62
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
Each fall, high school seniors throughout the United States review the requirements of
college admission and submit millions of college applications (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012).
As spring approaches, millions of eager high school students run to their mailboxes in
anticipation of an envelope that determines their fate. Eagerly sifting through the daily mail,
each student hopes to find a “large” envelope holding his or her bulky enrollment package. At
the same time, each student dreads the possibility that a “small” envelope, containing only a
denial letter, lurks in its place.
Ironically, the sizing of envelopes is also a metaphor for the sizing and comparison of
those students who applied for college admission. Prior to mailing any acceptance notices, a
college admissions department has sized and measured each applicant through its college's
admission requirements. These requirements serve as performance criteria for evaluating
prospective students and predicting their academic success (Rebbapragada et al., 2010). As
previously mentioned, these requirements include a student’s grade point average (GPA), SAT
scores, ACT scores, AP scores and academic honors (Kagen, 2012; Rebbapragada et al., 2010).
Other proxies for admission may also include high school size, class rank, extracurricular
activities, employment history, academic rigor, and letters of (Chang, 2006; Gilroy, 2007; Kagen,
2012; Rebbapragada et al., 2010). Colleges use these metrics as indicators to predict academic
preparedness and thus, the likelihood of collegiate success for an incoming freshman (Chang,
2006; Gilroy, 2007). Those granted admission are admitted because the college's admissions
department believes that those applicants possess more aptitude and bring more skills to the
campus when compared to other students.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 63
Playing an increasingly important role in the college admission process are the Internet
and social networks (Hechinger, 2008b). As evidence of this trend, a 2012 survey of 500 college
admission officers revealed that 26% use social media to learn more about their applicants
(Kaplan Test Prep, 2012a). Simultaneously, traditional media has been feeding off of Kaplan’s
statistics and reporting on the influence of social media. News articles whose titles include The
End of College Admission as We Know It, When Colleges Look Up Applicants on Facebook: The
Unspoken New Admissions Test, and Does Facebook Hurt Your College Chances? frequently
quote the Kaplan survey, but offer little insight as to how a social media profile impacts or
influences the college admissions process (Carey, 2011; Luckerson, 2012; Mills, 2012).
Additionally, while a review of the literature has revealed numerous articles describing the
cognitive and noncognitive indicators of collegiate success, a substantial review of the literature
has been unable to uncover any specific study or research as to how social media influences
these indicators. In light of the above, the purpose of this study was to investigate how the
colleges use the Internet and social networks to learn a candidate's online reputation and to
explore the influence of “e-pinions” on the college admission process.
Research Question
To determine if the use of online profiles is anecdotal or evidence of a more definitive
trend, this study will seek to answer the following research questions:
1. How prevalent is the use of online reputation in the college admission process?
2. Under what circumstances do college admission officers seek out, access or make use of
an applicants’ online reputation as part of the college admissions process?
3. How do college admissions counselors use information generated from applicants’ online
reputations during the admissions process?
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 64
In the pages to follow, I will introduce my research protocol, justify the selection of my
interview questions, explain the purposeful selection of my interview sample, and offer insight as
to the strengths and weaknesses of my research methodology.
Methodology
To answer the research questions noted above, this study used a research protocol that
combined the qualitative elements of critical research with the analytical tools of case study
research. At the heart of critical research is an exploration of power dynamics and the
questioning of who has power, how is power parleyed, and what structures or practices exist to
maintain that distribution of power (Merriam, 2009). According to Merriam (2009, p. 35),
critical research is appropriate in those scenarios where “... people unconsciously accept things
the way they are, and in so doing, reinforce the status quo.” Given the research questions noted
above, critical research methodologies would appropriately provide context for exploring how
the power of online reputation influences college admissions process and ultimately impacts the
outcomes of college candidates.
Chapter two suggests that many elements of the college application process are not open
or transparent. To the contrary, a review of the literature suggests multiple motives for
preserving “trade secrets” and elements of power in highly competitive environments where both
reputations and fortunes of all parties are at stake. If we consider elite universities and
prestigious colleges to be comparable to powerful, hegemonic social structures, then the potential
to oppress those without power can be realized merely by restricting access of the oppressed to
these institutions. Critical research seeks “to not just understand what is going on, but also to
critique the way things are in the hope of bring about a more just society” (Merriam, 2009, p.
34). As a result, the qualitative methodologies employed intend to both understand the
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 65
phenomenon of online reputation and empower the hundreds of thousands of students who apply
to these institutions each year.
Elements of a case study research approach were also adopted so that the study could
adapt to the evolutionary variables that pervade a digital lifestyle. For example, social networks
have shown potential to grow very rapidly with hundreds of millions of users – each with a
unique set of values and demonstrated purpose (e.g., as in the case of Facebook, a social media
site can have over a billion unique users). Other variables include: the rapid growth and
evolution of digital technologies; the frequent release of new social network applications; the
lack of official policy and guidance on the use of social media by colleges and universities; the
unsolicited changes in user policies by social networking sites; an evolving perception of online
privacy, changes in collegiate programming, changes in college admission staff, and changes in
ranking and categorization of colleges.
To initiate my study, I first followed the qualitative research methodology offered by
John Creswell (2008). The qualitative research strategy was initiated through the crafting of a
central question, followed by the development of sub-questions, which narrow the focus of the
study. The nature of the questions developed can then lead to a specific qualitative research
strategy to include ethnography, critical ethnography, phenomenology, or case study research
(Creswell, 2008).
By following Creswell's methodology, I first identified the following central question:
“Does a prospective student’s social media profile play a role in the college admission process?”
To gain further understanding of the social media's impact on college admissions, I continued
along Creswell's model and devised sub-questions, which narrowed my inquiry to a few essential
variables (Creswell, 2008). These variables add insight and perspective to the subject matter
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 66
being investigated (Creswell, 2008). Sub-questions provide understanding as to how participants
in the phenomenon 1) interpret their experience, 2) construct their worldview, and 3) attribute
meaning to their experience (Merriam, 2009). Sub-questions also provide the basis for my
research questions listed above.
Per Maxwell (2012) and Merriam (2009), I then devised a research protocol that includes
semi-structured interviews of college admissions professionals, onsite observations of college
admission of college admissions personnel and document reviews of admission policies and
guidelines as found on university websites, student handbooks and the Common Application. To
increase the credibility of my protocol, I first conducted a pilot study, the results of which were
used to refine interview questions and guide the study’s purposeful sampling of participants.
Sampling and Population
A deliberate sampling design was adopted for this study. First, to increase the credibility
of the study findings, I have triangulated my data points by adding variety to both my target
population and data collection methods. First, variety in the target population was achieved by
purposefully seeking a diverse sample of college admissions professionals from a diverse range
of institutions, regions, and positions within the field of college admissions . First, the six
participating universities in my study were selected from three different categories within the
U.S. News and World Report 2014 List of Best Colleges and include institutions ranked as
National Universities, National Liberal Arts Colleges, and Regional Universities. By U.S. News
and World Reports account, there are 281 national universities that offer a full range of
undergraduate majors, graduate programs with an emphasize on research (Morse, 2013). Per
U.S. News and World Report, there are 248 national liberal arts colleges (Morse, 2013). These
institutions emphasize an undergraduate education and award 50% or more of their diplomas in
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 67
liberal arts (Morse, 2013). Regional universities are similar to their larger counterparts, in that
they offer a full array of undergraduate majors (Morse, 2013). Unlike their larger counterparts,
regional universities offer a limited amount of masters diplomas and few, if any doctoral degrees
(Morse, 2013).
Second, participants were drawn from institutions occupying four different states. This
study preserves the confidentiality of the respondents and their respective universities by
deliberately withholding information that reveals or tends to reveal the exact location of each
institution. However, to further bolster the triangulation of the study, institutions participating in
the study came from three different regions within the United States to include, the West Coast,
the Mid-West, and the Northeastern United States.
Third, participants were selected from a variety of jobs within the scope of being a
college admissions professional. Participants had a range of tenures and professional
experiences which often included prior employment as a college admission officer at another
institution. Job descriptions and job titles of participants ranged from frontline college
admissions officers (“Associate Director of Admissions”) to Dean of Admissions (“Director of
Undergraduate Admissions. [A detailed description of reach responded will be offered in
Chapter 4.]
Lastly, it is important to note that in line with signaling theory as mentioned above, this
study purposefully selected participants from some of the most competitive institutions of higher
education in the United States. The notion of collegiate “competitiveness” can be interpreted in
a number of different ways. Therefore, this study has elected to use an array of measures to
identify and assess each institution as a competitive environment for admissions. These
measures include a) the institutions own self-recognition and self-identification as a competitive
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 68
institution, b) collected observations of collegiate signaling behaviors that admissions
departments engage in to attract the most competitive students, and c) the institutions ranking
within one of the most widely referred to ranking systems for institutions of higher education,
namely, the U.S. News and World Report annual List of Best Colleges. Since 1983, the list has
grown in influence as it categorizes and ranks the thousands of colleges and universities
throughout the United States (Morse, 2013; Morse & Flanigan, 2013).
A general description of the participating institutions ranking within the U.S. News and
World Report 2014 List of Best Colleges and their region is as noted below in Table 3.
Table 3
Participating Institution's Code, Region, Class and Ranking
Institution
Code (#1-6)
Region
2014 U.S. News Best
College Classification
2014 U.S. News
Best College
Ranking
(Percentage)
2014 U.S. News
Best College
Selectivity
Description
Institution #1 Mid-West National University Within top 2% “most
selective”
Institution #2 Mid-West National University Within top 8% “more
selective”
Institution #3 West Coast Regional University Within top 2% “more
selective”
Institution #4 West Coast National University Within top 2% “most
selective”
Institution #5 West Coast National University Within top 20% “most
selective”
Institution #6 East Coast National Liberal Arts
College
Within top 9% “more
selective”

As previously mentioned, triangulation of data was not only achieved through the
diversity of participants and their respective institution, but also achieved through diversity in the
variety of collection methods. This study deployed three collection methods frequently used in
qualitative research to include observations, interviews and document reviews. A description of
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 69
each collection method and its significance to the study will be addressed in the following
paragraphs.
Observations
Unlike interviews, observations take place in the natural settings where phenomena
occurs allows researchers to collect firsthand data rather than secondhand accounts (Merriam,
2009). When combined with other methods of qualitative research, to include interviews and the
review of documents, observations allows for a more holistic interpretation of data and the
phenomenon under investigation (Merriam, 2009). Field observations were conducted of 5 of
the 6 participating institutions. While conducting observations, the researcher attended a variety
of student presentations as a covert participatory observer in the role of a prospective parent. In
most instances, the researcher attended presentations as one of twenty or more parents in the
company of high school students seeking admission information of each potential campus. In
one instance, the researcher was one of several hundred prospective parents in the company of
high school students attending an open house event sponsored by one of the colleges. A covert
approach to observations was selected so as to bolster the legitimacy of the behaviors under
observation and ultimately, the authenticity of data collected (Oliver & Eales, 2008). By
maintaining a covert posture during the observations, college admissions officers would be
observed in a more natural setting and be less compelled to alter their behaviors or statements
had they known they would be recorded. Additionally, a covert approach to data collection
allowed the research to take an “insider's perspective” by using participation as a means of
acquiring both experience and the empathy (O’Reilly, 2009).
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 70
As the study seeks to investigate a dynamic within the college admissions process,
observations were of one or more of the three types of admissions interactions offered to
prospective students and their parents, to include:
a) an admissions presentation by the participating institutions Dean of
Admissions, Director of Admissions, and/or Admissions Counselor,
b) an self-introduction and student life presentation by current students, and
c) a campus tour by college staff or student guide.
Observations played a key role in identifying and triangulating the depth, scope and
accuracy of admissions related information shared with prospective students. A review of this
data will reveal the exact knowledge shared regarding the criteria for admissions and the
differences and similarities between institutions regarding these admission qualifiers.
Additionally, the analysis of observational data will reveal whether institutions publicly share
and reveal their proclivity to use online reputation and web-based data as part of the admissions
process.
Additionally, observations were used to ascertain the presence of competitive
environments so as best identify signaling behaviors. Recall in Chapter Two that signaling
theory accounts for behaviors on the part of all market participants, both signalers and receivers
(Epple et al., 2006; Horner, 2002). As mentioned earlier, college's “pitch” prospective students
by announcing their institutional achievements, sharing knowledge of exclusivity and
incentivizing enrollment (Epple et al., 2006). Thus, for purposes of the study, observations of
student presentations, campus tours and other recruitment efforts served to identify environments
where reputational factors would more likely be significant (Horner, 2002; Hörner, 2006).
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 71
To ensure as much data was recorded as possible, observations were simultaneously
recorded via two separate audio recorders, specifically a Zoom H2 digital recorder and an Apple
iPad equipped with the “PocketDictate” audio recording application. The primary researcher
subsequently transcribed the audio recordings gathered from the observations and loaded these
transcriptions into a qualitative analysis application, QDA Miner, where they were reviewed for
accuracy and coded for reoccurring themes.
Interviews
When practical, participants were interviewed in person. However, due to logistical
constraints, in some instances participants were interviewed via telephone. On rare occasions,
follow-up interviews and/or questions may have been conducted via email.
Two types of interviews were conducted: unstructured interviews and semi-structured
interviews that relied on a pre-established series of questions as interview prompts. Prior to
conducting the semi-structured interview, every participant of the study was subjected to a
preliminary, unstructured interview. When possible, this unstructured interview was conducted
on the campus of the participating institution. These unstructured interviews were essential to
the research methodology as the unstructured interviews afforded the interviewer an opportunity
to build rapport with interviewees and “baseline” participants. “Baselining” is an investigative
interviewing technique used by fraud examiners and investigators around the world to identify
both verbal and nonverbal deception during the course of an interview (Lee & Welker, 2011;
Navarro, 2012). [It is worth noting that the primary researcher has been certified as an interview
and interrogation instructor by a federal law enforcement agency and that the researcher has
instructed numerous law enforcement officers within the United States and overseas on
“baselining” techniques.] By conducting the unstructured interview in the safe and familiar
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 72
environment of a campus office, interviewees would be more relaxed and in a state of
psychological comfort so as to be more truthful and forthcoming in their initial statements
(Navarro, 2012). As the researcher is the primary instrument by which data is collected,
analyzed and interpreted, (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009), the unstructured interviews allow the
researcher to “calibrate” his interviewing skills by listening for tone, pace, hesitant speech,
pauses and equivocations (Lee & Welker, 2011). When conducted in person, the unstructured
interviews also allow the researcher an opportunity to observe nonverbal cues to include facial
expression, body language, gestures, and fidgeting (Lee & Welker, 2011; Matsumoto et al.,
2011). By evaluating both verbal and nonverbal cues, the research has an increased ability to
detect deception during the interview phase of this study. (Gamson, Gottesman, Milan, &
Weerasuriya, 2012; Lee & Welker, 2011; Matsumoto et al., 2011; Navarro, 2012)
Prior to the start of the any interview, participants were informed of the purpose of this
study and advised that their names and identities would be held in confidence. Confidentiality
was offered so that participants could offer frank and open comments regarding their private
business practices and experiences. However, to provide insight into the nature of their practice,
context for the study’s findings, and to determine if these findings can be generalized to a larger
population, interviewee’s were coded alongside a description of their respective campus. Within
a college’s admissions department are various types of personnel that include clerical staff,
student employees, deans, college admission officers, essay readers, recruiters, admissions
counselors, enrollment officers and information technology (IT) specialists. This study
specifically selected professional admissions personnel whose primary job descriptions included
the identification and evaluation of prospective students. Admissions professionals of this type
were selected for the study because they a) are frequently the first person to interact with a
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 73
prospective student, b) are well versed in the rating criterion for their particular campus, c) are
charged with gathering student data in support of admissions consideration, d) likely have past
experience reviewing hundreds, if not thousands, of student applications, and e) are the group
ultimately responsible for the identification, evaluation, and selection of each applicant.
Due to the exceptional rankings of each institution, the high selectivity in admissions and
competitive nature of each campus, high stakes in both dollars and reputation were riding on the
decisions of each admissions department. In many instances, if admitted, a student could be
offered a financial aid package worth thousands of dollars (Clinedinst et al., 2011; Luan, 2002;
National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2009a). When one considers the scale
of governmental, privately funded or endowment based financial aid, a campus’s revenue stream
of these elite institutions can amount to billions of dollars each year.
As previously noted, reputations are also at stake as applicant selectivity plays a role in
the ranking of a university (Avery & Levin, 2010; Dale & Krueger, 1999). A university’s
ranking and prestige are built on the academic achievements and professional success of its
students. Admitting the wrong student can not only undermine the educational endeavors of the
student, but also cause irreparable damage to a school’s reputation. An ill prepared student who
is errantly admitted to college can have dramatic effect on the financial and reputational stability
of a university.
Document Review
Whereas interviews and observations are two primary means of qualitative data
collection, the review of documents offers a third major source of data for qualitative researchers
(Merriam, 2009). In the case of my study, I learned that college admissions personnel were most
often interested in uncovering negative online content and validating claims made on student
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 74
applications. I also learned that none of the participants in this study had any written policy or
guideline governing the use of online reputation and social media data. However, although a
formal written policy on this topic had yet to be crafted by any of my participating colleges, I
learned that applicants for admission are held to the same academic and campus community
standards as currently enrolled college students. Often, if negative content were observed on the
Internet, universities, and colleges would use a candidate's certification of authenticity,
statements of integrity or affirmation of accuracy as well as the candidate's breach thereof as a
means of denying or revoking admissions. To determine if such documents could have an
impact on the use of social media and a college admissions officer interpretation of that data, I
conducted a detailed online search for student handbooks, campus honor codes, and college
applications for each participating campus in my study. I then reviewed these documents for
language that would otherwise empower a college admissions department to revoke or deny
admission based on what was discovered via social media or online reputation.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data Collection
The data collection of my study was deliberately timed to occur within a specific time
frame and when the most competitive students would be applying to the most competitive
colleges and universities. To understand the data collection timeline for my study, it is important
to recognize that U.S. college applications are structured around an annual season that promotes
a more competitive environment occurring in the late fall as opposed to any other time of the
year.
As previously mentioned in Chapter One, each year millions of high school seniors apply
to America's colleges and universities. First time enrollers begin their journey by first
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 75
completing and submitting their application for admission. In order to accommodate and
identify the most competitive students, colleges and universities have established a tiered system
for college candidates that include early decision applications, early admission applications, and
regular admissions applications. According to The College Board, the organization that
administers the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), “early decision” is an application that
includes a binding agreement by the candidate to enroll in the institution if they are accepted by
the college or university (The College Board, 2014). Early decision candidates typically have
conducted thorough research and have a strong intent to enroll in the college or university should
they be accepted (The College Board, 2014).
In comparison, “early admissions” is an application that does not include a binding
agreement of the candidate. Early admissions applications differ from early decision
applications in that early admissions candidates are typically the most academically competitive
pool of collegiate candidates. These candidates have application deadlines that typically arrive
in November (The College Board, 2014). In return for their application, colleges typically
provide notice of acceptance or denial in December of the same year, well ahead of regular
admission candidates (The College Board, 2014). Early admission candidates are typically the
most competitive candidates because they: a) meet or exceed the admissions profile for their
intended college with high standardized test scores, GPAs and class ranks, b) have high academic
records that are consistent over time, and c) demonstrate a strong fit for their college in terms of
academic, social and geographic environment (The College Board, 2014).
Both early decision and early admission students transmit strong signals and indicators
for college enrollment. Simply stated, early decision candidates typically transmit a strong intent
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 76
to enroll whereas early admissions students typically signal a strong record of academic
achievement and scholastic competence.
Thus, in an effort to collect the most current data in the most competitive environments,
data collection for this study was deliberately timed to occur between October and December,
2013. In October 2013, the researcher traveled to four of the six participating campuses in the
study where the researcher personally attended admissions presentations, student life
presentations and campus tours. While on campus, the researcher also met with college
admissions personnel and conducted unstructured interviews of the participants. The
unstructured interviews afforded the researcher an opportunity to personally evaluate the
respondent, solicited individual participation in the study, discuss evolving trends in the areas of
online reputation, social networking and “big data,” and “baseline” the interviewee for future
interviews.
In November and December 2013, I telephonically conducted formal, semi-structured
interviews of five different college admissions professionals employed by four different
university campuses. As previously noted, these campuses are located within different regions
and time zones of the continental United States. The participating campuses and respondents of
my study were purposefully sampled because each would possess unique experiences that would
relate directly to my central question (Merriam, 2009).
I crafted an interview protocol with the intent that my questions be used in a semi-
structured fashion. Thus, I anticipated that not all my questions would be used as originally
drafted, or for that matter, used at all. I utilized a semi-structured interview for reasons
illustrated by Merriam (2009) as allowing for greater flexibility during the interview and for my
intent to formulate new questions for the immediate interview as well as future interviews.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 77
Based on my experience as a criminal investigator as well as my experience as an interview and
interrogation instructor, I also preferred the semi-structured interview because this format a)
allows for a more natural conversation, b) allows the interviewer to more readily observe
nonverbal cues such as body language and hand gestures, c) allows the interviewer to more
readily observe verbal cues such as tone and pace, and d) allows for the presentation of less
guarded and more authentic responses on the part of respondents.
The data collected for this study included in-depth unstructured and semi-structured
interviews, field observations and a review of the primary document used for admissions to these
colleges, The Common Application. Regarding the interviews, six different college admission
professionals were interviewed on nine separate occasions. Four of the nine interviews were
conducted as face-to-face, unstructured interviews. These four interviews were recorded with
field notes and took place in the college admission offices of the interviewees. The remaining
five interviews were conducted via telephone and followed a semi-structured interview protocol
as mentioned in prior chapters. Interviews conducted via telephone were recorded with a Zoom
H2 digital recorder. As a redundant safe guard measure, a second recording was simultaneously
made via an Apple iPad equipped with the “PocketDictate” audio recording application.
During the study, twelve field observations were conducted at five separate locations.
These observations were conducted between October and November 2013, and consisted of five
recruitment presentations, three student life presentations and four campus tours. Due to fiscal
limitations, only four of the five recruitment presentations were observed on the campus of a
participating institution. The fifth recruitment presentation was observed in Hawaii when a
college admissions officer (“Coreen”) traveled to the islands as part of her pre-arranged
recruitment efforts. The audio portion of these field observations was also digitally recorded
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 78
with a Zoom H2 recorder and Apple iPad equipped with the “PocketDictate” audio recording
application.
Field observations of four student presentations and four campus tours were also
conducted. Each student presentation consisted of 3 to 5 current students offering their
impressions of life on their respective campus and lasted from 30 to 60 minutes. Each campus
tour was conducted by a current student attending their respective campus and lasted from 75 to
90 minutes. Student presentations and campus tours were documented with a combination of
field notes and digital audio recordings.
Lastly, a review of college admission forms for each institution was conducted. Easing
the document review portion of this study was the fact that every institution of the study used the
same admission form, namely The Common Application. In 1975, The Common Application
(www.commonapp.org) was established as a college application service that standardized the
college application process through the creation of one, universal application form. Today, over
500 institutions in the United States and abroad utilize the Common Application. As of Fall
2013, The Common Application discontinued the paper and downloadable versions of its form
and can only be accessed through the service's website, www.commonapp.org, or through a
handful of institutions that independently offer the downloadable PDF document to their
students. [As a point of clarification, it is important to note that The Common Application is not
only an admissions form but also the name of the organization administering the form. In the
course of my study, I will be using the term “The Common Application” to refer to the actual
form and will note otherwise when referring to the entity of the same name.
The primary researcher used “Dragon Diction,” which is an Apple iPad application, to
transcribe audio recordings gathered in the course of the study. Transcriptions were then loaded
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 79
into a qualitative analysis application, QDA Miner, where they were reviewed for accuracy and
minor corrections were made. Using the inductive method of qualitative research, I searched for
reoccurring themes from interviews, field observations, and documents by reading through each
transcript and using simultaneous audio playback of the recorded event. I then created a coding
scheme of commonalities and traits that developed in the course of my study as “bits and pieces
of information from interviews, observations [and] documents [were] combined and ordered into
larger themes” (Merriam, 2009, p. 15). (The exact coding methodology will be explained in the
Data Analysis section below.) With the QDA Miner software, I was also able to keep detailed
notes and records of my discoveries. I then built frequency tables to search for trends and
reoccurring themes that occurred across multiple codes and campuses. Subsequently, I identified
and collected rich, descriptive narratives, which will be used as direct quotations throughout the
remainder of this dissertation. By using direct quotes, this study intended to draw reader interest,
strove to build credibility by allowing as much of the actual “voice” of participants to be heard
throughout this document, and minimized the unintended impact of bias on the part of the
researcher/author (Creswell, 2008). The reoccurring themes relevant to my research questions
that developed throughout this process became the findings of this study.
Instrumentation
To assist in the development of a testing instrument, the researchers responsible for the
aforementioned Kaplan Test Prep surveys were contacted via email in February 2013 and
December, 2013. As the Kaplan Test Prep surveys were the only known studies into the online
behaviors of college admissions officers, these researchers were contacted with the hope of their
sharing unpublished insight into the lessons learned and best practices of their studies.
Unfortunately, these researchers advised me that they were unwilling to release their raw data or
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 80
share their testing instrument. Furthermore, a subsequent review of the literature also failed to
uncover any testing instrument or protocol on the topic of social media use by college admission
officers. Thus, an original series of questions were developed in support of a semi-structured
interview format to serve as the primary research protocol. Initially developed as part of my
preliminary study, the questions were first piloted amongst doctoral students, and then field-
tested on college admissions professionals. To increase the credibility of the protocol, the
questions were deliberately tested on a diverse selection of college admission professionals that
included men and women, four separate campuses (rural, suburban, and urban), a public and
private institution, and individuals with an array of titles and responsibilities within their
respective departments (e.g., Director of Admissions, Assistant Director of Admissions,
Admissions Counselor and Vice President, Enrollment Management).
With feedback from the initial field test used to modify the study, sample questions were
refined and field-tested amongst a second pool of college admission officers representing eleven
colleges and universities from across the country. As in the initial field study, the second sample
included a diverse selection of college admission professionals, which included men and women,
public and private institutions, national universities, regional colleges and a spectrum of location
types (rural, suburban, urban). Feedback from this second field test was used to again refine the
final interview questions. Qualitative data for this study was gathered from a semi-structured
interview protocol containing the thirty-three (33) points listed (Appendix A). Qualitative data
from field notes taken both during and immediately after unstructured interviews were
transcribed and loaded into QDA Miner Lite software for data analysis.

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 81
Data Analysis
In order to analyze the collected data, a qualitative data analysis and interpretation
methodology was followed (Creswell, 2008). After the data were collected, recordings were
transcribed and the data was thoroughly read through. After loading the transcripts into
qualitative data analysis software (QDA Miner Lite), a detailed coding of textual data was
conducted. Specifically, a color code was used to highlight meta-themes previously identified
through an earlier review of literature. The meta-themes and their corresponding color code
included the following:
 Signaling Theory (purple) - these topics include but are not limited to asymmetry of
information, selectivity of admissions, modes of communication, use of the Internet and
the competitive nature of colleges
 Academic Competence (red) - these topics include but are not limited to quantifiable
measures of academic success such as GPA, SAT score, AP tests, class rank, etc.
 Personal Character (orange) - these topics include but are not limited to character
indicators and noncognitive variables such as personal drive, motivation, leadership,
cultural identity and altruism
 Social Capital (green) - these topics include but are not limited to the size, quality, and
quantity of online associations and members of a student’s social network. Social capital
topics may include online followers, online friends, a Klout score, or the number of
“likes” or “repins.”
 Online Content (blue) - these topics include but are not limited to the scope of online
content published by the student. These topics may include original content or reposts of
content derived from other individuals etc.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 82
 University Mission/Identity (brown) - these topics include but are not limited to
qualitative data points and statements made by college admissions personnel and
institutional representatives that relate to the college's mission, purpose, objectives,
campus identity, institutional brand and collegiate reputation.
During the coding process, of transcripts, seventy-eight unique codes and descriptors
were identified as falling within the meta-themes noted above. These coded dimensions and
descriptors, in no particular order, included the following:
Table 4
Meta-Themes and Coded Dimensions and Descriptors
Meta-theme Coded dimension and descriptor
Competence
GPA, SAT, ACT, class rank, advanced placement (AP), essay, letters of
recommendation, interviews, high school rigor, “competent/smart,”
transcript, high school diploma or GED
Character Faith-based philosophy; service, maturity, motivation, persistence, academic
curiosity, “fit,” identity, altruism, sense of purpose, volunteer, extracurricular,
leadership, diversity, global/international, athletic, “well rounded,” work
experience, overcoming life challenge, intent to enroll, financial need,
passion, communication skill, creativity, ability to learn, enthusiasm,
excellence
Social capital Political/government, nonprofit, sports, economic, academic institution, high
school profile, religion, high academic achievement or award, celebrity,
unspecified organization
Online Content Hyperlink, YouTube, “professional appearance,” Google, Facebook, Twitter,
social network, social media, negative/derogatory content, Tumblr, blog,
Instagram, Vine
Signaling
Activity
Recruitment, validating claims, “not normal practice,” learn more about a
student, protecting institutional reputation, when students offer online data,
unique college perspective on use of the Internet, safety and protection of
campus, authenticate claims, narrative examples
University
Mission
Employment and cultivate wealth, traditions, college ranking, excellence in
academic programming, competitive, create community

Use of the QDA Miner Lite software allowed the researcher to easily sort statements and
data points across the seventy-eight different codes noted above. To identify reoccurring
dimensions, QDA Miner Lite was used to build frequency tables, spreadsheets and graphs to best
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 83
illustrate the relevant phenomena, rich narratives and significant quotes that most aptly explained
the role of online reputation and the effect of “e-pinions” on college admissions.
Following qualitative methodologies of critical research (Merriam, 2009) and analytical
elements of case study research (Creswell, 2008), themes and trends identified in the study were
interpreted alongside previously identified theories from the review of literature. Data collected
from observations and interviews were first analyzed separately and coded according to the
themes and dimensions noted above. Interview and observational data was then reinterpreted in
a comparative matter and refined so as to identify the dominant motifs and pervasive themes of
this study.
Limitations
As previously mentioned, a qualitative study was adopted so that the researcher could
gain understanding as to how college admission officers use social media, interpret their
experience, construct their world view, and attribute meaning to their experience (Merriam,
2009). However, unlike a quantitative study that preserves its validity at the forefront through
control groups and the mitigation of extraneous variables, a qualitative study must protect its
validity after the study is conducted by using gathered evidence and data to explain alternate or
rival hypotheses (Maxwell, 2012). Thus, this study is not entirely free from threats to its
credibility. Noteworthy limitations to the collection methodology, interview protocol, recorded
data and interpretations of results are described below.
Researcher Bias
As the researcher is the primary instrument by which data is collected, analyzed and
interpreted, any preconceived theories, beliefs, perceptions and biases can inevitably taint
conclusions derived from qualitative research (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). As an advanced
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 84
instructor for a federal law enforcement agency, I have personally delivered instruction to over
40,000 teenaged students on topics relevant to online safety, digital ethics and online reputation.
On many occasions, I have spoken with numerous teenagers who have reported that colleges and
employers have “Goggled” their social network profile. In many cases, students have reported
that they had a misconceived notion that their online profile was private, that they were
embarrassed about what was uncovered, and that the discovery of their online content had lead to
negative repercussions. Furthermore, since 2004, I have instructed over 1,000 school
administrators, faculty members, staff members, counselors, parents, and law enforcement
officers on aspects of online safety, digital ethics and online reputation. In many of these
incidents, I have offered counsel and strategies as to how to mitigate the impact of sexting,
cyberbullying, online stalking, illegal downloading, child pornography, and other cyber related
vices.
While I admit to having substantial experience and knowledge from the perspective of a
law enforcement officer, I recognize that the cases for which I have offered advice remain
anecdotal and limited in scope. Furthermore, given the thousands of post-secondary institutions
within the United States, I have interviewed and associated with only a few college admission
professionals regarding their perceptions of the Internet, their use of social media, the impact of
online reputation on the admissions process, and their formation of digital inferences and “e-
pinions”. While student stories are unique and compelling, they unfortunately are not the
smoking gun that truly explains how college admissions are treating social media, curating
online information or constructing online reputations. Furthermore, while the cases of school
administrators, counselors, and parents are also unique and interesting, they too do not provide
insight into the shared experiences of college admissions personnel.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 85
Limited Sample Size
One of the threats to a qualitative research design is the possibility that the study does not
have enough participants to make it generalizable to a larger populace (Maxwell, 2012).
Specifically, the argument can be made that this study only includes the limited experiences of a
few college admission officers. The argument can also be made the participants within the study
are unique onto themselves as they may very well have different titles and thus different
responsibilities and roles within the college admissions process. The individuals selected for the
study, however, have been purposefully selected as college admission professionals who would
have both the opportunity and motivation to pursue an applicant's online reputation. Preliminary
investigation into this phenomenon revealed that not all institutions engage in the behavior of
inquiry. Furthermore, preliminary findings indicated that not all college admission professionals
on the same campus or within the same university department engage in the same behaviors.
This difference could be due to a number of unknown reasons yet to be revealed through this
study and may include variances in technical knowledge, generational perceptions, institutional
protocols, unwritten rules and regulations, interpretation of informal policies, and individual
perceptions of privacy. Nevertheless, in-depth interviews and observations rooted in qualitative
case study research will not only confirm the practice but may offer hidden insight into how
textual and graphical images translate into semiotics of student “fit” and predictions of student
performance.
The theoretical framework guiding this study takes an inductive turn toward signaling
theory as one of its cornerstone concepts. Per this theory, signaling becomes increasingly
important in highly competitive scenarios and environments. Signaling theory rests on the
premise that signals become louder and more intense as their competitive environment becomes
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 86
more obvious (Connelly et al., 2010a; Karasek III & Bryant, 2012; Spence, 1973). With this in
mind, online signals may not be relevant in all circumstances, but rather those circumstances in
which the risks for admitting the wrong student could have serious consequence (Donath,
2007b). For these reasons, participants were purposefully selected based on the selectivity of
their institution, the competitive nature of their admission process, the reputation of the college
or university and their prior experience with social media in the admission process.
To further validate the presence of this behavioral phenomenon, this study deliberately
sought competitive college environments and used the U.S. News and World Reports 2014 List of
Best Colleges in America to identify high-ranking institutions and college admissions
professionals for the study. Furthermore, the study was conducted during the “early admissions”
and “early decision” time frame of late Fall. Many consider this time of year the most
competitive time for college applications, especially at highly selective universities (Antecol &
Smith, 2012; Avery & Levin, 2010; Blackburn, 1997; Halpern, 2004). The “early admissions”
and “early decision” time frame of late Fall was selected as it was the time period when a largest
pool of highly prepared and qualified students would submit their applications to the most
selective universities.
It is important to note that while the lowest ranked participant in the study falls within the
top 20% of National Universities per the U.S. News and World Report ranking, this same
institution also falls within the top 3.75% of all regionally accredited institutions of higher
learning that were ranked in this year's 2014 List of Best Colleges. This study does not intend to
be generalizable to all colleges or to be representative of the experience of all college admissions
personnel. Rather, this study seeks to illuminate the experiences and practices of college
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 87
admissions personnel in the most competitive environments at America’s most selective
institutions.
Summary
If college admission departments use online reputation to vet potential college applicants,
they must first accurately attribute that reputation to a specific student candidate. This is not an
easy task when you consider an accurate profile must be culled from petabytes of data that span
unknown numbers of sites on the Internet. College admission departments must then accurately
authenticate the content of that reputation in order to judge if the content and reputation are
legitimate and trustworthy. Failure to do so may create both ethical and legal concerns for
college admissions.
In order to fully understand the above phenomenon, an exploratory study was conducted.
Chapter 3 provides comprehensive detail of the methodology used to evaluate the role of online
reputation and influence of “e-pinions” in this study. In order to ascertain when, how, and why
college admission officers search for signs of online reputation a protocol was developed in line
with qualitative case study research. Chapter 3 also introduces my research protocol, justifies the
selection of my interview questions, explains the purposeful selection of my interview sample,
and offers insight as to the strengths and weaknesses of my research methodology. Guiding the
research was the conceptual framework of the “Four Cs” (competence, character, capital and
content), which I believe make up the foundational rubric when assessing a student's online
reputation. In order to obtain the data for my conclusions, I first conducted a preliminary study,
followed by field observations of various recruitment presentations, in-depth interviews of
college admission professionals both in person and via telephone, as well as a review of
participant's admission policies as found on the Common Application, online websites and
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 88
student handbooks. In all instances, the individuals participating in the study represented highly
competitive and highly selective private institutions. To validate their remarks, direct
observations were conducted at multiple colleges and universities so as to uncover the patterns
and practices of college admission professionals. In the chapters to follow, we will review the
results of the study and interpret those results to make meaning of the data.

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 89
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to explore the extent by which a candidate's online reputation
can influence their admission into college. According to the U.S. Department of Education, a
record 21.7 million students were expected to enroll in American colleges or universities across
the United States in the Fall of 2013 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). At the same time,
reports and news stories are warning the latest crop of college hopefuls that college admissions
officers are searching Google, Facebook, and other social media networks as part of their
preadmissions process (Anonymous, 2011; Barnes & Mattson, 2009; Barnes, 2009; Luckerson,
2012; National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2009b) In response, savvy high
school counselors, faculty members, administrators and parents, aware that admission officers
have been trolling social media sites, have repeatedly warned their students to “clean” their
online presence, delete questionable online content, and reevaluate the appropriateness of their
online activities (Hechinger, 2008b; Kaplan Test Prep, 2011).
However, many are unsure as to why students are being compelled to edit their online
profiles. This uncertainty has caused many students and educators to speculate about exactly
what it is that colleges look for and how deep they will dig to uncover online content (Hechinger,
2008a). For teens in particular, the intersection of their social networking profiles and their
future aspirations has created much “drama” over “how [they] conceptualize and understand
their social dynamics” in a world where 95% of their peers are on social media (Amanda
Lenhart et al., 2011; Marwick & boyd, 2011a, p. 23; Project Tomorrow & Speak Up, 2012a).
Often this “drama” revolves around the belief that prospective colleges will be uncovering their
tawdry photos, lewd speech, or teenaged indiscretions that were never intended for adult eyes. In
this environment of uncertainty, speculation has arguably turned into hysteria because students
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 90
fear that their online presence will ultimately jeopardize their college prospects (Hechinger,
2008b; Luckerson, 2012; Mills, 2012).
With millions of students seeking to enroll in college each year, the findings presented
here delve into factors likely to influence the admission process. Specifically, understanding
how online reputations are constructed, curated, and construed by college admissions
departments will better inform candidates on how best to create and disseminate their online
content. Informing the primary research questions of this study are the reciprocal relationships
between a college's institutional mission, a college's admission policies, the evolution of social
media platforms, the growing ubiquity of handheld digital technologies as well as the experience
and efficacy of the college admission officers themselves. In light of the above, the primary
research questions of this study are as follows:
1. How prevalent is the use of online reputation in the college admission process?
2. Under what circumstances do college admission officers seek out, access or make use of
an applicant's online reputation as part of the college admissions process?
3. How do college admissions counselors use information generated from applicants’ online
reputations during the admissions process?
This chapter first introduces the college admission personnel who participated in this
study then discusses findings to the questions above by presenting the qualitative data in the
form of themes that emerged through the analysis of interviews, field observations, and a review
of The Common Application form.
Participant Demographics and Characteristics
In Chapter Three, I offered descriptive data about the seven participating institutions
included in this study. The actual persons who were interviewed and participated in this study
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 91
are described in greater detail below. As previously noted, all participating individuals were
granted confidentiality and were advised that their identities would not be published. Any
identifiers linking them to their respective campuses have been deliberately omitted. In an effort
to best protect their identities and to better facilitate the sharing of their narratives, I have also
elected to use pseudonyms. A list of these pseudonyms and a short biography of each participant
follows in the paragraphs below.
Table 5
Interviewee Coding
Name
(Pseudonym)
Gender Title
“Abbey” Female Associate Director or Admissions
“Clint” Male Acting Director of Undergraduate Admissions
“Scott” Male Associate Vice President of Undergraduate Admissions
“Carey” Female Dean of Undergraduate Admission
“Deyon” Female Assistant Director of Admissions
“Coreen” Female Associate Director of Admissions
“Mary” Female Dean of Admission

“Abbey” is a Caucasian female in her mid-30s, currently employed at one of America's
top five national universities, according to U.S. News and World Report’ s 2014 List of Best
Colleges. With five years of experience in college admissions, Abbey describes her university as
a “top-tier academic institution” that is home to “world-renowned professors.” In describing
what makes her campus unique, Abbey advised that her university has a “global perspective”
with one of the strongest student bodies in the world. As a result, her campus is a “place where
discussion and intellectual ideas really thrive.” Abbey described her familiarity with the Internet
as “good” and advised that she is also a contributor to three social networks, to include
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 92
“Clint” is a Caucasian male in his mid-30s and, like Abbey, he is also employed at one of
America's top five national universities (per USNWR, 2014). Clint advised that he currently has
five years of experience in college admissions, and that he previously worked in admissions for a
smaller, regional university on the West Coast. When describing the type of students he looks
for Clint stated,
“The most important [trait I am looking for] would have to be academic
performance. Students [who] are typically at the top of the high school classes,
earning the top grades in many of their courses and have done well on
standardized tests.”
Clint further advised that he was very familiar with the Internet. When asked if he was a
member of any social networks, Clint stated, “Facebook. That's it.”
“Scott” is a Caucasian male in his mid- to late-50s. Scott is the most experienced
participant in the study, with over 36 years of experience in college admissions and having
served in admissions departments for both regional and national universities. Scott is currently
employed as an administrator at a top 20 nationally ranked university and describes his campus
as, a “[religious affiliated], highly selective, private, national research university.” Scott advised
that he is “reasonably familiar” with the Internet, but noted that he had recently abandoned his
social media profiles. Scott explained that at one time he maintained a presence on LinkedIn and
Facebook, but that he left these sites after growing suspicious of others who were
misappropriating his social media profile.
“Carey” is a Black female in her early 50s with over 25 years of experience in college
admissions. Carey serves as the Dean of Admission at an institution currently ranked by
USNWR as a top five regional university. As a person of color and high-ranking college
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 93
administrator, Carey has received numerous awards and accolades for her work in higher
education. Carey advised that she is familiar with social media and that she currently maintains a
presence on the popular social network, Facebook.
“Deyon” is an Asian female in her late 20s. Although Deyon may be one of the younger
participants in the study, Deyon brings international experience as a college recruiter whose
region includes the Pacific and Asia. Currently, Deyon is the Assistant Director of Admissions at
one of America's top five national universities, per USNWR, 2014. Deyon advised that she is
familiar with the Internet and that she maintains online profiles at both Facebook and LinkedIn.
“Coreen” is a Black female and the the youngest participant in our study. Shortly after
completing undergraduate studies, Coreen was employed by her alum's admissions department.
Coreen's institution had spent many years as a #1 ranked regional university. However, campus
growth and expansion eventually forced the university to be classified by U.S. News and World
Report as a national research university. Coreen has been actively involved in college
admissions for over 3 years and identified her campus as a “Christian university.” When
describing the uniqueness of her college, Coreen advised that her university “…really
challenge[s] students to dig deeper in the classroom, to focus not only on theoretical knowledge
[...], but how their faith, ethics and morals really apply to those subjects.” Coreen advised that
she is “very familiar” with the Internet and stated that she maintains social networking accounts
on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
“Mary” is a Caucasian female in her mid-50s. With 32 years of experience in college
admissions, Mary is the second most experienced college admissions professional participating
in the study. Currently, Mary is employed as the Dean of Admissions at a top-20, nationally
ranked, liberal arts university. Mary advised that the historical character of her campus has made
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 94
her institution subject to court challenge in recent years. As its Dean of Admissions, Mary has
occasionally found herself serving as the face and spokesperson of the university as she
continues to defend the historic character of her campus in legal proceedings and the media.
Mary advised that she is “very familiar” with the Internet and stated that she keeps an active
profile on the social networking site, Facebook.
Findings
In Chapter Two of this study, similarities were drawn between the college admission
process and a competitive marketplace. At the pinnacle of competitive college admissions are
highly prestigious universities holding a limited number of seats for prospective students (Bound
et al., 2009). Also participating in this economy are a limited number of highly capable students
with a track record of high achievement and academic excellence (Avery & Levin, 2010; Ayán &
García, 2008; Davey, 2010; House & Prion, 1998). Informing our comparison of college
admissions to a competitive marketplace is signaling theory and the idea that there is a reciprocal
relationship between the intensity of market competition and the intensity of signals amongst
market participants (Brian L Connelly et al., 2011; Miller, 2009; Spence, 1973). Specifically, in
a highly competitive, asymmetrical marketplace, signals become increasingly important and
increasingly influence the decision making process of market participants (Avery & Levin, 2010;
Epple et al., 2006; Karasek III & Bryant, 2012; Spence, 1973).
In college admissions, these signals are observed when highly selective institutions
compete amongst each other to enroll the best and brightest students. Similarly, the most
competitive students vie against each other and engage in various signaling behaviors in the
hopes of attracting and attending those same highly selective colleges. In this competitive
environment, both parties, students and colleges alike, simultaneously act as signalers and
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 95
receptors each attempting to attract the other and each struggling to stand out against their
respective competition.
This study thoroughly examines one dimension of these complex behaviors. Namely,
how colleges act as signal receptors seeking, collecting, and curating the signals of student
applicants. Serving as the university's primary lookouts and signal interpreters are highly trained
and experienced college admission officers. In addition to reviewing the traditional signals of
college preparedness that include SAT scores, GPAs and letters of recommendation, these
individuals search the Internet for traces of online reputation that speak to a student's
productivity, personality and potential. The discussion below provides insight into the
prevalence of this behavior among college admissions officers and the circumstances by which
online reputation becomes relevant in the fateful decision to admit an applicant.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question One asked: How prevalent is the use of online reputation in the
college admission process? The aim of this question is two-fold: first, to describe the
experiences of college admission professionals who encounter facets of online reputations; and
second, to gain insight into the extent of how online reputations affect their practice. Anecdotal
stories on the part of students, parents and high school counselors make the aim of this question a
worthwhile goal as much speculation abounds as the scope and prevalence of online reputation
and its impact on college admissions. For example, some of the surveys cited in this study have
captured national attention in the media, yet no one survey or study to date has ever fully
revealed the scope and depth of this behavior. (Barnes, 2009; Kaplan Test Prep, 2011, 2012a;
National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2009a; Schaffer, 2013). Furthermore,
even college faculty members speculate that “online sleuthing could be higher than statistics
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 96
show” (Luckerson, 2012). In light of the above, two primary themes, have appeared in the
process of answering this question. These themes include a confirmation that college admissions
professionals do conduct online searches and that the practice of reviewing online information is
a developing “trade secret” within the business of college admissions.
In the course of this research, seven college admission professionals were asked to
described the circumstances that they would seek out, access or evaluate a prospective student's
online reputation. At the opening of every interview, the study participants initially downplayed
the significance of online reputation and advised that online reputation was of no significance in
their admissions process. Their initial refusal to acknowledge both the existence of this practice
and its scope was a common theme across all participating institutions of the study. For
example, when asked to describe how online reputation might affect admissions to her
institution, Abbey, an Associate Director of Admissions, replied,
It doesn't. Really. We don't look up students’ personal information like that. We
just use the application and the supplement. [...] We are not searching students to
see what their Facebook profile says or what their Twitter says. That's not part of
application process.
Similarly, other participants advised that open source searching for student profiles on the
Internet was not part of their normal protocol or standard procedures. Clint, offered a like
response and stated, “So usually the online reputation does not affect the decision at all. I
actually instruct our admissions staff not to look for information about [a] candidate online.”
Mary, a Dean of Admissions with over 32 years of experience in the field, echoed a similar
stance and stated, “It is our practice not to look at a student's online presence... We don't use
online reputation or make it part of the application process.”
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 97
Both Carey, a Dean of Admissions, and Deyon, an Assistant Director of Admissions,
advised that their respective campuses do not use online searching of student profiles as part of
their normal application practice. Both cited time constraints and lack of staff as primary reasons
for the limited use of this type of data in the application review process. Clint explained,
“...anecdotally, when you talk to the people on our staff, almost to a person they say, 'I don't have
time for that.'“
As previously noted, field observations provided a source of data for this study. A
thorough review of notes and transcripts from these field observations, to include recruitment
presentations, student life presentations, and campus tours, revealed no mention or sign that
online reputation would be made part of the admissions process. At no time during these
observations were students, parents, or counselors attending these events ever made aware that
colleges would be reviewing and assessing the social networking profiles of prospective
students.
However, as each interview progressed, the study participants eventually revealed how, in
discrete scenarios, use of the Internet and elements of online information crept into the
admissions process. In some instances, college admissions officers advised simply advised that
they used Google's search functions to verify facts and that the tools for researching online
reputation were ever present. For example, in her interview, Abbey questioned the usefulness of
online reputation in the admission process and stated that online reputation is not, “...something
that we need to see to make a decision.” However, if she needed to go online to learn more
about a study Abbey acknowledge, “If I were to do that I would just Google them first and look
at what just popped up.” In other instances, college admissions officers related narrative stories
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 98
of how the Internet has affected potential candidates. These narratives will be shared in the
pages ahead.
In still other instances, some college admissions officers explained that online reputation
was not part of their normal application process. In describing the frequency of use on his
campus, Clint advised that his institution typically admits 3,000 new students each year. Within
that pool, Clint advised, that online data was evaluative for “maybe 20 students, that's probably a
liberal guess.” Abbey also confirmed the limited use of online data in some circumstances.
Later in her interview, Abbey stated:
So unless a student chooses to share that information as, of supplemental
materials, such as whether they're really proud of their Tumblr or their personal
art website or research. It might look at something like that. But we are not
searching students to see what their Facebook profile says or what their Twitter
says.
Confirming the limited use of online reputation were Carey, Deyon and Scott. Both
Carey and Deyon advised that reviewing online reputations and social networking profiles were
not part of the formal application process, but acknowledged that online searching of candidates
does exist in their profession. When asked if online reputation could play a role in the
admissions process in his office, Scott advised that, “It is not our practice that we go and assess
students online. But, if things are brought to our attention, we do due diligence.”
Coreen was the least guarded and most frank with her responses. With three active social
networking accounts, Coreen may also have been the most prolific user of social media
participating in the study. When asked if online reputations could affect admissions to college,
Coreen offered, “... I really think it can. Just from our experience, it can be indicative of how a
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 99
student will perform on our campus.” Echoing the legal advice from the NACAC (Barnes,
2009), Coreen also stated, “Whatever is on the Internet, once it goes public, that's free game
during the admission process.” Coreen further noted that she has advised high school students to
be wary of the public nature of the Internet. Coreen stated that she has informed numerous
applicants, “It is public record, its free game for us, so be sure that what you have online is really
who you are.”
Interestingly, one of the commonalities occurring throughout the research-phase of this
study is that college admission officers unremittingly protect what they regard as “trade secrets.”
As a result, the study participants were slow to reveal the influence of Internet and online data on
their decision-making processes. This hesitance was likely due to the fact that web-based data
was influential in a small percentage of applications and in limited circumstances. However, in
those limited instances, facets of online information, as opposed to online reputation, were highly
significant in determining the outcomes of applicants. In those cases, college admission officers
concluded they had a “reserved right” to exercise “due diligence” when identifying the most
qualified students. Coreen stated, “So, by no means is it a significant part of our admission
process. But we reserve the right to use this online tool.”
Hesitancy in revealing “trade secrets” of admissions also reveals the highly subjective
nature the admissions process. Abbey noted that students “... can seemingly be solid applicants
on paper. Right? They could have good grades are good testing, whatever good means, it's all
relative. But it's really about the entire package that they put together. ... It's just very
subjective.” Mary acknowledged both the challenge of subjectivity and voiced her concern with
the evaluation process by stating, “Where do we draw the line before letting [kids] be messy and
not using every bad judgment in high school affect whether they are getting into college? Where
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 100
is that line? ...Well, sort of like what the Supreme Court said, it's like pornography, you know it
when you see it.”
The pervasive accessibility to online data, the selective use of online information, the
lack of time and resources to fully evaluate online reputation and the inherent subjectivity of the
admissions process suggests that the review of online data is in its infancy, but that the
evaluation of online reputation has not yet begun. For example, at no time during any of the
observation phase of this study did any admissions department employee give any indication that
online information or online reputation would be considered as part of the admissions evaluation.
Furthermore, a review of the Common Application for admissions failed to reveal any sign or
message that web-based data or online reputation would be made part of the official application
package or considered as part of the formal admissions process.
Additionally, running throughout the course of the study was the underlying tension of
negative repercussions if an admissions officer revealed too much. This tension is most likely
due to the practice of conducting online searches of students is something that could be viewed
by others as being overly “…invasive, [especially] if [universities] own up to the practice”
(Luckerson, 2012, p. 1). In justifying their choice to review online data, the National Association
for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) advised colleges that online search open source
data was not an invasion of privacy (Barnes, 2009; National Association for College Admission
Counseling, 2009b). Under the heading, Social Networking: Legal and Ethical Considerations,
the National Association of College and Admissions Counselors asserted the following:
It is not an invasion of privacy for an employer (or a school) to gain access to
Facebook or MySpace profiles or photos. What is posted on the Internet has a
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 101
lower “expectation of privacy” than, say, a private home telephone conversation
(Barnes, 2009).
In metaphorical terms, the position of the NACAC gives college admissions
departments a “hunting license” to pursue online data and essentially declares “open
season” on any digital data that colleges may encounter via the Internet. However, while
the NACAC's position is essentially a “hunting license” to pursue web-based data, the
participants of this study remained reluctant to share details about how they “stalked” that
data and hesitantly shared the type of information they “bagged” whilst online.
Summary: Research Question One
In this study, every participant has acknowledged, either through direct admission,
equivocation, or anecdotal narrative that web-based content has, in limited circumstances, crept
into the admissions process. Therefore, these findings suggests that while the use of online
information may, in limited circumstances, play a role in the admissions process, online
reputation, as we have defined it here, does not appear to be a factor for admissions consideration
amongst competitive colleges and universities. This finding comes with the qualification that
seeking online content was not a universal practice amongst every college admission officer, nor
was it universally applied to all students. Furthermore, college admissions officers appear to be
very guarded and hesitant about revealing how their limited use of web-based content and online
information has affected their decision making process. As previously mentioned, these
protective instincts and the qualitative nature of this study ultimately prevent us from knowing
how truly widespread this practice has become among US four-year colleges and universities
(Luckerson, 2012). With these qualifications in mind, the findings of this study suggest that
when college admissions officers do access the Internet, they are seeking, curating, and using
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 102
pieces of the Internet to inform their decision making process. Online searches are taking place,
but college admissions officers are not looking for the broader picture that is online reputation.
Rather, due to a lack of time, resources and manpower they are using select and discrete pieces
of the Internet to fuel their decisions on whether to admit a candidate. Analysis of the remaining
research questions will shed light on when online information can be the decisive factor in
gaining admissions and how college admissions officers use it.
Findings for Research Question Two
Research question two asks: Under what circumstances do college admission officers
seek out, access or make use of an applicant's online reputation as part of the college admissions
process? The aim of this question is to identify the leading events that cause college admissions
officers to conduct Internet searches. As previously noted in the analysis above, college
admissions departments are not accessing online reputation as much as they are occasionally
accessing web-based content and online information. By gaining a better understanding of the
environment and circumstances that prompt these behaviors, college applicants can modify their
signaling behavior so as to better showcase themselves in competitive environments. This study
has identified three themes that best describe the environment in which the review of online -
information is conducted. These themes include a) the competitiveness of the collegiate
environment (i.e. market “thickness,”) b) the vetting of claims found in a student's application
packet and c) the review of supplemental application data. Each of these themes is addressed in
the subsections below.
Competitive Environments. In the course of this study, market competitiveness is
believed to be a contributing factor to reputational value (Horner, 2002). As previously
mentioned in Chapter Two, the relationship between signaling behaviors, reputation and
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 103
competitive environments provide a framework for this study. A review of the prevailing
literature strongly suggests that the intensity of signaling behaviors are positively correlated with
the competitiveness of a given environment (Connelly et al., 2010a; Horner, 2002; Hörner, 2006;
Miller, 2009; Spence, 1973). Furthermore, as mentioned in Chapter Two, within competitive
environments, multiple market participants can observe signaling behaviors. Therefore,
signaling behaviors and the reputational values they indicate not only applies to the reputation of
the students who apply to these prestigious colleges, but also applies to the valuable reputation of
the colleges themselves. In the case of colleges, their reputations may have been built over
decades and centuries and after a series of noteworthy discoveries and contributions to the global
body of knowledge (Aula & Tienari, 2011). The value of a “prestigious” or “world-class”
reputation is important in this regard as it suggests a possible motive for the behavior of college
admissions officers who do, on occasion, review online data in the admissions process (Aula &
Tienari, 2011; Horner, 2002). Stated another way, a direct relationship exists between the
competitiveness of an environment, the reputational value of the market participants, and the
signaling activities of those market participants (Aula & Tienari, 2011; Brunk, 2010; Horner,
2002; Spence, 1973; Strahilevitz, 2007).
This study uses the competitive environment of college admissions to identify instances
where the reputational value of college applicants as well as the colleges themselves becomes
significant in the admissions process. To identify these conditions, this study uses three reliable
indicators of admissions competitiveness to include the U.S. News and World Report’ s (USNWR)
rankings, the college admission officer's self-recognition of their competitive process, and the
intensity of signaling behaviors demonstrated by the colleges themselves at recruiting
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 104
presentations. Each of these facets of competitiveness and their relationships to online signaling
will be discussed below.
First, to identify competitive admission environments, this study purposefully utilized
U.S. News and World Report's (USNWR) 2014 List of Best Colleges in America to identify high-
ranking institutions. Subsequently, college admission officers from six high-ranking universities
were selected as study participants. To ensure a range of competitive environments were
observed, institutions with different ranks were selected from three different types of colleges to
include, national universities, national liberal arts universities, and regional universities.
Participating institutions can be described as follows:
 two of the six participating colleges were ranked within the top two percent
(2%) of national universities;
 one of the six participating colleges was ranked within the top two percent
(2%) of regional universities;
 one of the six participating colleges was ranked within the top ten percent
(10% ) of national universities;
 one of the six participating colleges was ranked within the top ten percent
(10%) of national liberal arts universities; and,
 one of the six participating colleges was ranked within the top twenty percent
(20%) of national universities.
Second, to further assess the “competitiveness” of the admissions environment, the study
asked college admissions officers to describe their admissions policies as being open, selective or
competitive. To this question, all respondents described their admissions policies as being either
selective or competitive. No participant described her or his admissions policy as being “open.”
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 105
As previously stated in the review of literature, “open” admissions policies are viewed as being
the least competitive environments for admissions to higher education.
When asked to explain why they rated his or her campus as being either selective or
competitive, study participants justified their self-identification as an economic reality where a
large surplus of students were applying to a handful of institutions with a limited number of seats
for admitted students. Clint, for example, advised that his campus was competitive because, “we
have many more qualified applicants than we have spaces for.” Echoing his description, Abbey
advised, “We are selective or highly selective as an institution because we have so many students
that apply to the university. […] We are selective because we can't admit every student that can
do the work here.” Similarly, Mary advised that her campus could be described as competitive
because she too turned away many more applicants than she had places for. When asked why
she viewed her campus as being competitive, Mary simply stated, “Admit rate and reputation.”
Scott, however, advised that the profile of his institution attracts a highly competitive applicant
pool. Scott stated, “Well, our academic profile places us among the top 15 national research
universities in the United States. ...And we are among the top 15 regarding academic profile for
the freshman class. [...] I would view that as being highly selective.”
This idea of limited seats being used to describe the competitiveness of an institution was
also noted during field observations. A review of transcripts gathered from recruiting and
student life presentations revealed a trend across campuses where college admissions personnel
expressed competitiveness through the finite number of seats for incoming students. For
example, at one of America's top five nationally ranked universities, a college admissions officer
stated, “For us, we are at a point where even if we decide to admit students with perfect SAT and
10 perfect subject tests, we would not have enough seats in our undergraduate class.”
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 106
Over a thousand miles away, at another “top five” nationally ranked university, a Dean of
Admissions welcomed hundreds of prospective students and their families to his campus but
warned:
You'll get into a bunch of schools [and] you will not get into some schools. [...] I
have to tell you that at [this university], we have roughly 30,000 applicants for
roughly 1400 spots. And I have to tell you that the other 20,000 applicants would
do very well here.
Similarly, on Scott's campus, a college admissions officer was observed stating, “This
past year we received just under 18,000 applications. We admitted about 4,000. That's a 22-23%
acceptance rate. And that's been pretty steady for the past several years.”
Collectively, these comments give notice to students that the road to an elite college will
be very competitive and that their odds in being accepted are slim. Economist attribute the
intensity of signaling to markets that have become saturated with competitors and refer to these
“target rich” environments as “thick markets” (Oyer, 2014; Spence, 1973). Markets where
thousands essentially are applying for the same seat can easily be described as “thick.” In the
case of college admissions, thick markets can easily be identified and assessed through
universities acceptance rates (e.g., the ratio of applications received to students admitted)
(Clinedinst et al., 2011; Morse & Flanigan, 2013).
Lastly, competitiveness was observed in those situations where universities and colleges
aggressively recruited high achieving candidates. As previously mentioned, signaling theory is a
two-way street where market participants act as both signalers and receivers (Alós-Ferrer & Prat,
2012; Connelly et al., 2010a; Hörner, 2006; Karasek III & Bryant, 2012). In competitive college
environments, both parties, students and universities, will transmit signals of competence,
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 107
character, and social capital through quality content in the hope of attracting the other. A review
of recordings and transcripts revealed a trend where university recruiters would “flaunt” their
institutional achievements and high ranking in an effort to attract the most competitive students.
Engaging in their own signaling behaviors, college admissions officers and recruiters were
observed advertising the various achievements and accolades of their respective campuses. For
example, during a recruiting presentation to approximately 500 students and parents, a Dean of
Admissions coyly opened his welcoming remarks by stating, “We are very excited to have you.
[…] In an email I received this morning, I learned that [our institution] had won two Nobel
prizes. I'd like to say that it doesn't happen so often. But it does.”
Other participants of the study also engaged in their own intense signaling behaviors by
highlighting the various achievements of their respective campuses. In a presentation to
prospective students, Coreen stated “And not to boast, but we are consistently ranked top 10 in
the country by the Institute for International Education for the numbers we've sent overseas” to
study abroad. Later in her presentation, Coreen advised hopeful prospects that her campus is one
of only 14 institutions in the country in which national titles have been won in five different
sanctioned sports. Hinting that her campus makes use of social media, Coreen also added that
her institution was named among the top 10 most “instagram-able colleges.”
At another recruiting presentation, one admissions professional advised promising
candidates that her university boasts one of the most prestigious college athletic programs in the
world. Additionally, this same recruiter also informed candidates, “We have the [university's]
College of Business which for 4 years in a row, has been named the number one undergraduate
business program in the college by a [leading business magazine].”
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 108
College admission professionals at other institutions touted similar achievements and the
high ranking of their respective schools. For example, at Carey's institution, college recruiters
advised that their institution “…is ranked number two in midsize, masters universities.” College
recruiters at this institution also informed candidates that their college has one of the highest
rated engineering programs in the country by consistently ranking within the top 15 for this field
of study. Signals of competitiveness and selectivity at Deyon's campus were subtler, but just as
profound. During an on-campus recruitment presentation, a college recruiter was observed
stating “I have seen Nobel prize winners teach basic chemistry to students. You just won the
Nobel prize and you are sticking around to teach. That's one of the things that makes [this
university] unique.”
Given online reputation's proclivity for use in competitive markets, it should come as no
surprise that online web-based information would become relevant in the most competitive of
scenarios. Specifically, it was revealed that online reputation has played a role in hotly contested
situations where multiple applicants with similar credentials are in a contest for one admittance
letter. For example, during the recruitment presentation at one of America's top five national
research universities, an admissions officer advised, “...the reality is that a lot of you are
qualified. A lot of you are, if admitted right now, can come to [our university] and graduate in
four years. What we are looking for is something more than that.”
During their interviews, three of the participants revealed that they considered online
sources of information to help them ultimately decide who will be admitted. When asked to
describe how web-based data faired against more traditional measures of student achievement
like GPA, SAT scores, Clint advised, “I would call it tiebreaker might not be quite right. But it's
kind of the thing that could tip a student on the margin, one way or another.” When asked if
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 109
online reputation was an important part of the her admission process, Coreen advised that, “... we
never allow one thing to be the thing that makes or breaks a student submission decision. [...] But
if it's got red flag, proves to be accurate, then...what you see online [can play] a role in their
admissions decision.” Scott provided a more fatalistic perspective. When asked if online
information can be used to influence the college admission process, Scott bluntly stated, “It can
be catastrophic.” These statements suggest that facets of online reputation, and the “e-pinions”
that they generate, can become relevant in the most competitive of admissions scenarios.
The highly competitive environment of admissions at these universities, suggests that the
reputational value of both candidates and colleges are at stake. However, while competitiveness
may define the most obvious condition in which college admissions offices are prompted to
consider online data, competitiveness alone is not enough to explain what triggers the evaluation
of web-based information. To answer that question, the study protocol asked study participants
the following question, “What events or conditions might cause you to seek out, access, or
evaluate online information on an applicant as part of the application review process?” In
answering this question, additional themes emerged. These motifs refine the use of online data
to scenarios where an admission officer must validate extraordinary claims found in an
application or situations where cyber savvy students use the Internet to include supplemental
data as part of their application package. These themes are discussed in detail below.
Vetting candidate applications. Throughout the study, numerous college admissions
officers advised that part of their charge as admissions professionals is to validate student
applications. For example, Coreen stated,
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 110
One of the things that our director has shared with us and that I have conveyed to our
admission counselors is that during the admission process if you see something that's
fishy, [we then have to engage in] fact checking and looking at inconsistencies.
Subsequently, a theme that emerged in this study was that the Internet is one of several
fact checking tools used by college admissions officers to authenticate student claims found in
their applications.
Clint advised that there does exist some instances when an admissions team is compelled
to validate a student's extraordinary claim(s) or statement(s) of achievement. For example, Clint
stated, that when “...a student from a small town that's a faraway place claims to have one some
kind of major national recognition, we may go [to the Internet] to confirm that it is true.” In
explaining his vetting process, Clint stated, “I actually instruct our admissions staff not to look
for information about a candidate online unless there's something on the file that we would like
to verify through outside research. [...] If a student was “recognized [in] a region-wide,
statewide, or nationwide pool, [we] would refer to Google to verify that.”
Clint continued by sharing the narrative of a student who had applied to his institution
and made claims of consulting with the Obama administration about religious persecution in
Egypt. Specifically, Clint stated that this particular student had made claims of advising
President Obama about the plight of Egypt's Coptic Christians and that in response, the student
had established an organization to consult with the White House. Clint stated that the admissions
department conducted Google searches to validate the applicant's claims and learned that that the
student had merely “received one of those standard responses that the White House sends when
you express concern as a constituent.” Clint further stated that in this case there was no evidence
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 111
“…of a relationship with the White House. […] And so we determined that this was an
exaggerated claim about the importance of the organization.”
College admissions officers are also aware that pieces of online information and elements
of one's online reputation can add special impetus and bona fides to an application. Abbey
advised that in one instance, a candidate for admissions had become a popular blogger and as
such had generated interest in her admissions department. Abbey explained:
Truly the only time that we, you know, interact with the student’s online
reputation is if they presented to us. So the one example I can think of off the top
of my head is a female applicant who had, she became kind of famous for a blog
that she was writing. And she was following all the advice from Seventeen
magazine. And so that is what we like, we ended up seeing that.
Popular social networking profiles, blogs, or web pages can elevate a candidate's social
capital, sometimes to the level of celebrity (Frontline, 2014). Facebook profiles, Twitter
accounts and YouTube accounts can easily attracts thousands of web-based fans (Frontline,
2014). Abbey's statement above suggests that these high-visibility profiles can considered as
extraordinary and warrant the attention of college admissions officers.
In describing the validation process at her institution, Coreen advised that the Internet
“…is really more a tool that we are encouraged to use in those situations where you feel...that we
need to dig a little deeper and figure out and...clear the situation where something seems a bit
off.” Scott expressed similar sentiment and advised that his college admission officers are
looking for something more than what is readily apparent in the candidate's application. A stellar
GPA, high SAT score, and leadership positions are highly visible signifiers of student
competence and character. However, his institution is looking for deeper insight when
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 112
evaluating their students. Scott continued, “I think that if an institution has become alert to and
concerned with the behavior of some of its highly qualified students and feels that the social
media can provide a deeper insight that is true about a student, then I think [online information]
could be a real issue.”
Interestingly, the data collected in the study also revealed a hierarchy among the
protocols and tools used to validate student claims. Still prevalent among college admissions
officers is the practice of contacting high school counselors for fact verification. Coreen advised
when she sees “something that's fishy” she would “look into contacting a school counselor.”
Similarly, Mary advised that when a matter of concern or issue of authenticity would arise, her
“…next step was to contact [the candidate's] school, [the candidate's] school counselor, and [the
candidate's] principal.” Mary then stated that she would then contact the student for both a
written and oral explanation of the matter of concern.
However, in competitive environments, the authenticity of signals is important when
identifying the most qualified candidates (Birnbaum, 2008; Donath, 2007b; National Association
for College Admission Counseling, 2009a; Pettit, 2011). Scott, who described this as searching
for what “is true about a student,” recognized that the obvious signals of student competence and
character are biased in favor of the candidates. “Usually any positives are already shared with us
automatically. We don't have to go find it. These things are being thrust into our face. By the
student, by the parent, by the high school.” Given the context of Scott's interview and the
competitive nature of admissions to his campus, Scott's statement hints that college admissions
officers will not hesitate to turn to the Internet in their effort to learn something more of their
candidates. When validating extraordinary student claims, this study revealed that college
admissions officers most often referred to the search functions of Google, followed by the search
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 113
functions of Facebook. When Scott was asked to elaborate on the protocols used for web
searches, Scott advised, “I guess we would start with Google. [...] Facebook and Google would
probably be the first two we'd check.” In a similar fashion, Clint advised, “We would start with
Google. And then people would go on and use their judgment to identify the links that would
verify what they're looking for.” When asked to identify where she would go to learn more about
prospective students, Abbey also advised, “If I were to do that I would just Google them first and
look at what just popped up.”
Although Google and Facebook were repeatedly mentioned in the study, these websites
are not the only digital data points referenced by college admission officers. Without offering a
specific list of search engines or protocols, Scott explained that online searching was a dynamic
process. Scott explained, “[Google and Facebook] ...wouldn't be the only ones. If we become
interested, we obviously would begin to look at any other [websites] that might be expected to
generate information.” Among the other social networks and mediated publics identified in this
study were YouTube, Tumblr, Twitter, and Instagram. For example, when asked to describe
online reputation, Coreen stated, “...online reputation [is] what we get to know about you
through a Google search or through searching for you on Instagram...” Coreen further explained
that social networks continue to evolve and that her institution's practices have evolved with the
expansion of social media. Coreen stated, “Students don't use Facebook because too many
parents are looking. So there is really been a jump to Vine, Twitter, and Instagram. [...] It really
depends on what it is that we are trying to research. But those are the main types that we will be
using.” Coreen's statement reflects the reality that online data can come in a variety of forms.
The mode of online data, whether it be text based (as in Twitter), photographic (as in Instagram),
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 114
or video based (as in Vine), reflects both the ubiquitous nature of digital information and
surprising effect of the Internet on Coreen's job.
Supplemental data. The aim of research question two is to identify the leading events
that cause college admissions officers to conduct Internet searches. Research question two,
therefore, essentially discloses when college admissions officers search and curate online data. A
review of transcripts collected as part of this study reveals that college admission officers not
only accessed the Internet to validate applications, they also accessed the Internet to retrieve and
review supplemental information deliberately submitted by candidates. Essentially, the
participants of this study reported that in some instances, cyber savvy applicants would attached
web-based information as part of their initial application packet and that admissions officers
would access the Internet when following these intentionally shared data points.
To further illustrate this process, each institution participating in the study advised that
candidates are required to submit a basic application packet. This packet typically consists of the
online common application form, various essays, recommendation letters, school transcript(s),
and standardized test score(s). Recall that in Chapter Three, The Common Application is the
universal online application used by over 500 institutions, to include all study participants.
During the course of this study, there was a noted variance between institutions and their
“standard” application packets that included differences the following:
 the types of standardized tests (SAT, ACT and/or SAT Subject Exam),
 the topics and lengths of their essay prompts,
 the source and volume of recommendation letters, and
 the inclusion of high school profile(s).
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 115
However, cyber savvy college candidates seeking to share more about themselves would
also intentionally embed digital artifacts in the form of hyperlinks or URL web addresses within
their application packets. These links to the Internet would be deliberately shared in essays,
personal statements or additional information boxes of the common application.
A review of the study's data revealed that the tactic of sharing hyperlinks or URLs was
not a practice openly shared to applicants, nor was it a scheme openly invited by any of the
institutions. A thorough review of the online common application, as well as transcripts of the
recruitment presentations, student life presentations, and campus tours all failed to reveal the
ability to supplement an application packet with digital linkages. At no time during the course of
this study was the opportunity to send additional information in the form of hyperlinks, web
addresses, or other online artifacts made known to candidates, parents, or members of the general
public. Essentially, college admissions officers never requested this data, yet a handful of
students elected to use digital linkages as a way to enhance their application with more
information.
When interviewed, many of the study participants advised that they have accepted links
to online content as a valid means of supplementing an application. These same participants also
advised that such links allowed them to access additional information that can only be found
online. Explaining this condition most succinctly was Clint who advised, “When they [the
students] offer it, we look. If they don't offer it, and they are making a claim that [is] based on
what we see in the file, we like to verify.” Echoing Clint's observation was Abbey who advised,
“The only time that [the university] would ever seek that is if a student is sharing something that
they want us to see. Basically through their supplemental information should they choose to
share on a website, Tumblr, whatever it maybe.”
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 116
Mary offered a narrative that most clearly illustrates this phenomenon. Referring to a
specific applicant on her campus, Mary advised that a student had included a hyperlink that
connected video content of a candidate's spoken word poetry to her official application. Mary
advised that the initial admissions officer who viewed the video was offended at the video's
content due to its prolific use of profanity. Mary, however, had a different opinion after viewing
the video, and opined that while the poem was explicit, she believed the piece did have literary
merit. Mary further advised that by linking this particular poem to her application this applicant
confidently shared a part of herself that she wanted the admissions department to see. Mary
noted that after consideration by her admissions committee, this particular candidate was granted
admission to her college.
Mary's narrative reveals both highly subjective nature of her job and the power of “e-
pinions” on the admissions process. In this instance, two separate college admissions
professionals were able to review, presumably, the same online content. Despite reviewing the
same video, both Mary and her colleague drew entirely different inferences, biases and e-pinions
about their online experiences.
Coreen advised that supplementing an application with web-based content could be
advantageous. Coreen explained,
What really makes [an application] great is something that surprises us a little bit.
That really didn't come across in your application or your essay. You know, you
have included a link to a YouTube page and that really showed your personality
and you just bloomed and we could see your sense of humor and we could really
experience your passion for such and such organization or such and such deal.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 117
During their initial interviews, Scott, Carey, and Deyon, also confirmed that in some
instances, prospective students have used hyperlinks as a way of connecting online content to
their official application. Scott, in particular, observed that on his campus, scholar-athletes
frequently include online digital content as a means of connecting video highlights, news stories
or performance statistics to their application.
In light of the above, it is a finding of this study that college admission officers at
competitive institutions also use the Internet to pursue online information voluntarily offered as
supplemental material and addendums to the application packet. In the handful of circumstances
where college admissions officers are presented with digital linkages, college admissions officers
have reportedly used these links to access online data and have create e-pinions about what they
encountered. The statements of participants seem to indicate that hyperlinks and other methods
of connecting an application to online content can be advantageous if the content aligns to the
heuristic assumptions, biases and e-pinions of the college admissions officer who reviews the
application.
Summary: Research Question 2
Participating in this study are six highly selective and competitive universities. In light of
data collected in this study, these institutions are considered competitive on their self-
identification, low admissions rates and institutional ranking in U.S. News and World Report’s
List of Best Colleges in America. The highly competitive environment of admissions at these
prestigious universities, suggests that the reputational value of both candidates and colleges
themselves are at stake. However, while competitiveness may define the most obvious condition
in which college admissions offices are prompted to consider online data, competitiveness alone
is not enough to explain what triggers the evaluation of online content. To answer that question,
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 118
research question two asks: under what circumstances do college admission officers seek out,
access or make use of an applicant's online reputation as part of the college admissions process?
As previously mentioned, the findings in question one above suggest that while the use of online
information may, in limited circumstances, play a role in the admissions process, online
reputation, as we have defined it here, does not appear to be a factor for admissions
consideration. Rather than seeking and using online reputation, college admissions officers are
triggered by specific events that cause them to pursue more discrete pieces of online information.
The data gathered in this study reveals that college admissions officers are triggered to use the
Internet by extraordinary claims in a student's application and the inclusion of supplemental
online information that was voluntarily surrendered by an applicant. This study also reveals that
searching online for evidence of extraordinary claims or for supplemental information is one of
several validation protocols at the disposal of college admissions officers. Other validation and
research methods include contacting high school counselors and/or principals and re-contacting
applicants. Furthermore, this study reveals that while Google and Facebook are the preferred
search engines of the participants, college admissions officers may pursue information on other
web sites, to include but not limited to, Tumblr, Vine, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.
Results for Research Question Three
Research question three asks: How do college admissions officers use information
generated from applicants’ online reputations during the admissions process? The aim of this
question was to identify both the motives and modus operandi of college admissions officers
who use online reputation as part of their admissions process. By gaining a better understanding
of these methods, students, parents, and high school counselors can better reconcile online
reputation with traditional measures of admissions such as the SAT scores, high school GPAs,
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 119
essays, personal statements, letters of recommendations, etc. However, as previously noted in
the analysis of questions one and two, college admissions departments are not accessing online
reputation as much as they are occasionally accessing web-based content and specific elements
of online information about a candidate. In light of earlier findings, this study has identified two
themes that best describe how college admissions officers use online information and discrete
pieces of online content. These themes include a) identifying students for “institutional fit” and
b) investigating allegations of online misconduct. Each of these themes is addressed in the
subsections below.
Identifying Student's For “Institutional Fit ”
In Chapter Two, the literature review for this study revealed that online information is
typically evaluated across four dimensions: competence, character, social capital and online
content. Collectively referred to as the “Four Cs,” these elements form a theoretical framework
that explains how online information can be interpreted as semiotic communication.
Specifically, online content is often viewed using a general semiology in which text, words,
graphics and icons are evaluated as a proxy for student productivity, personality, and potential.
The “Four Cs” also offers a rubric that could potentially explain how college admissions officers
interrogate online data in order to identify both the best students and the students who are the
best for them.
Thus far, the study data has revealed the conditions and triggers for the collection and
curation of online data. The continued analysis of this data further revealed that college
admissions officers assess online data in different ways and form interpersonal inferences about
what they encounter online. These interferences are characterized in this study as “e-pinions.”
The "e-pinions" formed about applicants via online content are unique to each college
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 120
admissions professional and appear to be heavily influenced by their campus mission and
identify of their respective institutions. Stated another way, because no two campuses are alike,
each of the institutions participating in this study searched for uniquely different qualities in the
candidates that apply to their schools. Differences in university mission and campus identity
compel college admissions officers to evaluate students in different ways. These dissimilar
environments compel college admissions officers to independently form e-pinions of the online
content they evaluate and thus, draw heuristic assumptions about the prospective students
responsible for such online content.
First, a comparison of the data revealed that each of the participating institutions was
looking for different characteristics in their applicants. For example, at Deyon's institution, a
college admissions officer was observed stating, “So for our admission standpoint, what we are
looking for is [not only] competitive but also compelling.... What this means is that we don't
necessarily have students in our admitted student body who have the highest testing. But what
we do have are students who are ranking very high in their high school context.” This
admissions officer continued to explain that his institution was aggressively searching for
students with “creativity, sophistication and depth” and what his admission committee calls “that
[university] spark”.
However, at Carey's institution, a college admissions officer expressed different attributes
when explaining what their admissions department was looking for. Specifically, this college
admissions officer advised that they were looking for students willing to live their core values of
“competence, conscience and compassion.” During a recruiting presentation on Carey's campus,
this admissions officer informed prospective applicants that they were searching for students
willing to pursue a “just and humane world through their individual contributions [and] ethics
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 121
applied focus.” To do this students, must “be competent, not only through rigor and academic
structure...”, but conscientious, “by having an understanding ...[of] the context, cultures and
ethics of others” and compassionate, by “...building strengths to meet the world's greatest needs.”
The study data offers a possible explanation for this variation in that each participating
university is a unique community with its own, distinctive social context, academic objective and
institutional mission. This variance, in turn, compels college admission officers to look for
different qualities in their applicants and whom they ultimately admit to campus. College
admission officers, therefore, will interpret reputational signs in different ways as they search for
the students who best “fit” their institutional objectives and sense of community. This variance
in interpretation hints at the highly subjective nature of the application process, the differences in
e-pinions among college admission professionals, and suggests a possible motive for colleges
that wish to protect their institutional reputations.
Further transcript analysis of study participants also revealed that each admissions officer
had a significantly different emphasis on the type of student they were seeking. For example,
during a recruiting presentation at one of the top five ranked universities participating in this
study, a college admissions officer explained that what made his campus unique was a history of
innovation. This officer informed hundreds of prospective students, “You can see this common
thread of innovation in multiple areas running through our institution.” Subsequently, this theme
of innovation is one that was discovered during interviews of college admissions officers
associated with the same campus. When Abbey, a college admissions officer at the same school,
was asked to describe her institution, she described it as a campus full of diverse “people who are
really excited to engage and learn.” Abbey subsequently advised that the most important
characteristic that she looks for in an applicant is “their overall passion or willingness to engage
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 122
academically. You know why ...and how [you] want to learn.” Clint, the Acting Director of
Undergraduate Admissions at the same college, also described the innovative nature of this
campus. Clint's advised that his campus places an emphasis on innovation and research and
deliberately seeks students who are thinking “outside the box.” In describing his campus, Clint
advised, that his institution is “a place where the focus really is on pioneering new knowledge.
You know, really openly discussing ideas and pushing the boundaries of what we know.”
Other campuses expressed different characteristics for the students they were seeking.
For example, during her recruiting presentation, Coreen repeatedly advised that her institution
“prepares an individual to meet a life of purpose, service, and leadership.” As part of this effort,
Coreen advised that her campus has weekly convocational speakers. Coreen advised hopeful
candidates that these speakers help “our students to explore deep philosophical questions, to go
beyond the textbooks and begin to explore their purpose through their talents and intrinsic
interest.” Later, in a telephonic interview, Coreen was also asked to describe the most important
characteristic that she looks for in an applicant. Coreen advised:
[It] is important for us to bring students to campus who, number one, will enjoy
being on the campus. That they can identify with the things that we stand for,
where students want a purpose in their lives. ... So we are looking for students [to]
be involved here, so that academic curiosity has to be paired with something
familiar to alums: purpose, service, leadership.
Meanwhile, in the Eastern United States, Mary, the Dean of a historic and highly ranked
national liberal arts university, advised that her admissions department is on the hunt for students
with a track record of high academic achievement and “quality writing.” Furthermore, Mary
advised that her admissions department also evaluates “…Personal qualities in terms of
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 123
engagement outside the classroom. And students who bring strong personal qualities that we
would want to be part of our community: respectful, civil, those kinds of things.” Interestingly,
when Mary was asked to reveal the most important characteristic that she looks for in an
applicant, Mary succinctly stated just one word − “Smart.”
The review of interview transcripts reveals that each institution is looking to attract a
different type of student to its campus, as it strives to create its own unique and exclusive
community. For example, in a recruitment presentation by Carey's institution, a college
admissions officer advised students, “seventy of our students are employed full-time before
graduation and we actually have a running joke on campus that there are more internships and
jobs that we have students.” This same admission officer later revealed exactly what type of
student they were searching for when she advised, “we are seeking a student looking to improve
their future goals and future careers.” Statements that openly publicizes the high percentage of
employed undergraduate and graduate students exposes the institution's focus on career
preparation and hints at the type of campus community it is trying to build and maintain.
Deyon's campus, for example, places heavy emphasis what they refer to as “points of
excellence” and a long-standing history of gender and ethnic diversity. During a recruitment
presentation at this highly ranked university, a college admissions officer advised, “At [our
university] we value diversity. At the beginning, I asked how many of you are from different
countries. That's because 10% of our students are international students.” Further accentuating
this institution's focus on campus diversity, this same admissions officer advised candidates that:
[This university] was founded to be for all people regardless of their religious
background. ... If you have any religious affiliation, or not, you have easy access
and open access to the church to come pray, introspect, meditate, whatever it is
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 124
that you like to do. ...So from our admission standpoint, we are looking for
students to bring different perspectives.
Coreen described her campus community and mission in a different way. Coreen
advised, “We are a Christian University. We really pair faith with academic rigor. So really
challenging students to dig deeper in the classroom to focus on that only theoretical knowledge
and how to apply that, but how their faith, ethics, and morals really apply to those subjects as
well.” During her recruiting presentation, Coreen explained the association between her
institution's faith community and university mission. Coreen advised, “Our spiritual community
at [this university] is vast. There are so many opportunities for our students to get involved.
Many of our students chose to express their faith through service. Service is an integral part of
[of our university's] core values.”
Further grounding the theoretical framework of this study is research data evidencing the
uniqueness of each campus. In the case of this study (and perhaps all competitive universities),
no two colleges are alike and no two universities are looking for the same characteristics in its
students. These differences in admissions selection are grounded by the unique sense of
collegiate identity, community and mission held by each institution. As a result, colleges and
universities are observed as placing different emphasis on the various factor for admissions
(Davis, Deil-Amen, Rios-Aguilar, & Canche, 2012; National Association for College Admission
Counseling, 2009a).
In light of these unique conditions, the elements of online reputation, whether they are
textual or symbolic, can have vastly different interpretations when viewed by different
admissions officers. The diversity of university missions and campus communities make it clear
that each college admission officer is looking for something different in their respective pool of
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 125
applicants. The data suggests that facets of online reputation can draw different e-pinions in the
minds of those who encounter segments of online reputation. While the rubric of the “Four Cs”
do offer a framework for interrogating academic competence, personal character and social
capital, the data collected in this study does not reveal how online content may be decoded to
identify these dimensions. The data appears to suggest, however, that other unmeasured
variables to include an individual's personal philosophies, educational perspectives and
understanding of their university's mission do play a role in influencing how e-pinions are drawn
in the mind of college admissions officer.
While the findings of this study may fall short in pronouncing how online reputation is
used to build or preserve a campus community, the findings do suggest that the process of
admissions to selective institutions is highly subjective and that online content may become
relevant in some circumstances. In light of the above, this study concludes that college
admission officers do draw inferences based on their perceptions of students will best “fit” their
campus. As Abbey explained, “What is difficult is that it is a very subjective process. ... The
range of schools that fits both [the student's] academic and social interests. All the different
types of universities out there. It's just very subjective....”
Investigating Allegations of Student Misconduct
Given online reputation's powerful role as a community building and applicant vetting
tool, a theme that continued to appear in the study was the use of discrete facets of online data to
investigate allegations of student indiscretion, malfeasance, and misconduct. The study's data
reveals that allegations of misconduct may come to the attention of college admissions personnel
through an endless array of channels. This means that college admissions officers don't have to
actively search for online reputations or seek online data for it to become relevant. Study
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 126
participants reported that allegations of online misconduct have been raised though university
faculty, campus employees, marketing departments, high school counselors, current students,
alumni, parents, or any concerned individual who has had an opportunity to observe evidence of
the allegation. Clint, for example, advised that at his campus, “we have student employees who
work for us, manage our social media sites and bring something that they saw to our attention.
We also occasionally have heard from school officials about things that students have posted on
social media.”
Scott advised that during his tenure as a college admission professional, he has received
numerous complaints and allegations through various vectors that include “alumni, high school
officials, or other parents.” Scott also advised of what he called a “disturbing trend” amongst
rival parents who have reported allegations of online misconduct. Scott explained,
“...unfortunately, that we are starting to see a disturbing trend of some parents trying to sabotage
the applications of other students by bringing to our attention more of the negative than the
positive about other applicants.” In explaining the motivations of these individuals to report
online malfeasance, Scott stated, that they “…have alerted us to something, either good or bad,
about the student they understand is applying to [our university]. ...They're just trying to protect
us. And so they are just drawing our attention to something that we might not otherwise see.”
When asked to compare online reputation with traditional factors for admissions, Scott
advised that, “If the online reputation is, dramatic in a negative manner, it can overshadow any
accomplishment − any whatsoever.” Scott then shared the story of an earlier experience while he
was employed at another institution. Scott advised:
When I was at [the other university], we admitted a pretty impressive kid, but
when we saw what he posted on Facebook, we withdrew our offer for admission.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 127
We basically found that he had written some pretty threatening things about guns
and celebrated the shooting at Virginia Tech. And we decided we did not want
him in our community.
To further illustrate how online information can impact the relationship between campus
community, university mission, and admission practices, Scott shared a timely narrative about a
current applicant to his campus. Scott advised that his college is home to one of America's most
celebrated sports programs. The significance of sport and its role in the campus identity was
clearly revealed in a student recruitment presentation where a college admissions officer had
shared earlier how athletics is part of the college's culture and an important part of campus life.
Scott advised that his office had recently received an enrollment application from one of the
country's most sought after athletes. The identification of the sport for which the athlete had
been recruited has been deliberately withheld to protect the confidentiality of the study
participants. College recruiters informed Scott that this particular applicant would likely become
a celebrated professional athlete after playing for the university. As a high profile athlete, Scott
believed that the athlete would inevitably become a highly visible representative of the
university.
However, Scott advised that another individual (identified only as “a trusted third party”)
contacted him and warned that the recruit had posted inappropriate content on the Internet.
Without going into details of the content, Scott advised that his office conducted its own
investigation to authenticate the online material. The admissions office then contacted the
athletic program and advised them that the office of admission would be denying the recruit's
application because of the Internet content. When asked why his office would deny the
application, Scott further explained that his office perceived the student as a potential liability to
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 128
their athletics program and their campus. Scott then added, “If he wants to play [sports] he can
play [elsewhere] ... or [at] any one of the other fine programs that will take him. But he will not
be enrolling at [our university] in the Fall.”
In a manner similar to those above, Coreen advised that she also encounters allegations of
online indiscretions. Coreen elaborated that at her institution “... a marketing team ... manages
the university's social media and online presence.” Coreen explained that when her marketing
department encounters something pertinent to the university, that information is forwarded to the
referenced department for review and response. When asked if the university's marketing
department, had ever contacted her regarding an applicant's online activities, Coreen stated,
“Definitely, they have.” Coreen then explained that in one instance, an incoming student had
their name inputted “incorrectly into our system one summer.” The marketing department, while
monitoring the University's online presence, uncovered information that the inbound student
“was making a joke of [the error] on Twitter.” The marketing team then informed Coreen of the
online activity and advised the admissions department that they “might want to update the
student's file or reach out to that student.”
Although Coreen did not elaborate on the nature of the applicant's online comments,
Coreen's narrative suggests that competitive colleges are very much interested in protecting their
reputations and online brands. The fact that the university’s marketing department initiated this
report hints at the possibility that this institution is monitoring its own online presence and
reputation.
In another incident, Mary, shared the narrative of another potential applicant. Mary
explained that she uses Google Alert to self-manage her personal reputation and Internet
presence. “Google Alert” is a free web monitoring service offered by Google to do automated
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 129
web searches of any search term, to include personal names. Mary explained that she does this
to monitor what others say about her after she gives public speeches or recruiting presentations.
Mary advised that on occasion she has encountered the online profile or social networking page
of a prospective student. Mary explained:
I have a Google alert on my name. And there are times when students have
mentioned to me in Tumblr, ...and ... I get the Google alert, and you betcha I read
their Tumblr and their blogs. ... Because they have mentioned me, not [the
University], but me, by name.
Mary advised that situations like this do influence her actions at work and interaction with
candidates. Mary later confessed, “...it did cause me to keep an eye on this application, if we are
at all being truthful.”
In another example, Mary advised that the parent of a prospective student had alerted her
department of highly inappropriate behavior occurring on the Internet. Mary explained that the
concerned parent informed her office of a Facebook webpage touting itself as the “[university]
Class of 2017.” The parent continued that the profane and explicit language on this Facebook
profile was enough to discourage his daughter from applying to the university. Concerned over
the adverse impact to the university's reputation and enrollment efforts, Mary's office
investigated the allegation and openly asked to join the Facebook group. Soon after joining the
group, employees uncovered inappropriate postings by a candidate who had earlier been
accepted, but had yet to enroll and take classes at the university. Mary elaborated on this
incident by explaining that the postings “…were egregious. They were pornographic and racist.”
After failed attempts to justify the posting were raised with the student's high school and student
herself, Mary advised that the university revoked the student's previous admission.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 130
As previously mentioned, the data collected in this study evidences the fact that
allegations of online misconduct can come to light through a variety of channels. The severity of
the allegations, however, is not so easily defined as they range from social faux pas to more
serious allegations of criminal activity. Mary explained, “Kids post all sorts of things. Kids post
things about illegal drinking, and they post things like smoking pot. ...Things about academic
integrity issues, racist or homophobic or sexist kinds of things.” When allegations of online
misconduct are raised at Coreen's university, Coreen advised that her department “…would look
to see if there was something really lewd or inappropriate that was mentioned. ...Are [they]
mentioning [the university's name]... [And] if there is something completely contradictory to our
campus climate, our campus community standards, things like that.”
College admission officers advised that in some instances, they had been alerted to
alleged criminal conduct. Clint advised that he had an experience where the candidate's own
high school reported evidence of alleged criminal activity. Clint explained that in this instance,
“a student who was all over Facebook with photos of himself all over using drugs.” Clint noted
that schools often self-report criminal activity “even if they know it will hurt the applicant's
chances because we want to have open trusting relationship with [universities] so they will
provide us with the information for the sake of openness.”
Summary Research Question Three
In highly competitive situations, the reputations of the competitors become increasingly
valuable (Horner, 2002). This study, however, suggests that in the highly competitive
environment of college admissions, even discrete elements of online information connected to
competing applicants could be very influential on the admissions process. Data gathered in this
study reveal college admissions officers use online information and discrete pieces of online
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 131
content to identify students for “institutional fit” and as well as to investigate allegations of
online misconduct. While the findings of this study do fall short in pronouncing how online
reputation is used to build or preserve a campus community, the findings do reveal the highly
subjective nature of the admissions process. The data suggests that college admissions officers
do make heuristic assumptions and generate "e-pinions" about what they see online. These
inferences influence their perceptions as to which students will best "fit" their campus.
In a similar way, college admissions professionals use online content to weed out those
who do not fit on their campus. Student malfeasance, misconduct and indiscretion threaten
campus safety and can effectively undermine a campus' sense of community. Online content of
this sort also speaks volumes of a university, the types of student it admits, and the public's
perception of the campus. Perceptions of ethical value and inferences of an institution's moral
rightness or wrongness greatly impacts that institution's reputation (Brunk, 2010). Per the
discussion above, it is a finding of this study that college admission officers do investigate
incidents and allegations of online misconduct so as to eliminate undesirable candidates that pose
a risk to their campus or liability to the university. By doing so, college admissions officers also
protect their institutional values and preserve their campus community.
Summary of Chapter Four
The data reported in this chapter answers the research questions by confirming that online
information can, in some circumstances, influence the decision making process of college
admission officers. This finding comes with the caveat that the use of online data is not
prevalent, but highly influential under certain conditions. The limited nature of these conditions,
which include a) the validation of extraordinary claims in an application, b) the review of
supplemental online materials, c) evaluation of a student's "fit" for campus and d) the
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 132
investigation of online misconduct, contribute in large degree to the overall subjectivity of the
application process. These limited conditions reveal that attempts to access and evaluate online
content are not universally applied at every college by every college admissions officer to every
application. The study data also suggests that the reputational value of both candidates and the
colleges themselves are at stake in the admissions process. This type of information becomes
particularly relevant in competitive admissions, where colleges are compelled to protect their
campus communities or institutional reputations. As a result, college admissions officers take
great care in identifying not only the best students, but also the students that are best for them.
As a result, college admissions officers exercise due diligence when evaluating their future
student body.
This study also reveals that online searches to validate extraordinary claims, locate
supplemental information or investigate claims of misconduct are one of several validation tools
at the disposal of college admissions officers. Toward that end, Google and Facebook have been
identified as the two primary tools used by the study participants when searching for online
content. Additionally, online data can be reported to admissions departments through an endless
array of virtual and real channels. Lastly, the data of this study has revealed that while the study
participants may not be actively searching for online reputations, elements of online data and
traces of online information, which may or may not be related to a student's online reputation,
have both purposefully and indirectly found its way into the application process.

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 133
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER STUDY
The purpose of this study was to investigate how colleges use the Internet and social
networks to learn a candidate's online reputation and to explore the influence online reputation
has on the college admission process. In preparation of this study, a review of the existing
literature and the preliminary inquiry were conducted, both of which indicated that the use of
online reputation would likely be seen at competitive colleges and universities. To further reveal
this behavior, six highly selective universities and seven college admission professionals from
these institutions were chosen to participate in a qualitative study consisting of observations and
in-depth interviews. To determine if the use of online profiles was anecdotal or evidence of a
more definitive trend, this study addressed the following research questions:
1. How prevalent is the use of online reputation in the college admission process?
2. Under what circumstances do college admission officers seek out, access or make use of
an applicant's online reputation as part of the college admissions process?
3. How do college admissions counselors use information generated from applicants’ online
reputations during the admissions process?
Summary of the Findings
This study has revealed that college admissions officers do search the web for digital
traces of student identity and do consider online content when evaluating candidates for
admission. However, this study also reveals that college admissions officers are not taking a
holistic approach to online reputation as only select pieces of online data are considered in
limited circumstances. Furthermore, the prevalence of this practice is limited, as it is not
universally applied at every college, by every college admissions officer, and to every applicant.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 134
Instead, analysis of the study's data reveals that online reputation can become a factor in the
admission process when institutional reputations are at stake, if specific events or circumstances
trigger colleges to research online reputation, and/or if colleges are looking to specifically
identify students that best “fit” their campus.
A key element of this study's conceptual framework is the reciprocal relationship that
exists between competitiveness of the university and the gate keeping efforts of college
admissions officers. Specifically, the more competitive the college admissions process, the more
likely a college admissions officer is to thoroughly research a candidate in their effort to learn
more about that student. This theory led to the research questions above and the hypothesis that
in competitive admissions scenarios, college admissions officers would be more likely to
consider online reputation as part of the student evaluation process. This conceptual idea is in
line with the work of Spence and others who have previously identified competition as a
precondition to signaling behaviors (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2010b; Karasek &
Bryant, 2012; Matzat, 2009; Spence, 1973).
In light of the above, the study revealed that college admissions officers with highly
selective and competitive admissions have, in limited scenarios, considered elements of online
data during the evaluation phase of the college admissions process. The presence of competition
as an environmental factor in the consideration of online data was most starkly revealed when
two of the six participants advised that online data has played a role in situations where many
qualified applicants are in a contest for too few seats. In these competitive situations, where one
or more candidates are equally qualified to attend a university, two of the six participating
college admissions officers advised that online data has, under select conditions, tipped the scale
in favor of one candidate over another.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 135
To validate the presence of this behavioral phenomenon, this study deliberately sought
colleges with competitive admissions environments and used the U.S. News and World Report’ s
2014 List of Best Colleges in America to identify high-ranking institutions and college
admissions professionals for the study. Furthermore, the study was conducted during the “early
admissions” and “early decision” time frame of late Fall. Many have considered this time of
year the most competitive time for college applications, especially at highly selective universities
(Antecol & Smith, 2012; Avery & Levin, 2010; Blackburn, 1997; Halpern, 2004). The “early
admissions” and “early decision” time frame of late Fall was selected because it is the time
period when the largest pool of highly prepared and qualified students would submit their
applications to the most selective universities.
A review of college admissions literature revealed that college admission counselors use
a blend of traditional and nontraditional measurements when evaluating students for cognitive
and noncognitive abilities. For example, standardized test scores, essays, high school transcripts
and letters of recommendation are well known traditional measurements of student ability.
However, in the case of competitive college admissions, other less traditional behaviors are used
to evaluate students and become more apparent. Alumni interviews, volunteer service, work
histories, inquiries to high school counselors and now, the evaluation of online data, are on the
list of non-traditional assessment tools at the disposal of highly selective colleges and
universities.
The study also revealed that the participating institutions did not disclose to the public
that they may search the Internet as part of their admissions process. As mentioned in Chapter
Two, signaling theory becomes most relevant in competitive scenarios and can be observed as an
asymmetric behavior (Connelly et al., 2010a; Goffman, 2005b; Hauberer, 2011b; Karasek III &
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 136
Bryant, 2012). These asymmetric behaviors are deliberate efforts by those in the marketplace
(i.e. college admissions officers and college candidates) to tip the scales of negotiation in their
favor. In this case, conducting online searches may also be regarded as an economic behavior
where market participants transmit, receive and interpret signs of value and risk (Avery & Levin,
2010; Epple, Romano, Sarpca, & Sieg, 2006; Karasek III & Bryant, 2012; Spence, 1973).
Competitive students who want to attend the best colleges take the time to research those
colleges and put their best foot forward when presenting themselves. Likewise, many
competitive colleges seeking to admit high performing students will thoroughly review the
application packets of those candidates and put their best foot forward when presenting
themselves to prospective students and their families. For example, as reported in Chapter Four,
colleges seeking highly competent students do not hesitate to advise their campus achievements
in an effort to attract those to their college. Furthermore, those same college admissions officers
advised that, when necessary, they will go beyond the standard application packet by retrieving
online data and by contacting high school counselors.
To preserve the truth and validity of their information, each participant in the collegiate
marketplace does not necessarily reveal the resources at their disposal nor do they reveal the
depth of their research. For these reasons, the “hidden” nature of online searching may suggest
that online searches are becoming “trade secrets” within the college admissions community.
Preserving the surreptitious nature of these searches prevents market participants from flooding
the marketplace, or in the case of this study, the Internet, with false signals. Each market
participant, whether they be individual students or individual college admissions officers, uses
their pool of research to inform their decision making process. In this study, it has been
demonstrated that college admissions officers in competitive admissions environments might use
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 137
what they perceive to be facets of online reputation to influence their decisions about whom to
admit.
Another key element of this study's conceptual framework is the idea that online
reputation is a legitimate mode of self-identification and valid means of self-presentation.
Chapter Two of the study illustrated how students could engage in self-presentation via the
Internet and how this behavior was a form of social communication and economic signaling
(Birnbaum, 2008; Goffman, 2005a; Hörner, 2006). When combined with other pieces of online
data, these acts of self-presentation on the Internet, form a larger and more accurate picture of a
student in what we collectively regard as “online reputation” (Dellarocas, 2010; Schau & Gilly,
2003; Solove, 2007). Prospective students who deliberately post to the Internet hope that by
displaying certain behaviors or digital “props,” others who see these signals will engage in
predictable or favorable actions on their behalf (Hörner, 2006; Schau & Gilly, 2003). The
research herein revealed this to be the case where students independently supplement their
application with hyperlinks and URL web addresses that direct college admissions officers to
additional content. In the narratives and interviews presented in Chapter Four, we have seen how
access to supplemental online content can be used to attract attention, introduce additional
content beyond the scope and limitations of an application, influence the e-pinions of college
admissions officers in a deeper and more personal way and possibly increase the odds of
admissions.
Using a qualitative approach to the study, research was conducted in the form of semi-
structured interviews and covert observations. Analysis of this data revealed four primary events
that were most likely to trigger a college admissions officer's pursuit of a candidate's online
reputation. These triggers were identified:
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 138
a) extraordinary or unusual claims of achievement on an application;
b) additional information in the form of digital artifacts and/or online links used to
supplement a candidate's application;
c) student evaluations for institutional and campus "fit" and,
d) allegations of student malfeasance or misconduct.
As noted in Chapter Four, college admissions officers use a variety of resources at their
disposal to investigate the extraordinary achievements of their applicants. For example, as part
of his vetting process, Clint advised that he instructs his “...admissions staff not to look for
information about a candidate online unless there's something on the file that we would like to
verify through outside research. [...] If a student was “recognized [in] a region-wide, statewide,
or nationwide pool, [we] would refer to Google to verify that.” Similarly, Coreen advised, that
the Internet “is really more a tool that we are encouraged to use in those situations where you
feel ... that we need to dig a little deeper and figure out and ... clear the situation where
something seems a bit off.”
As noted in Chapter Four, college admissions officers also use the Internet to review
supplemental information made part of college applications. This additional information is
usually presented to college admissions officers in the form of hyperlinks or URL web addresses
that direct the reviewer to supplemental online content. Abbey explained, “The only time that
[the university] would ever seek that is if a student is sharing something that they want us to see.
Basically through their supplemental information should they choose to share on a website,
Tumblr, whatever it maybe.” Interestingly, this hidden tactic to supplement an application packet
with digital artifacts was never publicly shared by any of the participating colleges to their
applicants. Nevertheless, cyber savvy students have been using this tactic as a way to present
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 139
additional information beyond the scope of the standard application packet and thus, command
added scrutiny of their eligibility for admissions.
Additionally, college admissions officers pursue online information to identify students
for institutional and campus “fit.” To find these students, the study has revealed that college
admissions officers generate e-pinions of candidates when considering online data and use these
inferences when evaluating a student's “fit” to their campus. Specifically, college admissions
officers select those students that best mirror a campus's learning environment, academic
mission, educational philosophy and/or societal objectives. In Chapter Four, the study offered a
possible explanation for this variation in that each participating university is a unique community
with its own, distinctive context, purpose, and mission. In conditions filled with thousands of
highly qualified applicants, college admission officers search within the pool of qualified
applicants for the students who are the best for them. In these environments, a college
admissions officer can handpick applicants who, according to one interviewee, not only
“...competitive, but also compelling...” Lastly, as noted in Chapter Four, college admissions
officers pursue discrete pieces of online content to investigate allegations of online misconduct.
During his interview, Scott explained that, “It is not our practice that we go and assess students
online. But if things are brought to our attention, we do due diligence.” Scott then went on to
describe a variety of incidents where individuals concerned about the campus environment
would report incidents of online misconduct. Scott, however, was not alone as most participants
in the study presented narratives where racist, hateful, pornographic or violent content could be
grounds for denial of admissions.
In the preceding chapters, I identified how student characteristics manifest themselves
through online dataand how these traits can be interpreted through the semiotics of online
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 140
content, academic competence, personal character and social capital. Collectively, I referred to
these semiotics as the “Four Cs”. As alluded to above, the “Four Cs” offer a rubric by which
college admission officers may evaluate students. For example, college admission officers may
use this framework when they validate extraordinary or unusual claims of achievement in an
application (i.e. evaluate competence), when they consider additional information offered by a
candidate to supplement their application (i.e. evaluate online content), when they investigating
allegations of student misconduct (i.e. evaluate character), and ultimately, when they assess a
student's “fit” at a particular college or university (i.e. evaluate social capital).
In the remainder of this chapter, I will provide a brief overview of the study's limitations,
present implications for practice and discuss future research that may build upon the findings
noted above.
Limitations
In the preceding chapters, a variety of study limitations were identified to include
researcher bias, generalizability, and the business model of the Internet. The researcher's
previous experience as a cyber investigator and law enforcement instructor, may contribute to
bias. However, the researcher's minimal exposure to the college admissions process and
unfamiliarity with participants mitigates bias in the study. Additionally, while the sample size of
this study is limited in scope to a handful of institutions and college admissions professionals, the
sample size is justified on the grounds that the sample must be purposefully selected so as to
reveal behaviors in highly competitive environments.
Lastly, as was explained in Chapter Four, our discussion herein may, to some degree, be
antiseptic and inconsequential when one considers the business model of the Internet. Consider,
for example, how often studies of the Internet hail the transformative nature and democratic
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 141
power of open, web-based communication. However, readers are reminded that the online,
collaborative experience of the Internet and social networks is not built around the altruistic
idealism of democracy, transparency, information sharing or educational pedagogies. Rather, the
revenue generating motives of web hosts, search engines, social networking platforms and
actions of the user drive the experience of these online sites (McIntosh et al., 2008). Every
element of the user's online experience has been deliberately crafted to generate revenue.
Whether they be the tools of web surfing, to include computers, laptops, tablets or smart phones;
whether they be the networks of connectivity, to include Internet service providers and
telecommunications companies; whether they be the tools to create online content, such as
Microsoft Word, Photoshop, or Adobe; whether they be social networks that host online content,
such as Facebook, Instagram, Vine or YouTube; and whether they be the search engines used to
retrieve such content, such as Google or Internet Explorer–every element of the Internet has a
financial and revenue driven purpose.
Consider, for example, how many individuals view Google as a free search engine. This
perception was made clear in this study when numerous participants reported Google as the
primary online tool used to research prospective students. However, “Google is an advertising
company” (Kennedy, 2012). The Google interface, page layout and ordinal ranking of “hits” on
searches are calculated through sophisticated algorithms that are catered to the individual
experience and patterns of individual users (Hariri, 2011; Kennedy, 2012). The deliberate design
of social networks has little to do with education or free speech (Friesen, 2010). Ultimately, the
searchable and archival nature of the Internet is beholden to an array of financial pressures and a
business model that filters our Internet access and digital content.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 142
Unfortunately, this research study is limited and unable to reveal exactly what elements
of online reputation college admissions officers reviewed. For example, searches initiated on
Google and Facebook provide users with extraordinary amounts of data, some of which is that
are relevant and some of which is unrelated to the topic being searched. Google, for example,
shares related search “hits” as well as unrelated items and advertisements. Facebook profiles
include a plethora of data that includes friends’ lists, “like” pages, status updates, favorite books,
movies, music, and photos. In an environment where college admissions officers use Google
and Facebook as their primary and secondary search engines, we unfortunately, have no way of
knowing through this study exactly what content was sought, reviewed, and accessed.
However, while these limitations were addressed at the onset and considered throughout
the course of the study. Another limitation that was not anticipated emerged shortly after the
study was initiated. Specifically, a limitation that emerged was how impractical it would be to
equally observe all campuses or interview all participants during the busiest phase of the
admissions season. As a result, there is a comparative variance in the amount and type of
observations as well as the type and length of the interviews.
For example, observations were conducted for five of the six participating institutions.
Additionally, four of the six observations took place on the respective campuses of participating
institutions while one of the six took place in a hotel conference room thousands of miles from
their respective campus. Furthermore, there is variance in the number of observations, length of
observation and type of observation conducted as noted in the table below:

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 143
Table 6
Table of Observation Types
Institution Code
# 1-6
Dean's
Presentation
Admissions
Presentation
Student
Presentation
Campus Tour
Institution #1   
Institution #2  
Institution #3   
Institution #4  
Institution #5  
Institution #6

While it would have been preferable to have all campuses observed for the same amount
of time, an unanticipated reality of the college recruitment scene is that each campus utilizes its
own unique recruitment strategy. As such, each institution offers a range of different
presentations for prospective students and their families. The diversity of presentations and the
practicality of the study ultimately affected the type and length of observations. For example, in
one instance, the primary researcher attended an admissions presentation but could not attend a
campus tour in lieu of an interview with an Associate Dean of Undergraduate Admissions. In
another instance, there were no observations of one campus as financial limitations restricted
observations to only four states and prevented the primary researcher from traveling further.
Another limitation that arose during the course of the study was variance in the type and
length of interviews as noted in the table below:

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 144
Table 7
Table of Interview Types
Institution Code
(#1-6)
Unstructured,
Preliminary Interview
Semi-structured
Interview Protocol
Institution #1  
Institution #2  
Institution #3 
Institution #4 
Institution #5  
Institution #6  

During the early stages of the study, all participating institutions were subjected to a
preliminary interview which included a discussion about their overall familiarity with the
Internet, their respective college admission processes, their use of online reputation, their work
experience, and their willingness to participate in a future telephonic interview. In most
instances, these preliminary interviews averaged 45 minutes or more. However, while all
participants initially acknowledged their willingness to participate in the semi-structured
protocol, only five individuals representing four different institutions participated in the formal
interview. It was concluded that the rush of thousands of applications during the “early
admission” and “early decision” recruitment season prevented two institutions from participating
in the semi-structured interview.
The tidal wave of applications was further exacerbated as system administrators worked
to remedy technical difficulties for The Common Application, the universal online application
form for each college. [The 2013 admissions seasons was the first time that The Common
Application was exclusively online and the first year there would be no paper forms or
downloadable applications.] Technical difficulties with The Common Application delayed
university access to their applications for approximately two weeks. As a result, many
universities, to include those participating in the study, were stressed to make their notification
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 145
deadlines. When technical difficulties were resolved in mid-November, 2013, universities found
themselves flooded with a substantially larger number of applications to review in a shorter
period of time. A harbinger that some would not be in a position to be interviewed came in the
form of an email that stated, “We're now prepping for our reading cycle, which means that in
about a week, we will 'hibernate' in our homes reviewing applications from students during the
first application period. November and December is such a busy time in our office.”
As previously mentioned, this study does not intend to be generalizable to all colleges,
nor is it representative of the experience of all college admissions personnel. Rather, this study
seeks to illuminate the experiences and practices of college admissions personnel in the most
competitive environments and at our country's most selective institutions. As such, it is believed
that the depth of the interviews and observations, rooted in qualitative, case study research are
sufficient to confirm the use of online reputation in these environments. This study also asserts
that the depth, quality and variety of data points were sufficient to offer hidden insight into how
online reputation and digital content are translated into semiotics of competence, character and
social capital when assessing student “fit” and making predictions of future performance.
Implications for Practice
As mentioned throughout the report, this study was inspired by the tens of thousands of
students I have been privileged to speak to and educate over the years. During the course of my
speaking engagements, students would inevitably approach me and share their stories as to how
online reputation has threatened their collegiate aspirations or undermined their college
admissions. Fittingly, the greater implications of this study most evidently impact these students
and others who aspire to attend these colleges. The implications of the study can be grouped into
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 146
three primary themes to include implications for education, privacy and equity. These
implications will be addressed individually in the pages that follow.
Implications for Education
Interestingly, during the preliminary interviews, many of interviewees initially advised
that they do not consider online reputation at all during the application process. For example,
both Carey and Deyon advised that researching a student online is not part of their normal
protocol and that searches of this sort were too time consuming and cost prohibitive. When
asked if online reputation might affect a candidate's admission, Abbey advised, “It doesn't.
Really. We don't look up students’ personal information like that. We just use application and the
supplement.” When asked the same question, Mary advised, “Well we don't use online
reputation or make it part of the application process.” Clint, the Acting Director of
Undergraduate Admissions for one of the highest ranked institutions in the study, offered the
same answer when he advised, “online reputation does not affect the decision at all.”
However, as the study progressed, all participating interviewees eventually qualified their
answers and noted that while searching for online reputations may be impractical, colleges,
nevertheless, do search the Internet for online traces of information. For example, Clint who
earlier advised to the contrary, stated, “I actually instruct our admissions staff not to look for
information about candidates online unless there's something on the file that we would like to
verify through outside research.” Coreen advised, “So, by no means is it a significant part of our
admission process. But we reserve the right to use this online tool. It's more of a 'if need be.'“
Scott also offered a qualified statement and advised, “It is not our practice that we go and assess
students online. But if things are brought to our attention, we do due diligence.” While these
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 147
traces of data may not be the amalgam of information that defines one's online reputation, these
traces of online data can greatly influence an admission decision.
As can be anticipated, any system, policy or protocol that impacts admission into college
can have tremendous implications for the practice of education. One such implication of this
study is that collegiate bound students should be provided with notice that their college
admission officer may conduct online searches, “Google” applicants or otherwise review the
social networking pages of those who apply. However, as this study has revealed, at no time
during any of the admissions presentations did any college representative make mention of their
practice to consider online data and online reputation. Furthermore, a review the Common
Application failed to reveal any information or provide any notice that online reputation may be
considered once an application is submitted.
Guarded equivocations and qualified statements like the ones above do little to inform the
public and prospective candidates about what is truly needed to enter these colleges. Not
knowing what it takes to “get in” is made all the more poignant given that this study focuses on
admissions to the country's most elite institutions. Hidden trade practices when coupled with the
admittedly subjective nature of the admissions process paint a sinister picture where admissions
to prestigious universities are less about holistic evaluations and more about admitting the
chosen few.
Certainly, little is known about the behaviors of college admissions officers and how they
search the Internet for information about prospective students. The scope and nature of this
study was unable to delve into the myriad of factors that influence how online searches are
conducted and how information is retrieved from the Internet. These factors, to include the
user's geographic location, the presence of "cookies" on a computer, the selection of a search
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 148
engine (i.e. Chrome, Bing, Mozilla, Internet Explorer, etc.), and the forming of e-pinions will be
discussed in the need for future research below.
Shining light on the web-based practices of college admissions counselors and their
proclivity to “Google” only some students could have a dramatic impact on the behavior of
teens, incoming students and the college admissions process. If the applicant population knew
for certain that others are searching their online reputations, unethical conduct might be greatly
reduced. One of the contributing factors to online misconduct and malfeasance is the anonymity
provided by the Internet (Fertik & Thompson, 2010b; Gunter, Higgins, & Gealt, 2010; Higgins,
2007; McLaughlin & Vitak, 2011; Moore, 2010; Solove, 2007; Strahilevitz, 2007). Researching
and “googling” students effectively shines light on invisible behaviors and can have a deterrent
effect on unethical conduct and the eventual publication of that conduct on the Internet.
Advanced notice that colleges do in fact use the Internet to research students could serve
as an incentive for building better personal brands on the part of students. Advanced notice that
college's “Google” students could prompt a dramatic increase in the quantity and quality of
student generated content. Furthermore, if used strategically and with forethought, students
could craft a better web presence and virtual self through deliberately crafted content that
showcases their competence, character and social capital. Rather than serving as a platform for
teen “drama”(Marwick & boyd, 2011b), social networks could become catalogs for student
achievement and aspiration. Coreen explained the possibility of looking beyond the obvious text
and graphics of a web page and offered the following:
In terms of students who have a website, that shows that they have been
intentional about their attempt to create a great online presence. So that tells us
that you really have put some thought into this. You really thought about ways for
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 149
your character to be unique, in unique avenues in your application. It takes a lot
more work and effort to do that. Those are really the things that − it is kind of
twofold. One that student really wanted to put the best foot forward during the
admissions process. Or wow − this is great because we have learned something
new about the student through this applicant.
At present, this researcher is unaware of any educational program that adequately
instructs students on the relationship between web publishing and digital ethics. In expressing a
need for better education on the topic of online reputation, “Coreen” stated, “I know it seems
unfair to expect someone who is sixteen, or even a middle school, a sixth grader, to think that
deeply. So I think that is where the education piece comes in.” In light of the above, a
comprehensive course in digital publishing, that starts in middle school and continues throughout
high school, could bridge this critical gap and inform students as to how to develop compelling
online content. The ethics of advertising, journalism and publishing have never been more
relevant for our young people and can serve as the basis for new curricula that informs students
as the intricacies of the Internet and the consequences of miscommunication, misbranding and
damaged reputations.
Similarly, having a more transparent application process would increase public
confidence in the fairness of the overall admissions process. As previously mentioned, the data
suggest that the practice of considering online reputation is in its infancy. To date, none of the
participating institution has ever developed a formal guideline or protocol to guide its employees
in the search, retrieval or evaluation of online data. Subsequently, consulting the Internet for
additional information remains a “hidden” trade practice. The hidden nature of this practice
would be attributed to a variety of reasons which may include, the lack of official guidelines, the
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 150
lack of an appeals process for adversely affected students, college fears of potential litigation,
and adversely chilling the exercise of student speech on the web.
Implications for Privacy
Educating college hopefuls about how easy it is to search and uncover online reputations
also raises another issue that has dominated discussions about the Internet; namely, the issue of
privacy. Yet few teens know for certain what the Internet says of the reputation and what pieces
of online data are available for discovery online. Juxtaposed is the perception of many
individuals, to include teens, who frequent social networks and other mediated digital spaces,
would contend that their posts are their business (Davis et al., 2012; Livingstone, 2008). , The
reality of a contemporary digital life has shown that online privacy is unrealistic (D. boyd, 2010;
D. boyd, 2007). Scott acknowledged this condition by offering the following statement:
I think sometimes students are not at their best behavior. When they think no one
else is looking. So that when we look at something they might not otherwise have
done during an interview, or they thought they were completely anonymous,
there's one type of behavior. Unfortunately, they are going to have less of that
anonymity in the future.
The ubiquity of personal computing devices and smart phones has created an new
condition where students share web-based content in technologically open forums and
public spaces (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008; Timm & Duven, 2008). This condition
is further exacerbated by the fact that over 95% of teens are currently on the Internet
(“How Teens Share Information on Social Media,” 2013; A. Lenhart & Madden, 2007;
M. Madden et al., 2012; Marwick & boyd, 2011b; Project Tomorrow & Speak Up,
2012b). The actual act of creating and sharing this content, however, often occurs in the
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 151
privacy of one's own home. Students, uninformed about the ramifications of publishing,
are now forced to confront a variety of consequences when his or her private, but
published, content becomes widely circulated and widely publicized.
The initial challenge in determining if online privacy exists, and in uncovering if the
public is entitled to privacy while on the web, lies in the definition for the word itself. The
Webster Dictionary defines privacy as “the quality or state of being apart from company or
observation” (Merriam-Webster, 2012). This definition may be apt when used to describe a
physical world. However, this definition is irreconcilable when applied to a virtual world
populated by billions of computers, tablets and smart phones, the ubiquity of which grants
billions of worldwide users access, to your name, address, photographs, occupation, favorite
websites, shopping habits and musical preferences.
Additionally, privacy settings do little to restrict the viral nature of online content
as contemporary polls reveal that a growing number of teens are reading privacy policies
and taking technical steps to improve their privacy while online (M. Madden et al., 2012;
Rideout, 2012). These efforts, however, are ineffectual as the privacy statements and user
agreements found on social media sites do nothing to prevent the deluge of information
from flowing to other users. The findings of this study glaringly illustrate this condition,
as individuals who uncover online information are in no way restricted to college
employees. In the course of this study, college admissions officers have learned of online
content through an array of vectors that include, but are not limited to, current students,
alumni, student's parents, rival parents, athletic boosters, faculty, administrators,
recruiters, athletic scouts, marketing departments, high school counselors, high school
principals, fans of the university, and anyone else with Internet access who can search
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 152
online and submit their findings to a college admissions department. Furthermore, it is
important to note that the privacy statements and user agreements found on social
networking sites are essentially contracts between users and service providers; they are
not contracts between users and other users. Facebook itself warns its users that, it will
do everything possible to protect the user content posted on its site but that it “cannot and
do[es] not guarantee that User Content you post on the Site will not be viewed by
unauthorized persons” (Timm & Duven, 2008).
The expansion of technology and the Internet has most assuredly changed the definition
and context of “privacy.” Thus, when it comes to social networks and mediated online public
spaces, no one is certain as to the type of data that can be culled from the public domain and
what information is private (Danah boyd, 2007). As a result, identifying what online content is
private, or not, and recognizing what actions cross that line, or not, are social norms that have yet
to be delineated. For example, during her interview, Mary asked:
Kids are messy. Where do we draw the line before letting them be messy and not
using every bad judgment in high school affect whether they are getting into
college. And where is that line. And who is playing God in admissions?
As mentioned in Chapter Four, this uncertainty has cast a tension over the entire study
and has contributed to the hesitancy of participants revealing their online behaviors. However,
“students have the right to know if their profiles are going to be monitored by agents of the
institution” (Timm & Duven, 2008). As such, colleges and universities who use online
reputation should apprise students and their parents that online searches will be conducted, if
such activity is warranted. These institutions can, use language offered by the National
Association of College Admissions Counselors and inform applicants that, “it is important for
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 153
students to understand that it is not considered an invasion of privacy for college admission
officers or future employers to access information that students make publicly available on the
Internet (National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2009b). Such disclosures can
have an impact on the application process by promoting open communication between colleges
and applicants. In this improved environment, college admissions officers can openly ask
applicants about material they may have seen online. In comparison, students can openly use
hyperlinks, URL web addresses and other digital artifacts to supplement their applications and to
provide a more complete picture of them.
Implications for Equity
As reported in Chapter Four, college admissions are highly subjective and as such remain
highly contentious. Abbey explains, “What is difficult, is that it is a very subjective process.
They could have good grades and good testing, whatever good means, it's all relative.”
Attempting to dispel some of this subjectivity is the theoretical framework and findings of this
study that demonstrate how college admissions officers use online reputation and evaluate
students along the matrices of competence, character, social capital and online content.
However, as mentioned in Chapter Four and the summary above, college admissions officers do
not equally apply online reputation to every application for admissions.. As explained by
Coreen, the process of searching for online reputation is simply “not for ... every single student.”
Furthermore, cyber savvy applicants are able to command more attention by supplementing their
application with digital artifacts such as hyperlinks and web addresses. The ability of college
admissions officers to go beyond the written scope of an admissions package, without any
transparency of how that online review process occurs and without any pre-established protocols
or appeals, raises questions about the overall fairness and equity of the entire admissions process.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 154
One college admissions officer participating in the study observed that students with
access to technology and the Internet could take advantage of the Web and deliberately “game”
the application process by creating a more seductive and visible online profile. “Gaming” the
system could tilt the likelihood of admissions in favor of those with more accessible profiles and
thus effectively raise further issues of equity and fairness. In explaining this advantage, “Mary”
offered the following:
...[Online reputation] advantages the advantaged. And by that I mean
students who knows there is a game to be played, in terms of demonstrated
interest, because they go to that type of school and receive that type of
college counseling, or have parents [who] were well educated, [and] know
that there is a game to be played.
Where the students who are disadvantaged don't even know that
there is a game. And so part of me feels the same way about this [online]
presence thing. Where the students who are using independent consultants,
go to these types of schools and bring these speakers and [advise them
that] “you need to clean up your online presence because colleges might
be looking, etc.”. Those are the students [who] are going to have squeaky
clean online presences. And the students who are disadvantaged don't even
know. ... So, it's in some ways unfair.
By publishing the rubric of “the Four Cs,” this study informs prospective
students of competitive institutions as to what it is college admissions officers are
looking for and offers a template for successful signaling. In light of the above,
an implication of the study is that the rubric could undermine the authenticity of
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 155
these signals by better informing those students who are only seeking to cheat the
application process. Some students, could essentially, create false online content
as a way of backstopping false claims in their application. Additionally, some
students could also flood the marketplace with spam of their achievements, and in
so doing, drown the voice of other applicants on the Internet. Lastly, a more
nefarious individual could also use the Internet to publish false claims about a
particular college so as to discourage other applicants from applying, and in so
doing, increase their odds of admission.
This study has identified implications in the areas of education, privacy and
equity. These implications might impact how prospective students and college admission
professionals use online reputation to influence the college admissions process.
Additional research, however, is needed to better understand how evolving technologies
and social media platforms alter our understanding of semiotics and signaling theory.
Recommendations for future research and the professional practice of recruitment and
college admissions are addressed in the pages below.
Future Research
To date, there has been little research in the area of online reputation and its impact on
college admissions. The few studies that do exist in this area offer no qualitative data and offer
no explanation as to how online data or online reputation impact college admission (Kaplan Test
Prep, 2011, 2012a, 2013). Furthermore, the reliability and validity of these studies are subject to
challenge as they fail to fully disclose their methodologies or participants (Kaplan Test Prep,
2011, 2012a, 2013). Nevertheless, the annual statistics presented in what arguably are self-
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 156
promoting surveys continue to garner much press as a highly visible corporation in the field of
higher education releases them annually.
With the exception of this study, as best can be ascertained, there exists no research to
explain how online reputation influences the college admissions process. As such, the research
and findings offered herein present unique insight as to how the Internet, digital semiotics and
social media affect college access. Specifically, this study adds a contemporary twist toward our
understanding of signaling theory, its relationship to online reputation and the role digital signals
play in the college admissions process. However, the analysis and conclusions offered herein do
raise additional questions about the predictive nature of web based data and the existential nature
of our virtual selves. Recommendations for future research in these respective areas are offered
below.
Research in the Area of College Admissions
As previously mentioned, this study is limited in scope. While this study does indicate
that college admissions officers do craft e-pinions and do reference the Internet, very little is
known about their online search protocols and how these individuals navigate the web. Online
searches are not conducted in a vacuum and search returns can be influenced by hundreds of
possible variables. These variables include, but are not limited to the following:
 the robustness of Google's “web crawlers,”
 the accuracy of Google's web “index,”
 the geographic location of the searcher,
 the processing speed of the searcher's computer,
 the condition of the searcher's computer drivers,
 the searcher's cookie settings,
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 157
 the robustness of the platforms web analytics,
 the size, settings, and quality of the user's computer screen,
 the effectiveness of the search engine's ordinal and page ranking system,
 the searcher's familiarity with social media platforms,
 the searcher's familiarity with binary, Boolean, and free-text searches, and
 the searcher's efficacy and motivation to find the content in question.
In light of these variables, little is known about the exact behavior of college admissions
officers, the web based factors that influence college admissions officers, or the accuracy of their
e-pinions. It is hoped that future research will be devoted to exploring these variables so as to
increase one's access to quality higher education.
Research in the Area of Predictive Analytics
The research and findings contained herein breaks new ground in the area of college
admissions by explaining both when and how college admissions officers turn to the Internet to
research potential candidates. This study, however, falls short in identifying exactly what type of
content is interpreted as markers of competency, character and social capital. Offering a
potential avenue for further research is the growing field of web-based, predictive analytics.
Today's social networks contain tremendous volumes of both linkage and content data
(Aggarwal, 2011). Link data is essentially information about architecture and structure of a
social network (Aggarwal, 2011). Link data articulates with whom users communicate. By
contrast, content data speaks to the actual text, images, symbols, pictures and multimedia content
that is shared online (Aggarwal, 2011). Content data articulates with what users communicate.
Recent advancements in computing, networking, and algorithmic forecasting have given rise to
emerging sciences around the phenomenon of social networks. These sciences fall under the
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 158
realm of predictive analytics and include, but are not limited to, statistical analysis of social
networks, page rank analysis, community detection, node classification, dynamic evolution of
social networks, social influence analysis, expert detection, link prediction and social network
visualization (Aggarwal, 2011). These various forms of predictive analysis have recently been
applied to marketing research (Aquino, 2012). However, as best can be ascertained, there has
been no application of social network data analysis or web-based predictive analytics to the field
of college admissions or data-driven decision making and its role in education (Marsh, Pane, &
Hamilton, 2006; Parry, 2012a, 2012c; Schroeder, 2012). .
In light of the above, additional research would want to consider a more quantitative
approach to the topic of online reputation and college admissions as a means of overcoming the
shortcomings of an exclusively qualitative study. A quantitative analysis of online content could
not only gauge the semantic and pragmatic power of online content but generalize the findings of
this research to a much larger sample of colleges. For example, a research question relative to
this field of study could ask: Do college admissions officers consider the use of profanity as a
sign immaturity? Similarly, future researchers could also ask: Does the presence of literary
quotes on a social networking page improve the likelihood of college admissions?
The findings of this new research, when paired with forecasting algorithms, could also be
of value to other disciplines and other scenarios. Financial aid, scholarships, athletic
recruitment, entrepreneurial studies, high school admissions, career development, and human
resources are just a few of the disciplines that could benefit from findings of this new study and
the emerging sciences of predictive analytics. Each of the domains noted above, when coupled
with quantitative analysis of linkage and content data, are areas ripe for further study and
research.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 159
Research in the Area of Digital Existentialism and Cyber Cartesianism
Earlier in this study, the argument was made that a student’s identity was synonymous
with their online reputation and that the predictive qualities of their performance as students
could be derived from online proxies. Bolstering this argument was the observation that in
recent years, individuals and organizations have increasingly turned to the Internet as the
exclusive means of authenticating another person. Only a few short years ago, government
agencies were the exclusive entity responsible for authenticating an individual's identity and
whereabouts. However, today, robust search functions in Google and Facebook have
increasingly made these online services the first and final source of vetting someone's identity
(Peterson et al., 2011). College admissions officers who, throughout this study advised that they
primarily turn to Google and Facebook to conduct research of prospective students, made this
condition evident. For example, when college admissions officers were asked to identify the
services of websites they would turn to when validating applicants, all respondents advised that
they would utilize Google and Facebook, respectively, as their primary and secondary search
engines.
The prolific use of these sites by college admissions officers, and millions of others, does
raise an topic worthy of further study. This issue turns toward the philosophical and asks the
existential question, “Is e-sistence, existence?” Contemporary sociology has only recently
explored this issue but asking if “we are what we post” (Schau & Gilly, 2003). Modern
exploration of the semantic and semiotic web has in some degree also raised Cartesian
dichotomies about existence in the virtual world (Finin, Ding, Zhou, & Joshi, 2005; May, 2007;
Sherson, 2000; Tsotra, Janson, & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2004). The cyber dictum, “I tweet,
therefore I am” may indeed be the modern spin to the Cartesian aphorism, “cogito ergo sum”, but
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 160
the dualism it suggests, between our virtual and our actual selves, raises more practical questions
that have yet to be explored.
For example, in the course of our research, college admissions officers advised that, when
faced with a competitive environments or tiebreaker scenarios, they turn to the Internet in order
to make well-informed decisions. A situation that did not arise in the course of the study was the
scenario where a college admissions officer turns to the Internet and finds – nothing. Stated
another way, what happens to those exceptionally talented students who apply to college but opt
out of social media? Given this condition, a possible research question for future study could be:
How does my lack of participation in social media affect my admissions to college?
Additionally, throughout the course of the study, little investigative effort was spent
identifying the relevance and what might be referred to as “degrees of severity.” For example,
Scott advised in Chapter Four that a celebrated athlete had been denied recent admissions on the
grounds that his online content was evidence of some future liability. However, the aim of this
study was not to ascertain the exact nature or level of egregiousness in content, but rather to
confirm that college admissions officers use the Internet to research students and to identify
those triggers that compel them to do so. In light of the above, future research should explore the
relationship of online conduct to incidents of risk. Stated another way, college admissions
officers often regard negative online content as a sign of danger, yet no one has ever explored the
validity of this bias. By applying a Cartesian worldview to this scenario, a future research may
ask: Does the presence of alcohol imagery on social networking pages, predict the likelihood
alcohol related status offenses such as underage drinking or public intoxication?
The data and findings of this study offer new insight into the power of online reputation
and its impact on college admissions. However, this study only breaches the surface of what is
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 161
known in these areas and asks future researchers to carry the mantel into yet uncharted waters.
The areas of digital semiotics, reputation systems, predictive analytics, college admissions and
data-driven decision making all offer fertile ground for new discoveries
Conclusions
This study reveals that college admissions officers do not have the time, manpower or
resources to search online reputations but do, in limited situations, conduct online research of
prospective students Most importantly, this study has revealed that the practice of researching
online content is not universal and has only been applied to a few students each year in select
conditions. . First, online information has been shown to become most relevant in competitive
admissions scenarios where candidates are screened as part of a more selective admissions
process. Second, within this competitive environment, four primary prompts, to include a) the
validation of extraordinary or unusual claims of achievement, b) the presence of additional
information to supplement an application, and c) the identification of student “fit”, and d) the
need to ascertain incidents of student misconduct, have all been revealed as triggers for online
searches. The rubric of the “Four Cs,” provides a framework for how colleges participating in
this study were shown to measure online content against their university's standards of
competence, character and social capital. Furthermore, it is important to note that searching the
Internet has not, as yet, become the exclusive method of data verification that was alluded to in
recent news stories. College admissions departments continue to use their offline professional
networks rather than online social networks as their preferred means of learning more about their
candidates and evaluating their prospective students.
The impact of online data can best be understood in terms of extremes. This study
suggests that a well-designed, professional web presence can leave a positive impression on
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 162
those college admissions officers who happen to come across this type of content. This study
also indicates that for a few students, the impact of a negative or derogatory online content can
be, in the words of one college admission professional, “catastrophic.” The data suggests that in
these circumstances, negative content can threaten a campus's reputational value and as such,
outweigh other traditional measures of competence, character and social capital.
While promising, the use of online information in college admissions is not without
criticism. The potential for web-based data to “make or break” an admission and the “hidden,”
asymmetric nature of this behavior has subjected the practice to increased scrutiny and
commentary. Prospective candidates who have been negatively impacted by this behavior
challenge the lack of notice, informed consent, transparency and fairness in the admissions
process.
Despite the criticism, college admissions officers at highly selective universities, take a
different approach and feel a sense of obligation when researching open source data that is
publically available on the Internet. Colleges that engage in this behavior are looking for
something deeper and seeking aprognosis not readily offered in the scope of a traditional
admissions packet. In the words of one college admissions professional, “[the] positives are
already shared with us automatically. We don't have to go find it. These things are being thrust
into our face. By the student, by the parent, by the high school.” Rather, these institutions are
actively pursuing those students that they would describe as being “innovative and exceptional.”
As another admissions officer explained, in these highly competitive scenarios, “I am the dean of
admissions, not the dean or rejection. I'm looking for reasons to admit you, not deny you.”
The rapid expansion of broadband networking and the ubiquity of Web 2.0 technologies
have given teens the ability to create and contribute more content than ever before. These same
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 163
technologies have also made it easier for colleges to collect and curate specific pieces of digital
data. Interestingly, these technologies have created a reserved marketplace where teens serve as
content producers and adults act as content consumers. Unfortunately, a study of this length is
unable to explore all the dynamics and issues raised in such a marketplace. Nevertheless, this
study and the implications raised herein do lay the foundation for future exploration into this
dynamic and relationship. In an environment where colleges will increasingly search the Internet
and form e-pinions about what they encounter, savvy college applicants would be wise to post
with care and manage their online reputations.

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 164
References
Aggarwal, C. (Ed.). (2011). Social Network Data Analytics. Hawthorne, New York: Springer.
Alessandri, S. W., Yang, S.-U., & Kinsey, D. F. (2006). An Integrative Approach to University
Visual Identity and Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(4), 258–270.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550033
Alós-Ferrer, C., & Prat, J. (2012). Job market signaling and employer learning. Journal of
Economic Theory, 147(5), 1787–1817. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2012.01.018
Anonymous. (2011, December 14). Online Behavior Jeopardizing College Plans : Admissions
officers checking social-networking sites for red flags. Education Week, p. 11.
Antecol, H., & Smith, J. K. (2012). The Early Decision Option in College Admission and Its
Impact. Journal of Law and Economics, 55(1), 217–249. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661195
Aquino, J. (2012). Transforming Social Media into Predictive Analytics. Customer Relations
Management, (November), 38–42.
Aula, H.-M., & Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming “world-class”? Reputation-building in a university
merger. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 7–29.
doi:10.1108/17422041111103813
Avery, B. C., & Levin, J. (2010). Early Admissions at Selective Colleges, 100(December),
2125–2156.
Ayán, M., & García, M. T. (2008). Prediction of university students’ academic achievement by
linear and logistic models. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 275–288. Retrieved
from http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/SJOP/article/view/SJOP0808120275A
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 165
Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D.
(2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological
Science, 21(3), 372–374. doi:10.1177/0956797609360756
Barnes, N. (2009). Reaching the wired generation: How social media is changing college
admission. National Association for College Admission. Arlington, Virginia. Retrieved
from http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/Research Member
Only/SocialMediaDiscussionPaper.pdf
Barnes, N., & Mattson, E. (2009). Social media and college admissions: The first longitudinal
study. University of Massachusetts–Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research. Retrieved
from http://www.neacac.org/docs/uploads/files/amc2010/2010 AMC Web Social Media and
College Admissions The First Longitudinal Study.pdf
Beal, A., & Strauss, J. (2008). Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations
Online. Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Birnbaum, M. (2008). Taking Goffman on a tour of Facebook: College students and the
presentation of self in a mediated digital environment. University of Arizona. Retrieved
from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qH9AB_58cVYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=T
aking+Goffman+on+a+Tour+of+Facebook:+College+Students+and+the+Presentation+of+
Self+in+a+Media+Digital+Environment&ots=HZWf2M8AfJ&sig=C8YpatP5XqT1UyC_2
QJE6b4QXLM
Blackburn, J. A. (1997). News and Views : Black Students Are Not Applying “ Early
Admissions “ At America ’ s Colleges and Universities. The Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education, (June), 42.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 166
Bound, J., Hershbein, B., & Long, B. T. (2009). Playing the Admissions Game: Student
Reactions to Increasing College Competition, 23(4), 119–146.
Boyd, D. (2010). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics : Affordances , Dynamics , and
Implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on
Social Network Sites (pp. 39–58).
Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer ‐Mediated Communication. Michigan State University. Retrieved from
http://medcontent.metapress.com/index/A65RM03P4874243N.pdf
Boyd, D. (2007). Social Network Sites : Public , Private , or What ? Knowledge Tree, May(May),
1–7. Retrieved from http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id=28
Boyd, D. (2010). Privacy, Publicity, and Visibility. In Microsoft Tech Fest. Redmond, WA.
Brunk, K. (2010). Reputation building: beyond our control? Inferences in consumers’ ethical
perception formation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 292(July), 275–292. doi:10.1002/cb
Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What Matters to Student Success : A
Review of the Literature Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2011 High School
Graduates. Washington D.C.
Byrne, J. (1999). Health, wealth, and honesty: perceptions of self-esteem in primary- aged
children. Health Education, 99(3), 95–102.
Campelo, A., Aitken, R., & Gnoth, J. (2010). Visual Rhetoric and Ethics in Marketing of
Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 3–14. doi:10.1177/0047287510362777

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 167
Carey, K. (2011). The End of College Admissions as We Know It. Washington Monthly, 22–30.
Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/the_end_of
_college_admissions031636.php
Chang, L. (2006). Applying data mining to predict college admissions yield: A case study. New
Directions for Institutional Research, (131), 53–68. doi:10.1002/ir
Clinedinst, M. E., Hurley, S. F., & Hawkins, D. A. (2011). State of College Admission 2011.
Arlington Virginia.
Cohen, J. (2011). REPORT: Facebook Profiles Are Now Part Of 80% Colleges’ Admissions
Outreach. Allfacebook.com. Retrieved from http://allfacebook.com/report-facebook-
profiles-are-now-part-of-80-colleges-admissions-decisions_b33757
Conlin, M., & Dickert-Conlin, S. (2009). Inference by College Admission Departments:
Bayesian or Cursed?, 1–35. Retrieved from
https://www.msu.edu/~conlinmi/conlincornell10-09.pdf
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2010a). Signaling Theory: A
Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.
doi:10.1177/0149206310388419
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2010b). Signaling Theory: A
Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.
doi:10.1177/0149206310388419
Connelly, B. L., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling Theory : A Review and
Assessment, 37(1), 39–67. doi:10.1177/0149206310388419
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 168
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0. First
Monday, 13(6). Retrieved from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972
Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bttwENORfhgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Re
search+Design_Qualitative+Quantitative+and+Mixed+Methods+Approaches&ots=CaHyoR
1-03&sig=4mq9fgSBnhJw2JtDV88d9beVmkI
Dale, S., & Krueger, A. (1999). Estimating the payoff to attending a more selective college: An
application of selection on observables and unobservables (No. 7322). Cambridge, MA.
Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322
Darity, W. (2008). Putnam, Robert. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (pp.
641–642). Detroit, Michigan: Gale, Cengage Learning.
Davey, C. (2010). Predicting college student success: A historical and predictive examination of
high school activities and accomplishments. University of Utah.
Davis, C. H. F., Deil-Amen, R., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Canche, M. S. G. (2012). Social Media in
Higher Education: A literature review and research directions. Retrieved from
http://works.bepress.com/hfdavis/2/
Daysart, J. (2013). The Dawn of BIG DATA. ABA Journal, (May), 42–45,47.
Dellarocas, C. (2010). Designing reputation systems for the social web (No. 2010-18). Boston U.
School of Management Research Paper (pp. 1–9). Boston, MA. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1624697
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 169
Dobbs, R. L., Sun, J. Y., & Roberts, P. B. (2008). Human Capital and Screening Theories:
Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 10(6), 788–801. doi:10.1177/1523422308325761
Donath, J. (2007a). Signals in Social Supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
13(1), 231–251. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00394.x
Donath, J. (2007b). Signals in Social Supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
13(1), 231–251. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00394.x
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social
Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Epple, D., Romano, R., Sarpca, S., & Sieg, H. (2006). Profiling in Bargaining over College
Tuition Author ( s ): Dennis Epple , Richard Romano , Sinan Sarpça and Holger Sieg
Reviewed work ( s ): PROFILING IN BARGAINING OVER COLLEGE TUITION *,
116(515), F459–F479.
Evans, D. C., Gosling, S. D., & Carroll, A. (2008). What Elements of an Online Social
Networking Profile Predict Target- Rater Agreement in Personality Impressions ?
Evans, D., Gosling, S., & Carroll, A. (2008). What elements of an online social networking
profile predict target-rater agreement in personality impressions? … Conference on
Weblogs and Social … (pp. 45–50). Seattle, Washington. Retrieved from
http://www.aaai.org/Papers/ICWSM/2008/ICWSM08-013.pdf

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 170
Fertik, M., & Thompson, D. (2010a). Chapter 1.0 Welcome to the New Digital Frontier. In Wild
West 2.0: How to Protect and Restore Your Online Reputation on the Untamed Social
Frontier (pp. 10–24). AMACOM Books. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BKx_8k7yHDQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=
Wild+West+2.0:+How+to+Protect+and+Restore+Your+Online+Reputation+on+the+Unta
med+Social+Frontier.&ots=Nknd8V4xF7&sig=ZNWFSyHoipHug0Um7k6SNxpOP7I
Fertik, M., & Thompson, D. (2010b). Wild West 2.0: How to Protect and Restore Your
Reputation on the Untamed Social Frontier (pp. 25–38). AMACOM Books. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BKx_8k7yHDQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=
Wild+West+2.0:+How+to+Protect+and+Restore+Your+Online+Reputation+on+the+Unta
med+Social+Frontier&ots=Nkri9S0FHa&sig=7wwco6oxC2Zur8-XlCBvABEb5rg
Finin, T., Ding, L., Zhou, L., & Joshi, A. (2005). Social networking on the semantic web. The
Learning Organization, 12(5), 418–435. doi:10.1108/09696470510611384
Frangiosa, C. D. (2004). The Impact of the Internet on School District Liability. In National
Business Institute Seminar. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Friesen, N. (2010). Education and the social Web: Connective learning and the commercial
imperative. First Monday, 15(12). Retrieved from
hhttp://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3149/2718
Frontline. (2014). Generation Like. USA: PBS. Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/generation-like/

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 171
Gamson, R., Gottesman, J., Milan, N., & Weerasuriya, S. (2012). Cues to Catching Deception in
Interviews (pp. 1–11). College Park, Maryland. Retrieved from
http://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/publications/CuesToCatchingDeception.pd
f
Gilroy, M. (2007). Colleges making SAT optional as admissions requirement. Education Digest,
73(4), 35–39. Retrieved from
http://www.hispanicoutlook.com/data/frontpagefile/2007/Aug-13/article4.pdf
Goble, G. (2012). The History of Social Networking. www.digitialtrends.com. Retrieved March
12, 2012, from http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-of-social-networking/
Goffman, E. (2005a). Introduction to The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. In
Contemporary Sociological Thought: Themes and Theories. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Goffman, E. (2005b). Introduction to The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. In S. Heir (Ed.),
Contemporary Sociological Thought: Themes and Theories. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Goldman, E. (2010). Regulating Reputation Systems. US: University of California Berkley,
School of Information.
Google. (2014). How Google search works. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/index.html
Gosling, S. (2008a). Sam Gosling Analyzes Facebook Profiles. FORA.tv. United States:
FORA.tv. Retrieved from http://fora.tv/2008/06/16/Sam_Gosling-
Snoop_The_Secret_Language_of_Stuff#Sam_Gosling_Examines_Creativity_and_Opennes
s
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 172
Gosling, S. (2008b). Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You. The Journal of Social Psychology
(Vol. 149). New York, New York: Basic Books. doi:10.1080/00224540903238529
Gosling, S., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (2007). Personality impressions based on Facebook
profiles. Proceedings of the International … (pp. 1–4). Retrieved from
http://www.icwsm.org/papers/3--Gosling-Gaddis-Vazire.pdf
Grush, M. (2013, January). Helping Faculty Leverage Social Media. Campus Technology.
Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2013/01/30/helping-faculty-leverage-
social-media.aspx?=CT21
Gunter, W. D., Higgins, G. E., & Gealt, R. E. (2010). Pirating Youth : Examining the Correlates
of Digital Music Piracy among Adolescents, 4(1), 657–671.
Halpern, P. (2004). Applicant Decision-Making in College Admissions Games. JOURNAL OF
INVESTING, 13(2). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Applicant+Decision-
Making+in+College+Admissions+Games#1
Hariri, N. (2011). Relevance ranking on Google: Are top ranked results really considered more
relevant by the users? Online Information Review, 35(4), 598–610.
doi:10.1108/14684521111161954
Hauberer, J. (2011a). Introducting the Civic Perspective on Social Capital - Robert D. Putnam’s
Concpet of Social Capital. In Social Capital Theory: Towards a Methodological
Foundation (pp. 53–86). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-531-92646-
9_3
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 173
Hauberer, J. (2011b). Introducting the Civic Perspective on Social Capital - Robert D. Putnam’s
Concpet of Social Capital. In Social Capital Theory: Towards a Methodological
Foundation (pp. 53–86). Heidelberg, Germany. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-531-92646-9_3
Hechinger, J. (2008a). College applicants, beware: Your Facebook page is showing. Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122170459104151023.html
Hechinger, J. (2008b). College applicants, beware: Your Facebook page is showing. Wakk Street
Journal. Retrieved from http://www.buec.udel.edu/antil/Careers/College Applicants,
Beware_ Your Facebook Page Is Showing - WSJ.com.pdf
Higgins, G. (2007). Digital piracy, self-control theory, and rational choice: An examination of
the role of value. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1(1), 33–55. Retrieved from
http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/georgeijcc.pdf
Horner, J. (2002). Reputation and competition. The American Economic Review, 92(3), 644–663.
Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aea/aer/2002/00000092/00000003/art00011
Hörner, J. (2006). Signalling And Screening. In New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd
ed., pp. 1–12). Retrieved from http://najecon.com/econ504/signallingb.pdf
Hörner, J. (2008). Signalling And Screening. New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online.
Retrieved June 06, 2013, from
http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com.libproxy.usc.edu/article?id=pde2008_S000129&edi
tion=current&q=signalling and screening&topicid=&result_number=1
House, J., & Prion, S. (1998). Student Attitudes and Academic Background as Predictors of
Achievement in College English. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(1), 29.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ570496
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 174
How Teens Share Information on Social Media. (2013). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media/
Hurwitz, M. (2011). The impact of legacy status on undergraduate admissions at elite colleges
and universities. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 480–492.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.002
IBM. (2013). What is big data? Retrieved March 06, 2013, from http://www-
01.ibm.com/software/data/bigdata/
Iconis, R. (2003). Classroom commercialism. Pediatrics for Parents, 20(6), 3.
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online
service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618–644.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019
Joyner, P. U., Cox, W. C., White-Harris, C., & Blalock, S. J. (2007). The structured interview
and interviewer training in the admissions process. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 71(5), 83. Retrieved from
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2064881&tool=pmcentrez&ren
dertype=abstract
Kagen, E. (2012). Get Ready for College. Boys’ Life, (9 Sept), 42–45.
Kaplan Test Prep. (2011). Highlights from Kaplan Test Prep’s 2011 College Admissions
Officers Survey.

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 175
Kaplan Test Prep. (2012a). Highlights from Kaplan Test Prep ’ s 2012 College Admissions
Officers Survey. New York, New York: Kaplan Test Prep. Retrieved from
http://press.kaptest.com/press-releases/kaplan-test-prep-survey-finds-that-college-
admissions-officers-discovery-of-online-material-damaging-to-applicants-nearly-triples-in-
a-year
Kaplan Test Prep. (2012b). Kaplan Test Prep_2012 Press Release. Press Release. Retrieved from
http://press.kaptest.com/press-releases/kaplan-test-prep-survey-finds-that-college-
admissions-officers-discovery-of-online-material-damaging-to-applicants-nearly-triples-in-
a-year
Kaplan Test Prep. (2013). Highlights from Kaplan Test Prep ’ s 2012 Survey of Law School
Admissions Officers. Retrieved from http://www.kaptest.com/pdf_files/2012-Law-School-
Admissions-Officers-Survey.pdf
Karasek III, R., & Bryant, P. (2012). Signaling theory: past, present, and future. Academy of
Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 91–100. Retrieved from
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Academy-Strategic-Management-
Journal/294507952.html
Karasek, R., & Bryant, P. (2012). SIGNALING THEORY : PAST , PRESENT , AND FUTURE,
11(1), 91–100.
Kennedy, S. D. (2012). Just … Google. Information Today, (November), 25.
Kim, J., Choi, Y., & Park, S.-E. (2012). E-impression dimensions. Multimedia Tools and
Applications, 68(2), 281–296. doi:10.1007/s11042-012-1063-7
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 176
Lee, C.-C., & Welker, R. B. (2011). Prior Exposure to Interviewee’s Truth-Telling (Baselining)
and Deception-Detection Accuracy in Interviews. Behavioral Research in Accounting,
23(2), 131–146. doi:10.2308/bria-50019
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Pew internet project data memo. Washington DC Pew
Charitable Trusts (pp. 1–10). Washington D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.mendeley.com/research/pew-internet-project-data-memo/
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens,
Kindness and Cruelty on Social Network Sites. Pew Research Center (pp. 1–86).
Washington D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.com/~/media/Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Teens_Kindness_Cruelty_S
NS_Report_Nov_2011_FINAL_110711.pdf
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of
social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society,
10(3), 393–411. doi:10.1177/1461444808089415
Lochner, L. (2004). Education, work, and crime: A human capital approach. International
Economic Review, 45(3), 811–843. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0020-6598.2004.00288.x/full
Lofstrom, M., & Tyler, J. (2007). Modeling the signaling value of the GED with an application
to an exogenous passing standard increase in Texas. Research in Labor Economics.
Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1775155&show=abstract
Luan, J. (2002). Data Mining and Its Applications in Higher Education. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2002(113), 17–36. doi:10.1002/ir.35
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 177
Luckerson, V. (2012, November). When colleges look up applicants on Facebook: The
Unspoken New Admissions Test. TIME. Retrieved from
http://nation.time.com/2012/11/15/when-colleges-look-up-applicants-on-facebook-the-
unspoken-new-admissions-test/
Lytle, R. (2011). College Admissions Officials Turn to Facebook to Research Students. U.S.
News and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-
colleges/articles/2011/10/10/college-admissions-officials-turn-to-facebook-to-research-
students
Madden, M., Cortesi, S., & Lenhart, A. (2012). Parents , Teens , and Online Privacy.
Madden, S. (2012). From databases to big data. Internet Computing, IEEE, (May-June), 4 – 6.
Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6188576
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education. Evidence from Recent RAND Research. Education. RAND Corporation.
Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170/
Marshall, W. A. (2012). Examining the Relationships Between Social Capital and an Online
College Access Program. University of Southern California.
Marwick, A., & boyd, danah. (2011a). Social Privacy in Networked Publics : Teens ’ Attitudes ,
Practices , and Strategies (pp. 1–29). Oxford, United Kingdom.
Marwick, A., & boyd, danah. (2011b). The Drama! Teen Conflict, Gossip and Bullying in
Networked Publics (pp. 1–25). Oxford, United Kingdom.
Matsumoto, B. D., Hwang, H. S., Skinner, L., & Mark, F. (2011). Evaluating Truthfulness and
Detecting Deception. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 80(June), 1–8.
doi:10.1002/mus.24009
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 178
Matzat, U. (2009). A theory of relational signals in online groups. New Media & Society, 11(3),
375–394. doi:10.1177/1461444808101617
Maxwell, J. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Third.). Thousand
Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DFZc28cayiUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Qu
alitative+Research+Design+An+Interactive+approach&ots=LIzDfCsM5f&sig=ZT2ies3_ae
kqJpGJzhoxRNdU8Yo
May, M. (2007). A Semiotic Framework for the Semantics of Digital Multimedia Learning
Objects (pp. 10–14). Modena, Italy.
McAndrew, F. T. (2002). New Evolutionary Perspectives on Altruism: Multilevel-Selection and
Costly-Signaling Theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(2), 79–82.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00173
McIntosh, E., Bugeja, M., & Cottrell, R. (2008). Social networking. The Economist Debates.
Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/127
McLaughlin, C., & Vitak, J. (2011). Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media &
Society, 14(2), 299–315. doi:10.1177/1461444811412712
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tvFICrgcuSIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Quali
tative+research_a+guide+to+design+and+implementation&ots=Kknv6VyEhJ&sig=23D3m
wI06DH9dDDHcLOzf9M0Nmk

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 179
Miller, G. (2009). Spent: Sex, evolution, and consumer behavior (p. 374). New York: Viking
Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j4x5P0-
ufwMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Spent:+Sex,+Evolution+and+Consumer+Behavior&ots=6R
BhSRkAY5&sig=GPl0CCCj1XPYtD2WObmOxgeChKA
Mills, N. (2012). Does Facebook hurt your college chances. www.cnn.com. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/opinion/mills-college-admissions
Moore, R. (2010). Parental Regulation and Online Activities : Examining factors that influence a
Youth ’ s potential to become a Victim of Online Harassment, 4(1), 685–698.
Morse, R. (2013). Best Colleges Ranking Category Definitions. U.S. News and World Report.
Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/best-
colleges-ranking-category-definitions
Morse, R. (2013). U.S. News Best Colleges Rankings Turn 30 Years Old. U.S. News and World
Report. Retrieved May 01, 2014, from http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-
rankings-blog/2013/11/27/us-news-best-colleges-rankings-turn-30-years-old
Morse, R., & Flanigan, S. (2013). How U.S. News Calculated the 2014 Best Colleges Rankings.
U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved January 10, 2013, from
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/how-us-news-
calculated-the-2014-best-colleges-rankings
National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2009a). Research to Practice Brief:
Factors in the Admission Decision, (6), 1–6. Retrieved from
http://www.nacacnet.org/research/PublicationsResources/Marketplace/Documents/RTPBrie
f_Factors.pdf
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 180
National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2009b). Social Media : Considerations
and Implications in College Admission.
Navarro, J. (2012). Detecting deception. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 81(August), 7–11.
doi:10.1037/13085-002
Noonan, B., Sedlacek, W., & Veerasamy, S. (2006). Employing noncognitive variables in
admitting and advising community college students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 29(August), 463–469. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10668920590934170
O’Cass, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-related
brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 11(2), 67–88. doi:10.1108/10610420210423455
O’Leary, D. (2013). “Big Data’, the “Internet of Things” and the “Internet of Signs.” Intelligent
Systems in Accounting, Finance and …, 65, 53–65. doi:10.1002/isaf
O’Reilly, K. (2009). Participant Observation. In Key Concepts in Ethnography (p. 240). SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Oliver, J., & Eales, K. (2008). Research ethics: Re-evaluating the consequentialist perspective of
using covert participant observation in management research. Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, 11(3), 344–357. doi:10.1108/13522750810879057
Ormerod, P. (2012). Positive Linking: How Networks can Revolutionise the World.
www.thersa.org. Retrieved from http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-
events/2012/positive-linking-how-networks-can-revolutionise-the-world
Oyer, P. (2014). Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Economics I Learned from Online
Dating (p. 256). Harvard Business Press Books.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 181
Pape, L., Sheehan, T., & Worrell, C. (2012). How to do more lessons from online learning.
Learning & Leading with Technology, March/Apri, 18–22.
Parry, M. (2012a). A “Moneyball” Approach to College. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
December 1.
Parry, M. (2012b). College Degrees, Designed by the Numbers. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, July 18.
Parry, M. (2012c). College Degrees, Designed by the Numbers. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, July 18.
Peterson, R., Dierks, T., Harding, P., & Mitchel, A. (2011). Who Owns Your Identity. Mashable.
Retrieved January 04, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgODN0AuoLY
Pettit, M. (2011). The con man as model organism: the methodological roots of Erving
Goffman’s dramaturgical self. History of the Human Sciences, 24(2), 138–154.
doi:10.1177/0952695111398828
Project Tomorrow. (2012). Personalizing Learning in 2012 — The Student & Parent Point of
View. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from
http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/Infographic_PersonalizedLearning2012.pdf
Project Tomorrow, & Speak Up. (2012a). Mapping a Personalized Learning Journey – K-12
Students and Parents Connect the Dots with Digital Learning. Speak Up 2011 National
Findings. Irvine, California. Retrieved from
www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU11_PearsonalizedLearning_Students.pdf
Project Tomorrow, & Speak Up. (2012b). Mapping a Personalized Learning Journey – K-12
Students and Parents Connect the Dots with Digital Learning. Irvine, California. Retrieved
from www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU11_PersonalizedLearning_Students.pdf
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 182
Putnam, R. (2007). Social Capital and Community Cohesion. Manchester Metropolitan
University. Retrieved January 03, 2013, from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uP6A7XFytQ
Raju, D. (2012). Predicting student graduation in higher education using data mining models: A
comparison. The University of Alabama.
Rampell, C. (2008). Colleges mine data to predict dropouts. The Chronicle of Higher Educatoin,
May 30. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/pubrels/clips/May08/05-28-08J.pdf
Rebbapragada, S., Basu, A., & Semple, J. (2010). Data mining and revenue management
methodologies in college admissions. Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 128.
doi:10.1145/1721654.1721690
Reich, R. (2006). Prepared for Getting Down to Facts: A research project designed to inform
solutions to California’s Education Problems (p. 25). Palo Alto, California.
Rheingold, H., & Weeks, A. (2012). Net Smart: How to Thrive Online. The MIT Press.
Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o3EvRkgYv2MC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=N
et+Smart:+How+to+Thrive+Online&ots=v274yaduG_&sig=RBfvfBPJW1Uq9rkU_dE2Ym
sobUI
Rideout, V. (2012). Social Media , Social Life : How Teens View Their Digital Lives (p. 46).
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–88. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
Ryan, P. (2007). Thorstein Veblen and Conspicuous Consumption. Quadrant, February, 127–
128.
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 183
Schaffer, R. (2013). Kaplan Test Prep Survey: More College Admissions Officers Checking
Applicants’ Digital Trails, But Most Students Unconcerned. Kaplan Test Prep. Retrieved
from http://press.kaptest.com/press-releases/kaplan-test-prep-survey-more-college-
admissions-officers-checking-applicants-digital-trails-but-most-students-unconcerned
Schau, H., & Gilly, M. (2003). We are what we post? Self ‐presentation in personal web space.
Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/378616
Schroeder, K. A. (2012). An Exploration of the Use of Data, Analysis and Research Among
College Admission Professionals in the Context of Data Driven Decision Making.
University of Kentucky.
Sedlacek, W. E., & Adams-Gaston, J. (1992). Predicting the Academic Success of Student-
Athletes Using SAT and Noncognitive Variables. Journal of Counseling & Development,
70(6), 724–727. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1992.tb02155.x
Sherson, G. W. (2000). The Relevance of Semiotics to the Internet : How Web Designers use
Metaphors in Web Development. Retrieved from
http://www.shersonmedia.com/grant/cv/items/papers/Semiotics_and_Web_Design.pdf
Smith, S., & Kipp, K. (2012). Online Learning. U.S.A.: American Public Media. Retrieved from
http://arwpodcast.tumblr.com/post/16567575118/online-teacher
Solove, D. (2007). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the Internet (pp. 1–
237). New Haven, Conneticut: Yale University Press. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=F6liiKZwX_oC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=The
+Future+of+Reputation+Gossip+Rumor+and+Privacy+on+the+Internet&ots=wevgbap7CF
&sig=jQjDn9HBFt2-JmkZqMBHwmFuH-k
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 184
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
Retrieved from http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/3/355.short
Sternberg, R. J., Bonney, C. R., Gabora, L., Jarvin, L., Karelitz, T. M., & Coffin, L. (2010).
BROADENING THE SPECTRUM OF UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS. College and
University, 86(1), 2. Retrieved from
http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/2148808531/fmt/pi/rep/NONE?hl=&cit%3
Aauth=Sternberg%2C+Robert+J%3BBonney%2C+Christina+Rhee%3BGabora%2C+Liane
%3BJarvin%2C+Linda%3BKarelitz%2C+Tzur+M%3BCoffin%2C+Lee&cit%3Atitle=BR
OADENING+THE+SPECTRUM+OF+UNDERGRADUATE+ADMISSIONS&cit%3Apub
=College+and+University&cit%3Avol=86&cit%3Aiss=1&cit%3Apg=2&cit%3Adate=Sum
mer+2010&ic=true&cit%3Aprod=ProQuest+Education+Journals&_a=20111017201057683
%253A298539-99212-ONE_SEARCH-146.186.206.191-1059-755285336-Docume
Strahilevitz, L. J. (2007). Reputation Nation: Law in an Era of Ubituitous Personal Information
(No. John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No. 371) (Vol. 371, p. 82). Chicago,
IL.
Sullivan, D. (2014). Google Still World ’ s Most Popular Search Engine By Far , But Share Of
Unique Searchers Dips Slightly retrieve. searchengineland.com. Retrieved from
http://searchengineland.com/google-worlds-most- popular-search-engine-148089
Szalavitz, M. (2012). Nearly 1 in 3 Teens Sext. Time. Retrieved from
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/02/nearly-1-in-3-teens-sext-study-says-is-this-cause-for-
worry/
Szelényi, I. (2011). Weber’s Theory of Class. U.S.A.: Yale University Press. Retrieved from
iTunes
DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 185
The College Board. (2014). Early Decision and Early Action. thecollegeboard.com. Retrieved
May 01, 2014, from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/guidance/applications/early
Thomas, L. L., Kuncel, N. R., & Crede, M. (2007). Noncognitive Variables in College
Admissions: The Case of the Non-Cognitive Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 67(4), 635–657. doi:10.1177/0013164406292074
Timm, D., & Duven, C. (2008). Privacy and social networking sites. New Directions for Student
SErvices, Winter(124), 89–102. doi:10.1002/ss
Tsotra, D., Janson, M., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2004). Marketing on the Internet : A Semiotic
Analysis (pp. 4210–4220). New York, New York. Retrieved from
http://www.umsl.edu/~jansonma/myarticles/D__SIGPHL02-1364.pdf
Tuttle, B. (2010). Warren Buffett’s Boring, Brilliant Wisdom. Time.com. Retrieved from
http://business.time.com/2010/03/01/warren-buffetts- boring-brilliant-wisdom/
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Fast Facts. National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved May 01, 2014, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked Participatory Scholarship: Emergent techno-
cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers &
Education, 58(2), 766–774. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.001
Verhoglyadova, N. (2006). Definition and Content Interpretation of Human Capital. Annals,
4(1), 249–260. Retrieved from http://en.scientificcommons.org/44231775
Walter, E. (2012). The Rise Of Visual Social Media. Fast Company. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcompany.com/3000794/rise-visual-social-media

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 186
Wansink, B. (1989). The Impact of Source Reputation on Inferences About Unadvertised
Attributes. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 399–406. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=c
rawler&jrnl=00989258&AN=6487736&h=ArufiT7hu9%2B4GkIZhjxu7%2FjAA6x%2Fqx
LIuM%2BOmX7KyO2Zrjeb5zBUIabc7eWCZJLmwhD%2BLsNlABaOYJqXrfCtAA%3D
%3D&crl=c
Whitney, L. (2012). Heads up, LinkedIn users: 93% of recruiters are looking at you. CNET.com.
Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57469282-93/heads-up-linkedin-users-
93-of-recruiters-are-looking-at-you/
Wisman, J. D. (2009). Household Saving, Class Identity, and Conspicuous Consumption.
Journal of Economic Issues, 43(1), 89–114. doi:10.2753/JEI0021-3624430105
Wood, J. (2006). NLP revisited: nonverbal communications and signals of trustworthiness.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Spring, 197. Retrieved from
http://mesharpe.metapress.com/index/2RWLDVYVXWNDGMR1.pdf

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 187
Appendix
Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
1. INTERVIEWEE IDENTIFICATION
Institution

Name

Title

How Long Employed

Prior Experience in College Admissions

How familiar are you with the Internet

Do you have a social networking page? If so, on
which social networking sites?

2. INSTITUTIONAL DESCRIPTION AND
DEMOGRAPHICS
 How would you describe
your institution?

 What is your institution's
acceptance rate?

 Do you know where your
institution ranks on the
U.S. News and World
Report list of best colleges
in America?

 Would you describe your
institution's admissions
policy as open, selective
or competitive?

 In your opinion, why do
you think your college's
admissions policy is
[open, selective or
competitive]?

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 188

3. HOW PREV ALENT IS THE USE OF
ONLINE REPUTATION IN THE COLLEGE
ADMISSIONS PROCESS?
The series of questions that follow were
designed to reveal the extent online reputation
has on the college admission process.
6. What criterion and elements are needed
for a new student to enter your
institution?

7. What is the most important characteristic
that you look for in a new student?

8. How do you know you've found that
characteristic in a student?

9. How would you define “online
reputation?”

10. How might an applicant's online
reputation affect his or her admission

11. How prevalent is the use of online
reputation as a factor in college
admissions process?

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 189
4. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES DO
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS COUNSELORS
SEEK OUT, ACCESS, OR EV ALUATE
ONLINE REPUTATION AS PART OF THE
COLLEGE ADMISSION PROCESS?
Preliminary research leading to this interview
strongly indicate that online reputation
becomes increasingly important under
certain circumstances. The following
questions seek to uncover the validity of this
observation and to ascertain if such
circumstances exist on your campus.
12. What events or conditions might cause you
to seek out, access, or evaluate online
information on an applicant as part of the
application review process?

13. Has anyone ever independently
approached you to discuss an applicant's
online reputation?

14. How do you think social media (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter, tumblr, online profiles)
can be used to effectively learn more about
your applicant's online reputation?

15. How would you describe the role of social
media in the college admission process? Is
it a formal or “official” strategy/policy or
more informal or “unofficial” (e.g., to the
discretion of the individual reviewers)?

16. How do you go about using the Internet to
uncover a student's online reputation?

17. Which websites, social networks or online
services have you used or prefer to use to
research prospective students?

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 190
5. HOW DO COLLEGE ADMISSIONS
COUNSELORS USE INFORMATION FOR
APPLICANTS' ONLINE REPUTATION
DURING THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS
PROCESS?
Preliminary research leading to this
interview strongly indicate that online
reputation becomes increasingly important
under certain circumstances. The following
questions seek to uncover the validity of this
observation and to ascertain if such
circumstances exist on your campus.
18. How would you compare the use of online
reputation with more traditional measures
and criterion for college admissions?

19. In what ways do information found on the
web about a candidate influence the
application review process

20. Do you believe online reputation is a
valuable source of data for college
admissions?

21. How do you advise potential applicants
regarding the admissions team’s use of
social media in the application review
process?

22. Does the University have a policy or
protocol regarding the search of
prospective students on the Internet or
through social networks?
If the University does have such a
policy, may I have a copy of this
document?

23. How do you and your admission team put
this policy into practice?

24. (Optional) Do you feel this policy is
comprehensive and effective? How might
this policy and its use be improved? For
what reason?

DIGITAL SEMIOTICS AND DIMENSIONS OF STUDENT FIT 191

6. CONCLUSION

Is there any question I should have asked or
anything else you’d like to share?

Is it OK for me to contact you again should I
need to follow up or seek clarification on any of
your answers?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Every Fall, millions of graduating high school seniors apply for admissions to college. While on the path to enrollment, college admissions officers across the country assess each prospective student against their institution's criteria for admittance. As a rubric for assessing college readiness and ""fit,"" admissions officers have historically used a variety of cognitive and noncognitive measures in their evaluation process. A review of the literature has revealed abundant research on well‐known student assessment tools to include standardized tests scores, grade point averages, academic transcripts, personal statements, participations in extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation, work history and volunteer service. ❧ However, a recent wave of media reports allege that college admissions officers have in increasing numbers used the Internet and social media to investigative prospective students. Stories of such activity have prompted college hopefuls to scrub their online content by deleting questionable posts and pictures. Some students have questioned the validity of such collegiate practices and alleged that colleges and universities have chilled their right to speech and invaded their privacy. To ascertain the scope of this alleged behavior, this study seeks to answer a) how widespread the use of the Internet has become among these professionals, b) under what circumstances do college admissions officers review web‐based content and c) how college admissions officers use digital data in the course of their work. To answer these questions, this study draws on elements of signaling theory, human capital theory, and semiotics to form a framework that best describes how college admissions officers interrogate the Internet and form ""e‐pinions"" of student candidates. This framework, collectively referred to as the ""Four Cs,"" proposes that college admissions officers assess students based on their academic competency, personal character, social capital and online content. ❧ As a qualitative study, elements from critical research and case study research have been adopted and used to craft a study protocol that included field observations at select universities in four states, a review of the Common Application, as well as unstructured and semi‐structured interviews of college admissions professionals from six high ranking colleges and universities. ❧ The findings of this study suggest that online information and the e‐pinions they generate become highly relevant when assessing students for signs of campus ""fit"", validating extraordinary student claims of achievement, reviewing supplemental data on an application, or investigating allegations of online indiscretion or misconduct. The findings also suggest that college admissions officers do not actively pursue online reputation as part of their normal protocol, but ""reserve the right"" to exercise “due diligence” when applications warrant confirmation from online sources. Lastly, the data of this study has revealed Google and Facebook to be the dominant search engines for college admissions officers participating in this study.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Assessing college and career readiness through the Senior Project program

PDF

The #Revolution will be liked: an examination of civic expression among Hawaiian youth

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

PDF

Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education

PDF

Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences

PDF

Community college leadership for student success

PDF

How college students use online social networks to gather information

PDF

Attaining success: how African American college students persist, engage and graduate from a moderately selective institution: a case study

PDF

Perspectives of Native American community college students

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study

PDF

How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools

PDF

Keyholding or gatekeeping: managing the contradictions between market pressures and equity imperatives in the modern racialized college admissions office

PDF

Examining the use of online storytelling as a motivation for young learners to practice narrative skills

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Analysis of southern California Title I high school student utilization of online courses to fulfill graduation requirements

PDF

The influence of globalization and multinational corporations on schools and universities in Costa Rica

PDF

Cross-cultural adjustment: examining how involvement in service-learning contributes to the adjustment experiences of undergraduate international students

PDF

Engineering my community cultural wealth: testimonios of male Latino community college engineering students

Asset Metadata

Creator Laanui, Arnold, Jr. (author)

Core Title Digital semiotics and dimensions of student fit: how online reputation and e-pinion influence college admission

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/01/2014

Defense Date 03/17/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college admission,digital semiotics,e‐pinion,OAI-PMH Harvest,online reputation,semiotics,student fit

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Pascarella, John, III (committee chair), Martinez, Brandon (committee member), Slayton, Julie M. (committee member)

Creator Email a_laanui@yahoo.com,laanui@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-427410

Unique identifier UC11286649

Identifier etd-LaanuiArno-2598.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-427410 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LaanuiArno-2598.pdf

Dmrecord 427410

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Laanui, Arnold, Jr.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA