The Public Persona Trap: US College Admissions and Social Media
Gunika Chaudhary - Ascend International School, Mumbai
Executive Summary
“You don’t know what will offend them,” said a student, reflecting on the anxiety surrounding U.S. immigration and admissions scrutiny, right before wiping his phone clean of social media apps.1 This experience displays the quiet shift in how students view their digital presence: not as a reflection of themself, but as a tool for institutional approval. In today’s hyper-competitive admissions landscape, students are not only expected to deliver academically and extracurricularly but also digitally, curating their online identities into “safe,” and often performative versions of themselves.
This white paper investigates the growing role of social media in U.S. college admissions, an unregulated, often opaque space where digital footprints can silently influence outcomes. Through a mixed-methods approach including a qualitative survey, literature reviews, and stakeholder mapping, the research uncovers how informal digital evaluations create new burdens of performance, deepen existing inequalities, and contribute to widespread anxiety and inauthenticity.
Drawing inspiration from regulatory lessons in misinformation policy and digital platform governance, the paper argues for proactive, realistic reform. It advocates for institutional clarity and accountability over surveillance, informed student agency over self-censorship, and equity over invisible advantage. With a focus on policy option feasibility, the paper outlines a path forward where authenticity is no longer a liability, and students are evaluated for their full selves, not their filtered screens.
Introduction
With the rapid expansion of the digital world, there has been an exponential increase in the number of teenagers who use social media. Today, over 90% of teens globally use platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and X, with the average teen spending more than 4.5 hours a day scrolling, posting, and interacting.2 Social media has evolved from being a space for connecting to a concept far more complex, one where identities are created, performance is constant, and popularity is the currency. Now, one can imagine, if such a large portion of a teenager's day-to-day life is not just visible but being judged by college admission officers, it is only natural that paranoia creeps in. Students begin curating a version of themselves they think will be “impressive”, possibly at the cost of their authenticity.3 When this is layered onto an already hyper-competitive college landscape, where acceptance rates at top-tier US universities have dropped to an all-time low of 4-6%, the pressure will reach anyone's boiling point.4
In a world where every like, post, or story highlight could be silently scrutinised, students are doing everything in their power to gain an edge over everyone else. And for some, that edge has become their social media persona. This unofficial review of applicants' online presence is seen by many as their secret weapon, one last try at standing out, or at least trying to. But does this make the admission process more “holistic”?5 Or is it just fueling a system where ingenuity turns into performance, and students curate what seems like a socially aware, hyper-engaged identity, when in reality, they’ve just learned how to hide their true self? Let’s not forget what social media was originally designed to do: a medium to express a selective version of ourselves, not necessarily the honest one. It was never aimed to be the measure of someone’s character and intelligence. And yet, as universities quietly scroll through applicants' accounts, they’re giving these still screens real-world consequences.
This paper navigates how this shift, from authenticity to a displayed identity, from privacy to surveillance, is shaping the future of US college admissions. It explores the ethical, psychological, and social implications of allowing social media to tip the scales silently, and asks: where will we draw the line? What policies are needed? And lastly but most importantly, how do we create a system where students are evaluated and accepted for who they are, not just for how they’ve learned to survive in the online world?
Methodology
This white paper adopts a mixed-methods approach to investigate the informal but growing role of social media in U.S. college admissions and its implications for student behaviour, institutional decision-making, and educational equity. The central objective is to understand how digital footprints, often assessed without transparency or consent, are shaping not just admissions outcomes, but also how students present themselves. The research draws on three key sources: literature review, qualitative survey data, and policy analysis tools.
First, a comprehensive literature review was conducted, synthesising academic research, media investigations, policy commentary, and institutional reports to establish the current landscape of digital behaviour, youth identity formation, and admissions practices. Second, qualitative insights were gathered through a Google Form-based survey targeting students preparing to apply to U.S. universities. These anonymised responses helped uncover patterns of emotional stress, self-censorship, and curated identity performance, particularly among those who felt anxious about how their social media might be judged. Finally, two structured analytical tools were used to frame policy recommendations:
A PASTEL analysis (Political, Administrative, Social, Technological, Economic, and Legal) was applied specifically to evaluate the feasibility of different regulatory responses to social media screening in admissions. This framework enabled a comparative assessment of five proposed interventions, weighing their practical constraints and strategic viability.
A stakeholder analysis was also conducted to map the roles, incentives, and vulnerabilities of the key actors involved: students, college admissions officers, high school counsellors, policymakers, and social media platforms. This allowed for a more nuanced understanding of power imbalances and accountability gaps.
This research is not without limitations. Due to the confidential nature of college admissions practices, the study could not access internal institutional protocols. In addition, student responses are subjective by nature and cannot be generalised to represent the full applicant pool. However, by triangulating diverse sources with strategic policy frameworks, the methodology provides a well-rounded and credible base for understanding, and ultimately reforming, a system currently operating in a regulatory and ethical vacuum.
Analysis and Discussion
The Rise of the Online "Admissions Persona"
As the U.S. college admissions landscape grows more competitive, many students are turning to social media as another space to signal competence, awareness, and alignment with institutional values. This has given rise to the "admissions persona": a selectively curated online identity that reflects what students believe colleges want to see, rather than who they truly are.
To get a better sense of this, I conducted a qualitative survey with high school students planning to apply to U.S. colleges in the next few cycles. While experiences varied, approximately 43% of respondents said they are actively considering editing content from their social media profiles ahead of their applications, and 23% have already done so with admissions in mind. Many cited concerns about misinterpretation, or wanting to appear “mature.” One respondent stated, “I’ve started thinking about what I should delete from my posts, maybe things that are too casual, even if they are harmless.”
But it’s not just about being cautious. Many students said they’re also adding content, posts about volunteering, activism, or causes they think make them look socially aware. For some, these posts aren’t about true passion; they’re about building a version of themselves that might appeal more to admissions officers. This kind of “curated activism” raises questions about authenticity, especially when students feel the need to take on moral positions they don’t fully relate to, just to check the “well-rounded” box.
These behaviours mirror broader trends in teen digital culture. According to the Pew Research Centre (2025), 45% of U.S. teens say they spend too much time on social media, and a growing number report feeling pressure to post content that will be viewed positively by others.6 This performance-driven engagement is especially pronounced among girls, who report higher levels of self-consciousness tied to how they are perceived online. This highlights how deeply institutional visibility, or even the possibility of it, shapes online behaviour.
Informal Screening: Colleges Playing Detective
Although rarely acknowledged in official policy, social media screening has quietly become part of the admissions ecosystem. Admissions officers may scroll through applicants’ public profiles to “get a better sense” of a candidate or, more problematically, to search for red flags. In the absence of formal guidelines, these judgments are left entirely to personal discretion, leading to a fragmented and highly subjective practice.
Student responses suggest widespread uncertainty around this issue. While some believe colleges don’t check at all, others expressed deep concern about being quietly observed. What unites most of them is confusion; no one knows if they’re being evaluated based on a post, a tweet, or a TikTok, and there’s no clear standard for what might trigger concern or admiration. As one student said, “It’s not like they’ll tell you, ‘We saw your account.’ You just start hearing stories and feel like you have to be extra careful.”
This silent surveillance leaves students walking a tightrope. Without a published rubric or clear communication from institutions, decisions based on online presence are susceptible to personal bias, cultural misinterpretation, or disproportionate scrutiny. A sarcastic meme, a TikTok dance, or even a political post could be perceived as a character flaw depending on who’s looking and how they interpret it. 7
More critically, this lack of transparency undermines the principle of fairness in admissions. Unlike essays or interviews, students aren’t given the chance to contextualise or explain what’s found online. Nor are they told what criteria their digital lives are being measured against. This leads to what can only be described as “invisible gatekeeping”, where applicants are filtered through norms that were never disclosed, using tools they weren’t told were in play.
Digital Inequity & Hidden Privilege
Social media, in theory, is a democratized space, open, and equally accessible. In practice, it mirrors and often amplifies the inequalities of the real world. In the context of college admissions, this digital playing field is far from level.
Wealthier students often have access to private college counsellors, social media consultants, or even brand management workshops that advise them on what kind of online presence might “appeal” to top institutions. They are more likely to understand what kind of content could be seen as “risky.” They are coached to highlight sanitised narratives of leadership, civic engagement, or personal growth, all optimised for institutional approval.
By contrast, students from low-income or first-generation backgrounds often navigate these pressures alone. Many are unaware that their social media might even be reviewed. Without access to guidance, they may leave content online that gets misinterpreted or taken out of context, especially if it reflects cultural slang, humour, or forms of self-expression unfamiliar to those in admissions offices. This results in what can be called a “cultural mismatch,” where authenticity becomes a liability and unfamiliarity becomes a filter for judgment.
These disparities are not anecdotal. According to an April 2025 report by Inside Higher Ed, students from higher-resource schools are far more likely to receive structured guidance on managing their digital footprint, while their less privileged peers are left to navigate these unspoken expectations without support. This gap in access exacerbates what is already a system full of hidden signals and silent scrutiny. 8
In effect, the burden of “knowing the rules” is unevenly distributed, and because those rules are often unofficial or unstated, only those with access to the “hidden curriculum” of elite admissions benefit. Social media becomes yet another arena where privilege operates quietly, and authenticity becomes a calculated risk rather than a strength.
Mental Health Consequences
Beyond strategic behaviour and equity gaps, the pressure to curate one’s digital identity has serious psychological consequences. The idea that a university, an institution that holds so much power over your future, might be quietly observing your posts, likes, and stories creates a sense of constant surveillance. Whether or not a college reviews an account, the mere possibility is enough to change how students behave online.
Studies have consistently shown that performative use of social media, where people post not out of self-expression, but out of a desire to meet perceived standards, can worsen anxiety, self-doubt, and feelings of inauthenticity. Students reported in the survey that they feel “watched,” that they “overthink every post,” and most reported that they feel pressurised to manage their social media image during the college admissions process.9
This surveillance culture fosters self-censorship. Students start filtering not just what they say, but how they think and engage with the world online. For many, this leads to burnout, a sense that even in their personal spaces, they’re performing for an invisible evaluator. Marginalised students often bear the worst of this, already navigating societal scrutiny offline and now being scrutinised again online for how their identity is expressed.
What should be a platform for creativity and connection becomes, for many applicants, yet another site of strategic labor, one where being real feels dangerous, and being curated feels mandatory.
Proposed Solution and Recommendations
The current state of informal social media screening in college admissions demands urgent reform, but reform that is realistic of the lived experiences of students. Not every solution is viable, and not every stakeholder benefits equally from the proposed change. The PASTEL feasibility analysis and a stakeholder impact mapping of five key policy paths were done:
(1) independent college guidelines,
(2) joint school-college regulation,
(3) federal regulation,
(4) platform-level intervention, and
(5) maintaining the status quo.
Independent College Guidelines
Empowering institutions to bring transparency to their processes.
Colleges and universities can, and should, begin by setting clear internal policies on social media screening. This is the most immediately implementable path, as it requires no federal mandate, no platform cooperation, and no third-party oversight. Institutions already exercise full autonomy over their admissions processes, making this a mere matter of internal ethics. 10
Politically and administratively, this approach is low-friction. It allows institutions to lead the way on ethical reform without disrupting their authority. Socially, it offers immense relief: students no longer have to guess whether their Instagram highlights or TikTok posts are being judged. Technologically, there’s nothing to build, just standards to publish and practices to align. Economically, it requires minimal resources, a training session, an update to policy pages, and a culture shift within the admissions office.
Stakeholder impacts are highly positive. Students gain predictability and informed agency. Admissions officers receive clearer direction, reducing the risk of biased, inconsistent interpretation. Colleges demonstrate leadership, fairness, and forward-thinking values, especially to an increasingly digital-native generation of applicants.
Key recommendations under this model:
Institutions should publish formal social media review policies, stating whether digital presence is considered and how.
Any review of online content should be consent-based and conducted only when relevant,not through passive surveillance.
Admissions officers should be trained to interpret content contextually and culturally, with clear rubrics to avoid bias.
Colleges must offer applicants the right to respond or clarify if content is cited in admissions decisions.
This is not about banning digital reviews altogether; it is about eliminating ambiguity and restoring fairness. In the absence of national regulation, colleges can, and must, set the standard. 11
Joint School-College Regulation
The second most viable path is a collaborative framework between high schools and colleges, one that bridges the information gap and standardises expectations around students' digital presence. While slightly more complex to coordinate, this model builds on existing school-college partnerships (e.g., transcripts, recommendations).
Administratively feasible and politically uncontroversial, this approach allows institutions to share responsibility ethically. Research by Common Sense Education supports this direction, emphasising that early digital citizenship education, guided by trusted adults in school systems, builds healthier, more reflective student behaviour online, not through fear, but through agency. 12
For first-generation, low-income, and marginalized students, this model helps democratize access to the “unspoken rules” of digital self-presentation, guidance that wealthier peers often receive through private admissions support. Instead of turning identity into performance, it empowers students to understand, manage, and express themselves online more intentionally.
Key recommendations under this model:
Colleges and high schools should co-create resource kits that clarify how digital presence may be interpreted during admissions, including examples and FAQs.
High schools should embed digital identity modules into counselling programs, focused on reflection and authenticity rather than fear or avoidance.
Colleges can signal what they value in online behaviour, to reduce anxiety and let authenticity prevail.
Regional counsellor associations can coordinate information delivery, ensuring all students, regardless of demographics, receive equitable guidance.
In this model, high schools act as proactive intermediaries, not just application facilitators. And colleges act not just as gatekeepers, but as collaborators in preparing students for the digital dimensions of higher education.
Federal Regulation
A high-impact solution burdened by political and legal inertia
In theory, federal regulation offers the broadest and most consistent way to bring about change, setting nationwide rules on whether and how social media can factor into college admissions. That might mean updating laws like FERPA to cover public digital footprints or requiring colleges to get clear consent before looking at anything a student didn’t actually submit.13
It sounds great on paper, but in practice, it’s a tough sell. Politically, the current landscape is deeply divided on education, surveillance, and tech, so passing new laws anytime soon seems unlikely. Administratively, the decentralised structure of U.S. higher education, with thousands of independent institutions, creates resistance to mandates. Legally, extending FERPA to cover public digital content is conceptually debatable and would likely face First Amendment scrutiny.
That said, federal leadership could still play a soft but meaningful role, for example, by issuing non-binding ethical guidelines through the Department of Education or encouraging national associations like NACAC to promote transparent, consent-based digital review standards.14
For students and advocates focused on equity, the upside is obvious: national standards would take the guesswork out of the process and offer protection across the board, not just for those with access to guidance. Colleges, on the other hand, might see this as federal interference, and lawmakers may not be eager to champion what still feels like a pretty niche concern.
Key recommendations under this model:
Amend FERPA to include a clause that prevents the use of unconsented digital content in admissions.
Develop a Federal Admissions Transparency Code, requiring institutions to disclose digital screening policies publicly.
Encourage the Department of Education or national educational bodies to publish best-practice guidelines around ethics, consent, and digital content interpretation.
Provide funding incentives for colleges and schools that implement student-centred digital review policies. 15
While not immediately feasible, federal regulation can act as a long-term policy horizon,a benchmark for fairness that informs institutional reform in the present.
Platform-level Intervention
Asking private companies to solve a public ethics problem
Another proposed route is to regulate the platforms themselves, requiring companies like Instagram, TikTok, or X (formerly Twitter) to alert users when institutional actors (such as colleges) view their content, or to restrict access to minors' content by default during admissions cycles.16
On paper, this model shifts the burden from schools and students to the platforms that host digital content. However, it presents several critical obstacles. Politically, it demands regulatory authority over Big Tech, something we’ve struggled to achieve even in more pressing areas like misinformation or data privacy. And on the administrative and economic side, actually getting platforms to comply would likely be uneven at best, and tough to monitor in any consistent way. Technologically, the solution relies on tools like AI-based monitoring or viewer-flagging, neither of which is currently built into the platform architecture.
From a stakeholder lens, this model appears student-friendly on the surface but may create false reassurance. If platforms restrict visibility, some students may assume their content is safe when in fact, colleges could still access cached posts or third-party screenshots. Moreover, this approach absolves colleges of their own ethical responsibility, outsourcing reform to private actors with no educational mandate.
Key recommendations under this model:
Encourage platforms to develop institutional viewing disclosures for verified .edu or .gov accounts.
Pressure platforms to offer default privacy settings for minors during college admissions cycles.
Promote transparency tools that help students audit who’s viewing their content.
Overall, while tech platforms do play a role in shaping the digital ecosystem students live in, they are not the right locus for admissions reform. They lack the educational accountability, ethical grounding, and incentive structures to enforce systemic fairness.
Maintain the Status Quo
The cost of doing nothing: silence as complicity
The fifth option, maintaining the current approach of informal, ad hoc, and opaque social media review, requires no action, no coordination, and no conflict. But it comes at a steep and growing cost.
In the status quo, there are no guidelines, no consent requirements, and no shared norms. Students are left to operate on rumours and Reddit threads.17 Admissions officers operate in ambiguity, subject to personal bias or institutional pressure. Some colleges quietly check profiles. Others claim not to, but offer no clarity either way.
This lack of structure reinforces the worst dynamics of digital admissions culture: paranoia, inequity, and performance-driven self-censorship. It has advantages for students who can afford private coaching or understand the hidden codes of “professional online behaviour.” It harms those who post casually, honestly, or in culturally specific ways that are misinterpreted. It quietly enables racial, class, and regional bias to enter the process, all without accountability.
From a policy perspective, the status quo doesn’t hold up well across the board. It’s politically stagnant, socially damaging, economically unfair, and lacks any real administrative oversight. Stakeholders like students, counsellors, and advocacy groups are left disempowered, while institutions avoid scrutiny behind a veil of informality.
The recommendation here is simple: abandon this path.Silence and inaction are not neutral. In a world where digital identity is both real and consequential, doing nothing is a choice to let inequality persist, one post, one rejection, one erased identity at a time.
Conclusion
At its core, this is not just a conversation about admissions policies or digital platforms; it’s about how we shape an entire generation’s understanding of identity, worth, and visibility. When students begin to see themselves through the imagined lens of an admissions officer, when they edit their voice to fit into a rubric that was never disclosed, we don’t just compromise fairness, we compromise selfhood.
If left unregulated, the informal use of social media in admissions will continue to reward performance over authenticity and privilege over potential. Students with access to private consultants, curated digital strategies, or insider knowledge will navigate the system confidently. Others, especially first-generation, marginalised, or under-resourced students, will remain in the dark, forced to guess at the rules while fearing the consequences of being real.
This white paper has shown that solutions do exist. Institutional transparency, school-based digital literacy, informed student agency, and updated legal protections can reshape this space into one that respects autonomy, restores fairness, and reinforces trust. The most feasible and impactful reforms lie not in sweeping federal mandates or platform crackdowns, but in empowering the very institutions and communities closest to the students themselves.
What’s needed now is not just a policy change, but a shift in philosophy. We must stop treating authenticity as a liability and start treating it as the foundation of meaningful education. The goal of admissions should not be to reward the best actors in a digital performance, but to recognise, support, and accept real students with real voices, even when they’re still learning how to use them.
Because fairness doesn’t begin with perfect algorithms. It begins with the courage to say: you deserve to be evaluated for who you are, not who you’re afraid you have to become.
Bibliography
Kumar, G. (2025, June 5). Indian students rushing to delete posts for US visa, but that's risky too. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/us-news/story/indian-students-delete-posts-accounts-social-media-study-visa-vetting-american-colleges-admission-deport-2735103-2025-06-04
Opena, A. (n.d.). 65+ Gen Z Social Media Usage Statistics [2025] That can’t ignore. Feedink Sp. Z o.o. https://cropink.com/gen-z-social-media-usage-statistics
Baron, M. (2024, July 22). The impact of social media on a teen’s sense of self - Moriah Behavioral Health. Moriah Behavioral Health. https://www.moriahbehavioralhealth.com/the-impact-of-social-media-on-a-teens-sense-of-self/
Rim, C. (2025, March 28). Here are Ivy League and top college admissions rates for the class of 2029. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2025/03/28/the-results-are-in-here-are-ivy-league-and-top-college-admissions-rates-for-the-class-of-2029/
The Social Institute. (2025, March 19). Walking the social media tightrope: How students’ online presence can impact college admissions | The Social Institute. https://thesocialinstitute.com/blog/walking-the-social-media-tightrope-how-students-online-presence-can-impact-college-admissions/
Atske, S., & Atske, S. (2025, July 3). Teens, social media and mental health. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/
Andersen, G. (2024, February 10). The impact of social media screening on university applications. MoldStud - Custom Software Development Company. https://moldstud.com/articles/p-the-impact-of-social-media-screening-on-university-applications
Flaherty, C. (2025, April 21). Half of colleges don’t grant students access to Gen AI tools. Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/artificial-intelligence/2025/04/21/half-colleges-dont-grant-students-access
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2025, July 7). Social media’s impact on college admissions. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/media-and-children/center-of-excellence-on-social-media-and-youth-mental-health/qa-portal/qa-portal-library/qa-portal-library-questions/social-medias-impact-on-college-admissions/
AISSMS College of Engineering. (2025, June). Social media guidelines 2025–2026 [PDF]. https://aissmscoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Social-Media-Guidelines-2025-2026.pdf
Tiwari, S. (2025, June 11). Social Media Vetting in Higher Ed: Preparing Universities for Policy Shifts in Student Background Checks. Phyllo. https://www.getphyllo.com/post/social-media-vetting-in-higher-ed-how-universities-can-prepare-for-policy-shifts
James, C., Weinstein, E., Mendoza, K., & Common Sense Media. (2021). Teaching Digital Citizens in Today’s World: Research and Insights behind the Common Sense Digital Citizenship Curriculum (J. Robb, Ed.). Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsense.org/system/files/pdf/2021-08/common-sense-education-digital-citizenship-research-backgrounder.pdf
Orlando, J., PhD. (2011, February 7). FERPA and social media. Faculty Focus | Higher Ed Teaching & Learning. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-with-technology-articles/ferpa-and-social-media/
NACAC. (2018). NACAC’s Code of Ethics and Professional Practices. https://mineralarea.edu/media/2227/nacacs-code-of-ethics-and-professional-practices-1.pdf
Educationpost.In. (2025, June 21). US makes social media disclosure mandatory for student visa applicants. Education Post News. https://educationpost.in/news/education/us-makes-social-media-disclosure-mandatory-for-student-visa-applicants
Bonniechen. (2025, March 31). Social Media & College Admissions in 2025: A Growing Influence Students Can’t Ignore. ABox Education. https://www.aboxedu.com/post/social-media-college-admissions-in-2025-a-growing-influence-students-can-t-ignore
freeport_aidan. (2021, November 15). Do colleges look into our social media accounts? [Online forum post]. In r/ApplyingToCollege. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/qujumv/do_colleges_look_into_our_social_media_accounts/
