We live in a social media obsessed world. There’s Facebook, Myspace, (although I wonder if anyone actually still uses it), Twitter, and many blogging platforms such as Tumblr, WordPress, and Blogger. Although we upload our pictures to Flickr and Facebook all the time or write about our weekend experiences in personal blogs, there could be a possible downside to all of this internet exposure: According to the Wall Street Journal, 85% of hiring managers Google a candidate before or after an interview. This fact, which is becoming more and more well-known, brings up the question: To blog or not to blog?

While I’m not saying that anyone who publicly posts pictures of themselves puking into a fraternity bathroom shouldn’t be a cause for concern, I am posing the question of boundaries and what and when a company should base their decision on hiring someone because of what comes up when they use Google. For example, take all the CollegeCandy contributors. Should our future bosses decline an interview with us, even though our resumes may be well qualified, simply because we once wrote an article that mentions sex or highlights the importance of birth control?

Personally, I think keeping a blog of any kind is a worthwhile venture. As a writer, I like to post things I’m interested in, things that drive me crazy, and of course, continuously write about things that matter to me (this includes everything from literary theory criticisms to the correct usage of the Real Housewives of New Jersey’s infamous phrase “prostitution whore”). However, I often worry that if I post liberal-sided articles or a picture of me enjoying a glass of wine that someone may use those things against me and blow them out of proportion one day. Despite more and more social media outlets being introduced to society on a regular basis, it seems like the idea of censorship or hiding oneself (at least the internet brand of oneself) is becoming a constant battle.

But get this – the Wall Street Journal also reports that “Recruiters and employers…routinely do online background searches on their candidates to learn more about them, as well as to filter out candidates with little or negative information about them.” So basically, it seems like our generation is damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

Imagine if you have nothing come up when your future employer Googles you. Instead of them rewarding you for that (something more and more colleges and media-outlets tell us to strive for), they pass on you because you aren’t relevant or important enough. But then, if you have an author’s page or Twitter account, something could be taken out of context or perceived as negative. What about people that disagree with this article? Could my future employer one day decline to hire me because some random commenter disagreed with me – putting me in a negative position?

It sounds crazy, I know, but it’s something that constantly comes up in the world of online writing and social media. While I understand why businesses want to search their job candidates, I think some kind of line in the sand needs to be drawn before too many well-deserving candidates are overlooked simply because they blog about Christian Louboutin’s, OPI nail polish, and Rachel Zoe instead of Wall Street, international trade, and compounding interest.

The issue of ‘to blog or not’ seems to constantly rely on personal judgment. However, personal judgment works both ways. For example, if someone is irresponsible enough to post a picture of themselves humping (see – because I used the word humping in this post, I may possibly never get a real job) a stop sign, they acted in poor judgment. Although they may personally have found it funny and did not make the picture private, their actions overwhelmingly were not in the best of judgment.

But think of it this way – what if your potential employer’s personal judgment doesn’t like your Tweet about his/her favorite restaurant, and decides that you come across as too opinionated because you simply wrote “Will not be eating at Restaurant A again.” Their personal judgment could cost you a good opportunity. The bottom line is that not everyone uses the best personal judgment from time to time (including those in hiring positions), and what one person finds offensive may not be a big deal to someone else. Should our generation have to walk on eggshells so we don’t piss anyone off with our opinions and views on the internet? Is this what it’s coming down to?

Blogger Emily Rose, a recent college graduate wrote a ballsy open post to a potential future employer on her Tumblr, after accidentally sending her blog link in her e-mail signature. Instead of cowering in fear over whether or not her employer would show no interest in her because of her personal interests explored on her blog (such as hung-over day after snap shots and mojito cupcakes), Emily wrote: “You’ll probably learn more about me from this blog than you did from my CV, which is fine. You’ve probably figured out some stuff already: like that I love animals and Africa and my family. But also, you know, sometimes I drink. And I spend a lot of time online….the result of those factors is now what’s on your monitor, and I don’t feel compelled to apologize for any of it.”

While some people may be completely appalled that she would be so open about herself like that, I think Emily is onto something. If we can’t be our true selves or represent things about ourselves in a personal manner, even in a public way such as the internet, then what does that say about society today? In conclusion of her post, Emily hits the nail on the head by writing, “I think I’m a good hire. I think I’m a good person, too. And I don’t think typing bad words or posting a picture of myself with friends at a bar blowing off some steam should affect my chances just because I’m a young person, and the lives of young people are more public and accessible than those of our parents.”

All in all, interviews, resumes, recommendations, and qualifications should remain as the most important factors in getting hired or rejected. But instead of using personal media against this generation, maybe it should be looked at a different way. With our generation riding the first wave of this Google exposure (or shall we call it overexposure?) phenomenon, it will be interesting to see what pans out. Ultimately though, I hope for the sake of our generation – we’re not looked at like this forever. Employers, writers, job applicants, and social media users of all kinds should embrace the more public and accessible use of information today, or at least set some boundaries for the years and technological advancements to come.

If you’re graduating this spring and you’ve managed to score a job you’re probably thanking god (if you still believe there is one) and thinking you’re super lucky. But think again. Because according to the WSJ, those currently entering the labor market won’t only be suffering from low-salary syndrome this year, but for, uh, ten more to come. Yes, ten years—or more!

See, supposedly if you graduate when the economy, uh, sucks (like in 2009), you’ll end up making about 100K less over the next 20 years than your bud (soon to be mortal enemy) who will graduate in better times. Why? WSJ says that even if the economy bounces back in a few years, while you’ve been working your butt off in the tiny firm no one has heard of, your luckier friend has just been hired at Bank of America. And now, although he’s two years your junior, he has more experience, a better resume, and a bit, or a ton, more moolah than you do. So while he will move steadily up the ladder, you will have a much harder time finding better and brighter pastures, and your wages may suffer (what seems like) eternally.

But hey, money doesn’t matter, right?

Now, some (obviously not I) are a bit less cynical about this ordeal. Instead of whining relentlessly, they’ve looked into more promising ways to spend their time. One popular suggestion? Stay in school! Now, this is assuming that you have unlimited funds and are willing to spend 1-4 more years in a dorm, doing homework and learning.  But as awful as this sounds, it just might be the perfect answer. It will keep you isolated from the oppressive job market, it will help you get further in the long run, and it just might be better than living with the rents for the rest of your life.

Something many ’09 grads will be doing.

Well, I went to college, and I even did my parents one better and went to graduate school. Armed with both a BA and MFA, I was certain I could pretty much get any job I applied for, and would get paid 35K at the minimum.

Ha. Ha. Ha. And I’m not alone. Not only have most of my friends with MFAs scrambled to find anything to pay the bills post graduation (working at Borders, in a file room…with freaking MFAs!!), but it seems like degrees in general are losing the battle to inflation.

According to this really long and slightly boring article from the Wall Street Journal, college degrees no longer carry a promise that you’ll immediately grab a job and get paid in awesome wages.

“What employers want from workers nowadays is more narrow, more abstract and less easily learned in college.

To be sure, the average American with a college diploma still earns about 75% more than a worker with a high-school diploma and is less likely to be unemployed. Yet while that so-called college premium is up from 40% in 1979, it is little changed from 2001, according to data compiled by Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank.”

So yes, going to college is better than not going to college, but your diploma just ain’t worth what it used to be worth — especially in today’s economy. What it comes down to in 2008 is a small group of skills that sets you apart from other applicants, not just the fact that you have 4 years of psychology classes under your belt.

The moral of the story? If you know what you want to do once you graduate, get real world experience now. Internships and extracurriculars have never been more important, and fostering relationships with people who might hire you in the future is a great way to be sure you won’t be working minimum wage with four years of a good, quality school under your belt.

[photo from farylrobin.blogspot.com]

In fact, that money is spent on clothes, nights out, and my astronomical rent (woo, New York City!) so fast that a budget is almost a laughable concept.

I’m willing to bet (I spend my money on gambling too, apparently) that you just may be in the same financial boat, which is why College Candy is here to help your broke ass out.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that budgeting your money isn’t so bad because–gasp!–it is now possible to manage your finances the same way we all manage our friends! How, you ask?

Social networking! It seems to be the only way we know how to do anything anymore. But, it’s so obvious! You gotta love it.

Financial social networking sites like Wesabe.com and Geezeo.com are here to save the day…and your pocketbook!

It works like traditional money managing software like Quicken or Money, but here’s the catch…your peers can offer feedback on just how well you are spending your paycheck. They can offer tips and tricks that may increase your savings or slash your debt. (Can they leave drunken wall posts too?)

The idea seems too good to be true! We all can use a (free) financial advisor and this offers us thousands! And I could use all the help I can get. Down and out college student? Don’t pretend your wallet couldn’t use a little boost or that you “don’t get it”. You use Facebook, right? Then get your poor butt in gear and start getting responsible!

And for all you worry worts out there, the networks are on lockdown. They work like standard banking sites, which means your personal info isn’t going to get in the grubby little hands of identity theives.

Your only worry now?

Who’s more trustworthy? A virtual stranger telling you to go for that loan or your own Prada-obsessed brain itching for a fashion fix?

• I really wish my contribution to society was “:-)”! I’m really jealous…seriously. (Wired.com)

• So, wait, it’s breaking news now that people like to look at attractive people and it only takes a half second to notice them? Any horny college kid could’ve told you that. (Yahoo News)

• If you have a tramp stamp, beware! All of those pregnancies that your stamp has been causing is going to make birth a lot more painful. (wsj.com)

• Bad News: You’re in college and weed is still illegal. Good News: As long as you’re not a raging pot-head. (denverpost.com)

• I almost forgot Halloween was coming. So, just in case you love candy as much as we do at College Candy (ha) check out some sweets that never made it onto store shelves. (i-mockery.com)

I have never played Second Life, and had no idea what it was until a few months ago. Computer games aren’t my thing. They make me feel like I have anger issues, and I can’t stare at a screen for hours without going cross-eyed.

Plus, I’m not all that into living a giant lie.

But some people really dig it. They dig it so much that they spend hours and hours online, living life as an “avatar” and forming relationships with people they’ll never actually see. Like Ric Hoogestraat, a guy from Arizona who is so obsessed with his online life, he ignores his real wife for an animated one.

The Wall Street Journal (for once not being conservative and boring) recently ran an article about Ric and others like him, people so caught up in computer games that they prefer them to reality. Even though Ric insists that the women he married online is simply part of the game, his wife doesn’t like the situation one bit.

And I completely understand.

Now, I know people can become addicted to computer games like poker or drinking, but it’s hard for me to understand a dependence on animated fantasy. Is there true satisfaction in building a hot cartoon version of yourself and “acting” with a keyboard? And for the love of god, why would you spend actual money (in Second Life’s case) on cyber stuff? Buy yourself some social interaction classes, hire a hooker, just spend your cash on something real!

And as for a spouse or boyfriend having an online “relationship” while he’s dating me? Not just unacceptable, but plain old creepy.

The real world can be tough, I’ll admit to that, but locking yourself away in a room for 12 hours a day isn’t going to make your life any easier. In fact, I’m pretty sure it will make it much, much lonelier.

…and a lot more oddly pixilated.

Wendy Shalit, author of the book “Girls Gone Mild”, claims a new revolution is upon us, and that revolution abhors sex tapes, preferring to wait for Mr. Charming instead.

In her book, Shalit claims “the young women [of] today, put off by our hypersexualized culture, are reverting to an earlier idea of femininity. They wear modest clothing and even act with unbrazen kindness. They don’t mind abstinence programs at school, and they prefer a version of feminism based on self-respect rather than sex-performance parity. They also take matters into their own hands when craven adults neglect to object to the objectionable.”

The older generation of mainstream feminists, Shalit says, “are so committed to the idea of casual sex as liberation that they can’t appreciate or even quite understand these younger feminists.” She goes on to say women who advocate casual sex “just don’t understand that pursuing crudeness is the problem, not the solution.”

As much as I like to see young girls telling Abercrombie and Fitch to get rid of their ludicrous T-shirts, I have to say that Ms. Shalit is a bit of a fossil. Wearing modest clothing and sitting complacently through abstinence programs sounds like a Conservative’s wet dream, a return to the pearls and Patty Duke-ified 1950’s, where women were supposed to be meek and mild, when sexuality was closeted, and information regarding such things were kept just out of reach from most girls, causing mass depression and confusion.

How come there are no books being published on a new “modest” masculinity trend? I’ll tell you why—nobody expects men to give up their sexual ways. No one expects them to tone down their attitudes. Men are men. Unfortunately, authors like Shalit won’t allow women the same freedom. People like Shalit are constantly trying to find ways to categorize us—“good” girls, “bad” girls—and make a profit off of convincing society we’re all either whores or angels.

Do I think we could all benefit from a little modesty now and then? Sure. But if you’re gonna try to shove me into a turtleneck and chastity belt, I’m taking every ass grabbing, porn watching, condom bulk-buying guy down with me.