Employers Checking Applicants' Social Media

The task

Do you think employers should be allowed to look at job applicants' public social media accounts before deciding whether to hire them?

• Decide yes or no and give your opinion.
• Explain your reasons.

Original CELPIP-style practice question, not an official CELPIP test item. This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by Paragon Testing Enterprises. The CLB level of each sample answer was reviewed by a TESOL-certified instructor. It is not an official CELPIP score.

Preparation

30 seconds

Speaking time

90 seconds

Question

7 of 10

No, I don't think so. Social media is your private life, is not about your job. For example you have some photos from party with friends, this doesn't mean you are bad worker. Everybody need to relax after work, everybody. Also, many people wrote things long time ago, when they were teenager, and now they changed. To judge them for old post is not fair, really not fair. Honestly me too, I wrote some stupid things at sixteen, I hope nobody find it! The company should check your work experience and your interview, um, only your work, that's enough. So my answer is no, they should not look.

Why this answer works

• Content/Coherence: two plain reasons (private life, old posts) with a general example and a personal admission; the conclusion repeats the answer.
• Vocabulary: basic vocabulary; "bad worker" and "stupid things" are vague.
• Listenability: a filler ("um"), missing articles ("from party", "long time ago") and agreement slips ("Everybody need", "nobody find it"); easy to follow.
• Task Fulfillment: a clear no that stays on topic.

I think yes, they should be allowed, as long as it's only public posts. First, if someone chooses to post something publicly, they can't really expect nobody to read it, and an employer is just another reader, like any stranger. Second, some jobs involve trust. If a daycare is hiring, parents would probably want to know if that person posts angry messages about kids. And third, it can actually help applicants. When my friend applied for a graphic design job, the manager found her drawings on Instagram and called her for an interview that same week. Without that, her resume might have stayed at the bottom of the pile. Of course, there's a risk that employers judge people on things like religion, which have nothing to do with the job. That would be completely unfair. So I'd say they can look, but they should only consider what's relevant.

Why this answer works

• Content/Coherence: three reasons, a specific example (the design job) and a short counterpoint about unfair judgement.
• Vocabulary: "involve trust" and "what's relevant" are accurate.
• Listenability: each reason opens with a signpost, and the design-job story ends on a clear result ("called her for an interview that same week").
• Task Fulfillment: a clear, limited yes kept to the end.

Yes, they should. But when they look makes all the difference. Most people's first objection is privacy, and that doesn't convince me, since the posts are public anyway. The real problem is bias. If a manager scrolls through someone's profile before meeting them, they'll see the person's age, maybe their religion, whether they have kids, and that's very hard to forget. Nobody can just switch that knowledge off before the interview. A friend who works in hiring told me she once caught herself preferring a candidate simply because he'd posted about the same hockey team she follows. That's harmless on its own, but it shows how easily judgement slips in. And she's someone who's trained to watch for exactly that. So employers should only check social media at the final stage, after the interviews, and only for specific concerns, like threats or harassment. And the applicant should be told it's part of the process. Used that way, it protects the workplace without turning hiring into a popularity contest.

Why this answer works

• Content/Coherence: sets aside the usual objection (privacy), names the real one (bias), backs it up with a precise example, and limits the answer by timing.
• Vocabulary: "caught herself", "judgement slips in" and "a popularity contest" are idiomatic.
• Listenability: a short, emphatic sentence ("The real problem is bias.") marks the turn in the argument, and the hockey-team story makes the idea concrete.
• Task Fulfillment: a flat yes up front, then a clear, workable rule about timing.