Social Networking and Academics
April 14, 2009 | Filed Under Law 2.0, Technology
So all you parents who think your children are wasting their time online, you may be right.
Researchers at “The” Ohio State University took a look at a potential link between Facebook use and academic performance:
Typically, Facebook users in the study had GPAs between 3.0 and 3.5, while non-users had GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0.
The study authors raise the obligatory note of caution:
“We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying – but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study and a doctoral student in education at Ohio State University.
I am sure Facebook and other denizens of Web 2.0 will take a closer look at these results and raise some logical or structural flaws with this study. It could be something unique to Buckeyes as well.
Maybe the students using Facebook as undergrads will get lower grades, and therefore pass on law school. And then they will be forced to go out in the world and make something, of themselves or otherwise.
And then they will become clients, get huge bills, and scrutinize them for any sign that esteemed counsel is using social networking sites on their dime.
Of course, I went to law school long before Facebook; even before computers. Most “social networking” was conducted face-to-face, not face-to-computer.
Law Firm Marketing and Web 2.0 - Jay Jaffe Interview
August 15, 2008 | Filed Under Law Firm Marketing, Law 2.0, Unplugged - Audio
After Wednesday’s preview, today an interview with Jay Jaffe of Jaffe Associates as the Wired GC goes:
Jay Jaffe
CEO, Jaffe Associates
Just press on the far left arrow to listen:
Time: 14:59
The white paper referred to in the interview is here.
I enjoyed Jay’s short course on trends in legal marketing and his unvarnished views on the roadblocks and opportunities. I will offer a few thoughts on Web 2.0 and the modern law firm later this month.
Law Firm Marketing and Web 2.0
August 13, 2008 | Filed Under Law Firm Marketing, Law 2.0, Selling the GC
As summer vacation winds up, and the beach chairs are thrown into the back of the Family Truckster, it’s time for the long drive home. In between stops for road food on the turnpike, a lawyer’s mind inevitably turns to thoughts of business. As in new business.
The kids were complaining about being off-the-grid from Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. But what does this “kid stuff” have to do with my prestigious law firm?
Potentially, quite a lot.
There’s a decline in the use of traditional print media and when you hit “send” on that press release you may just be throwing a polished needle into a large haystack called Google.
So a few intrepid tech-savvy partners start to contemplate dipping a toe in the icy waters of Web 2.0: using social media like blogs, podcasts, video, networks, and wikis as part of their overall marketing plans.
Inevitably, questions arise:
- What does web 2.0 mean for the law firm?
- Why are many firms so slow to act?
- Why do plaintiffs’ firms sometimes act sooner?
- What is the GC really looking for?
Get answers to these questions (and more) right here, on Friday, when the Wired GC again goes “Unplugged,” and talks with Jay Jaffe, CEO of Jaffe Associates.
Martindale Hits “Refresh”
August 5, 2008 | Filed Under Law 2.0, Selling the GC
Martinale-Hubbell is getting an extreme makeover, according to the American Lawyer. It’s about time, as Wikipedia notes that the directory traces its origins back to 1868. This is rather amazing:
By the 1896 edition, the Directory included the basic information that still appears in the standard Practice Profile listings, as well as ratings and a section on foreign lawyers and firms.
Two of the ideas, according to TAL:
1) Martindale is in the process of completely revamping its peer review ratings system by introducing client reviews, corporate counsel reviews of outside counsel and third-party objective data to create a more “holistic” ratings standard.
Could be interesting; I don’t see many in-house counsel doing this for attribution, except for the “great firm; good lawyer” sort of feedback.
2) Martindale has also recently unveiled its new “visibility rankings,” which are based strictly on the number of page views an individual lawyer’s profile receives.
More explanation is needed to show why this isn’t irrelevant or misleading.
This issue was initially addressed by yours truly in late 2005; I give Reed Elsevier credit for trying to re-position Martindale as other legal networks grow and fragment. Their recent press release on the subject is intriguing; one line is epic in understatement:
The legal profession is traditionally slow to adopt new technologies, so attorneys’ readiness to use online networking tools represents a significant shift in behavior.
My network colleagues at law.com apparently are using their archival set as a backdrop for new legal video offerings. Perhaps licensing the image could be a new revenue stream?
SEC Recognizes Company Blogs re Reg FD
August 1, 2008 | Filed Under Law 2.0, Regulation
In a much-anticipated move, the SEC entered the web age this week. SEC special counsel Kim McManus outlined a commission guidance on using company web sites for Reg FD purposes. The full interpretive release has not yet been issued.
Some commentators are expecting that the guidance will give companies clear direction on how investor information can be disseminated and also some protection against liability for comments on company blogs or hyperlinks to third-party information.
Others wonder if this move is a precursor to the end of the press release; it seems more likely to be evolutionary than revolutionary from the start.
A more important part of this SEC action may be in encouraging companies to release more user-friendly and interactive information on their websites, rather than just pounding EDGAR with PDFs.
This move was supported by many companies, but was spearheaded by Sun, including its GC Mike Dillon and CEO Jonathan Schwartz. I covered their filing with the SEC here (Mike’s initial post is here; that of Mr. Schwartz, is here).
A tip of the corporate disclosure cap to Sun for bringing this issue before the SEC.
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
