How to write an argumentative essay on employers checking candidates’ social media
A plain ‘yes’ or ‘no’ essay on this question is easy and forgettable. The interesting essay says exactly where the line sits (what an employer may look at, for which roles, and what they must never use) and then defends that specific line from both directions.
The task
The briefMany recruiters check a candidate’s public social media before an offer. Some call it due diligence; others call it surveillance of private life. Write an argumentative essay taking a clear position, and say where you would draw the line.
A general reader of a campus magazine.
State a clear position and where you draw the line
Give the strongest case for the employer
Give the strongest case for the candidate
Conclude with a rule someone could actually apply
Length
240–320 words
Suggested time
30 minutes
Level
Medium
Planning tip: The interesting essay is not "yes" or "no" but WHERE the line sits. Name it explicitly and defend that specific line.
What a strong answer does
The position includes the line, for example: employers may review public professional profiles and public evidence of threats or harassment, but must not let religion, politics or family life influence a decision.
It gives the employer’s strongest case in good faith: a candidate who has publicly harassed people, or a role in which the person will speak for the company in public.
It gives the candidate’s strongest case in good faith: old posts from adolescence, jokes stripped of their context, and the bias that comes from seeing religion, ethnicity, age or pregnancy that should never affect hiring.
It separates public from private (who can see it) and professional from personal (whether it is relevant).
The conclusion is a rule someone could apply on Monday morning: who checks, what they may look at, what gets recorded, and whether the candidate can respond.
It is careful with law. Rules differ by country, so it says ‘in many countries’ rather than stating a legal fact it cannot support.
How to structure it
- 1
Introduction
45–60 wordsThe practice in one sentence, then your position and your line in one or two more.
- 2
The employer’s case
50–65 wordsThe strongest reasons to look, with a realistic example.
- 3
The candidate’s case
50–65 wordsThe strongest reasons not to, with a realistic example.
- 4
Where the line sits, and why
50–65 wordsDefend your line against both sides: show that it catches the real risk without exposing candidates to the bias.
- 5
Conclusion: the rule
35–50 wordsState the rule in one or two sentences anyone could apply.
Useful phrases
Frames, not finished sentences: put your own details where the [brackets] are, and use only the ones that fit what you are saying.
Position and line
- Employers should be allowed to check [what], but never to use [what] in a decision.
- The line, in my view, belongs between [A] and [B].
The employer’s case
- The strongest argument for checking is [reason].
- For roles that [condition], the risk is real.
The candidate’s case
- On the other side, [reason] is a serious concern.
- A recruiter who has seen [detail] cannot unsee it.
Defending the line
- This line catches [risk] without exposing [group] to [harm].
- Drawn any earlier, it would [consequence]; drawn any later, it would [consequence].
Stating the rule
- In practice: [who] checks [what], records only [what], and the candidate may respond.
- A simple test is whether the post would matter if [condition].
Common mistakes, and how to fix them
Answering only yes or no.
The brief asks where you would draw the line. An essay without one misses a required point, however well argued it is.
Fix: Write your line as one precise sentence in the introduction.
Giving one side a weak case.
The brief asks for the strongest case for both the employer and the candidate. A caricature such as ‘employers just want to spy’ loses marks.
Fix: Write each side as its best advocate would.
A line too vague to apply: ‘Employers should only check appropriate things.’
‘Appropriate’ is the question, not the answer.
Fix: Name categories: public posts, professional profiles, threats and harassment on one side; religion, politics, family and health on the other.
Confident legal claims you cannot support.
Privacy and discrimination law varies widely by country, and a confident but wrong claim undermines your credibility.
Fix: Write ‘in many countries, it is illegal to…’, or argue from fairness rather than law.
Mixing up ‘private’ and ‘personal’.
A public post can be personal, and a private message can be professional. Confusing the two blurs your line.
Fix: Use public/private for who can see it, and professional/personal for whether it is relevant.
Apostrophe errors in the key phrases: ‘candidates social media’, ‘an employers right’, ‘it’s own policy’.
Mechanics are scored, and this topic is full of possessives, so the slips multiply.
Fix: Write ‘candidates’ social media’ (many candidates), ‘an employer’s right’, ‘its own policy’.
Before you submit: a self-check
Does your introduction say where you draw the line?
Have you given the employer’s strongest case?
Have you given the candidate’s strongest case?
Could a recruiter apply your concluding rule without asking you a question?
Have you avoided confident legal claims you cannot support?
Is it within 240–320 words?
Questions people ask
Is it legal for employers to check candidates’ social media?
It depends on the country, and the rules change. In many places, looking at public posts is legal, but using protected characteristics such as religion, ethnicity, age, disability or pregnancy in a hiring decision is not. In an essay, argue mainly from fairness and practicality and keep legal claims general.
What is a good position to take?
A specific line is more convincing than a yes or no. For example: public professional profiles and public evidence of harassment or threats may be checked, by someone who is not the decision-maker and who passes on only relevant findings. Then defend that line from both sides.
How do I make the conclusion more than a summary?
End with a rule someone could apply: who checks, what they may look at, what they record, and whether the candidate can respond. The brief asks for exactly that.
Is this a common group discussion topic?
Yes, because there is no obvious right answer. Practising the line-drawing argument in writing prepares you to make a precise point in a discussion instead of a general one.
Argue: should employers look at candidates’ social media?
240–320 words · 30 minutes · Medium. Free to start; you need a TalkDrill account to submit, not to read this guide.
Scored by AI on TalkDrill on
- Task response25%
- Organisation20%
- Grammar20%
- Vocabulary15%
- Mechanics (spelling and punctuation)10%
- Tone10%
