????有一種觀點認為，我們應該盡可能長時間地保護我們的孩子免受真實世界的傷害，而上述內容讓這一觀點處于一個尷尬的境地。這種觀點代表了養尊處優人士的擔憂，然而，對于貧困和工薪家庭來說，可能家長們思考得更多的是讓孩子免受貧困循環和經濟停滯的困擾。雖然LinkedIn中的個人資料不一定能帶來多大的幫助，但它肯定不會有害處。

????然而，美國青少年對待LinkedIn的方式大概會和成人一樣。威爾?萊穆斯在科技雜志Slate中指出：“有一種觀念認為，美國的九年級學生將擱置Snapchat聊天應用和Keek在線社交服務，轉而蜂擁至LinkedIn去對比教育誠信信息。在我看來，這種觀念有可能略微高估了九年級學生的平均心智。更有可能出現的情形是，那些14歲的孩子至少會跟我們一樣，覺得LinkedIn只是一個索然無味的網站?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W）???

????All of which puts the notion that we should protect our kids from the "real world" for as long as possible in an interesting context. Such are the concerns of the comfortable. Poor and working-class families, meanwhile, might be a lot more concerned with protecting kids from the cycles of poverty and economic stagnation. Not that a LinkedIn profile will necessarily help very much with that. But it certainly won't hurt.

????Mostly, though, America's teenagers will take to LinkedIn in much the same way the rest of us have. As Will Oremus put it in Slate, "the assumption that the nation's ninth-graders are going to drop their Snapchats and Keeks and flock to LinkedIn to compare educational bona fides strikes me as possibly a slight misreading of the average ninth-grade psyche. More likely, 14-year-olds will find LinkedIn at least as boring as the rest of us already do."??