ML Interview Q Series: How would you verify a user's claimed high school before granting them a school-logo Instagram sticker?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

One key challenge is to ensure that only genuine high school students can access the sticker for their respective institution. There are a variety of angles to tackle this problem, encompassing both technical solutions (such as email domain verification) and behavioral checks (like examining social graph connections). Below is a thorough discussion of potential approaches and concerns.

Social Graph and Network Analysis

Analyzing the user’s social connections can offer clues to their affiliation with a particular school. If the user has multiple connections who also claim the same school or share certain verifiable attributes (e.g., year of graduation), this increases the probability that the user is genuine. The process might evaluate:

• How many friends or followers are from that same high school.

• Whether those friends have been verified through similar processes.

Official Email Verification or School Portal Access

For schools providing institutional email addresses to students, verifying a user’s association with that .edu or similar domain is often the simplest solution. An automated verification process would send a link to that email. Clicking on the link or entering a verification code can confirm authenticity.

Location and Activity-Based Signals

Examining geolocation data (with user consent) can check whether the user generally appears in or near the school’s vicinity during typical school hours. Activity patterns, if handled with strict privacy safeguards, may also hint at legitimacy (for example, usage from known school Wi-Fi networks).

Document Uploads or External Databases

In some jurisdictions or specific situations, requiring a partial ID scan (with personal data redacted) or matching a user’s name to an existing student database might be feasible. This approach is often more cumbersome and has privacy implications, so it demands careful compliance with legal and ethical guidelines.

Potential Machine Learning Approach

A classification model can be trained on features like social graph structure, email domain match, historical location data near the school, and so on. The model might output a confidence score indicating whether the user belongs to a specific high school.

Below is an example of a logistic regression formula for such classification:

Where:

• x_i represents different features (email domain match, social connections, location signals, etc.).

• w_i are the parameters learned by the model.

• w_0 is the bias term.

If the predicted probability P surpasses some threshold, the system grants the user access to the sticker. This approach can be augmented with manual review for borderline cases or flagged suspicious activities.

Privacy and Ethical Concerns

Privacy is central when dealing with minors. Therefore, any verification mechanism must limit sensitive data collection. Ensuring compliance with laws like COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) in the United States or GDPR in Europe is essential.

Handling Potential Exploits and Edge Cases

Some students could temporarily share school emails with others, or malicious actors might fabricate credentials. Further security checks (like periodic re-validation, secondary social checks, or email domain re-checks) mitigate such risks. Also, new or smaller schools might not have robust domains, so fallback methods (like verifying location data or matching with real-time registration databases) become important.

Follow-up Questions

How do you handle newly established or private schools that might not have a well-known domain for verification?

One approach is to maintain a dynamic registry of valid school email domains. For newer or private institutions without an established domain, alternative proof methods (like uploading scanned ID with redacted personal details or verifying membership on a recognized school platform) might be necessary. Another angle is leveraging an official third-party verification service specialized in education domains, though this adds complexity and potential licensing costs.

What if a user who recently transferred schools tries to get a new sticker but the records haven’t been updated?

In such transitional cases, you can offer a temporary grace period for both the old and new stickers. Users might upload an enrollment letter or a partial, redacted transcript to prove their updated status. From the ML standpoint, if the model sees conflicting signals (like being previously associated with another high school), it can trigger additional checks until the user’s records stabilize in your system.

Can you apply deep learning instead of simpler approaches like logistic regression?

Yes, a deep learning model might better capture complex relationships in a user’s data. For example, a graph neural network could ingest social graph features and profile attributes. However, you need sufficient training data and computational resources. Additionally, simpler interpretability is sacrificed, so explaining decisions—especially in sensitive contexts like verifying a minor’s information—becomes more challenging. Regulatory scrutiny often makes more interpretable models like logistic regression or decision trees appealing for identity verification tasks.

What about the risk of adversaries creating large numbers of fake accounts to influence perceived attendance rates?

Rate limiting and anomaly detection systems can flag unusual registration spikes from the same IP range or sudden large influxes of users claiming a specific school. Behavioral signals (e.g., how quickly the user sets up a profile, how robust their network is) can be effective features for detection. ML-based fraud detection systems often incorporate these signals in real time.

Are there potential ways to make the user experience smoother while still confirming school attendance?

Providing multiple verification avenues (school email verification, recognized third-party authentication, or quick friend endorsement from already verified peers) can give a user-friendly path to legitimacy. Incorporating discreet but robust checks in the background—like verifying location signals only after user consent—can reduce friction. The key is balancing security, privacy, and convenience.

How do you mitigate false positives where legitimate users might be wrongfully denied?

Building a safe re-verification path is essential. You can allow users who are flagged to provide supplementary evidence—like updated documents or a direct contact from school faculty—to confirm their status. Logging reasoning details also helps system administrators rapidly address erroneous blocks.

These ideas offer a holistic system for verifying that a user is indeed a student from a particular high school, while also maintaining user privacy and experience.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How might you handle homeschooling or alternative education programs where students do not have a traditional school email?

One common pitfall is assuming that all legitimate students have a formal school email address or are registered in standard school directories. In reality, many students are homeschooled or enrolled in alternative education tracks without a school-issued domain. A viable solution is to create a specialized flow where:

• The user can upload proof of enrollment in a local homeschool group or recognized accreditation authority.

• The platform may validate the user’s membership with an official homeschooling registry.

• Social validation from a pre-verified teacher or instructor might serve as a supplemental signal.

However, privacy and security concerns increase here because the platform must handle potentially sensitive documents. This workflow has to ensure that personal details are minimized (e.g., only verifying the user’s name and affiliation without storing or displaying other data). A major edge case is that different jurisdictions have widely varying rules regarding homeschooling credentials. Some areas maintain minimal records, making it tricky to verify authenticity.

What if certain schools or districts do not have a reliable online presence or issue email accounts to students?

Many public high schools in underfunded districts or certain geographical areas do not provide student email addresses. Additionally, some schools might not maintain robust web portals. In these scenarios, relying solely on domain-based verification becomes problematic. Alternatives include:

• Official verification partnerships with local education boards, though this demands legal agreements and data-sharing considerations.

• Offline or partial manual checks in collaboration with the school’s administrative staff (for instance, having a school administrator confirm student lists).

• A combination of location-based signals (for instance, repeated check-ins near the school’s campus at typical school hours) and social-graph analysis (the user is followed/friended by numerous known or verified peers who also attend the same school).

A drawback is that manual or semi-manual verifications may not scale well. Moreover, requiring schools to sign agreements might place an undue burden on smaller districts.

Could there be a risk of inflated school enrollment counts if everyone seeks the sticker without proper verification?

Yes, popularity-driven fraud can occur if obtaining a specific high school’s sticker becomes a status symbol. Users unaffiliated with the school might want the sticker for novelty or social reasons. The platform should implement checks such as:

• Rate limits on how many new verifications from the same school are processed within a short time window.

• Monitoring suspicious spikes in new claims from the same IP range or device patterns.

• Using existing enrollment estimates (if accessible via safe channels) to flag abrupt large mismatches.

A subtle challenge is that actual large school populations might cause repeated spikes, for instance when a new cohort of students joins the platform. Balancing legitimate surges with detection of suspicious activity requires refining heuristics and thresholds, potentially aided by anomaly detection algorithms that learn typical growth patterns for each school.

How can you accommodate students who want anonymity about their school affiliation for safety reasons?

Some students may be at risk of harassment or persecution and prefer not to publicly display their school affiliation. The system should allow:

• A private verification mode where a user can obtain the sticker but choose not to display it publicly, or restrict it to close friends only.

• Clear user controls that let students toggle the sticker’s visibility without losing verified status.

Edge cases occur when user safety requires the platform to withhold any public mention of the school. Yet, the user still benefits from exclusive features for verified students (like school-specific discussion channels). Managing these privacy constraints demands flexible design, possibly storing the verified status in a secure backend but not pushing the label onto the user’s public profile.

How do you plan for real-time detection of fraudulent activity during or immediately after verification?

An adversary could exploit a narrow window right after verification—claiming a valid email and then handing account credentials off to someone else. To mitigate this, real-time monitoring can:

• Confirm consistency between the account activity pre- and post-verification, checking abrupt changes in IP, device fingerprint, or geographic location.

• Temporarily lock certain account modifications (e.g., changing the associated email or phone number) immediately after verification and require a re-check.

• Use short-term follow-up validations such as re-sending a code to the verified school email if the system detects suspicious behaviors.

The subtle edge case is that legitimate users can indeed travel or switch devices. The rules should not automatically penalize someone who, for example, logs in from a library computer after verifying at home. This is where machine learning anomaly detection can incorporate multiple signals instead of imposing simplistic rule-based locks.

How can you address cultural or regional differences in the concept of "high school"?

In some regions, there may not be a strict separation between middle school, high school, and advanced institutions, or the naming conventions differ significantly. Additionally, age-based grade structures vary internationally.

• A global approach might incorporate local education systems in a comprehensive registry, though this is logistically demanding.

• ML models could segment geographies and apply region-specific verification heuristics. For example, in countries with a Grade 7–12 system, the platform might look for different naming patterns or school-level categories.

• Partnerships with local authorities or established organizations to access validated school lists in that region, ensuring currency of data.

Pitfalls arise when the labeling of "high school" does not map perfectly to the local reality. For instance, in certain places, "secondary school" might run from ages 11 to 18. That discrepancy can cause confusion or block genuinely eligible students.

How do you handle users who momentarily drop out or take a gap year yet still associate with that high school?

Students sometimes pause enrollment, especially older teens who might take time off or move temporarily. If the system strictly removes a user’s verified status for non-enrollment, it could alienate them if they return to the school. Potential solutions include:

• Introducing a grace period or “temporary inactive” state during which the user retains partial verified status (the sticker might be hidden to the public or flagged as inactive).

• Allowing re-verification with minimal friction once the user re-enrolls, so they do not have to restart from zero.

• Prompting them for an expected return date if they voluntarily disclose it.

A corner case is individuals who drop out and never return yet keep the sticker indefinitely. This might be acceptable for a transitional period, but if the platform is strict, it must eventually remove unverified status. The trade-off is balancing user experience against the reliability of the “currently attending” claim.

What challenges might arise if multiple high schools share the same name or domain?

Some school networks or national franchises exist where multiple campus branches share an overarching domain (for example, “InternationalHighSchoolNetwork.org”). Students at different physical campuses might appear indistinguishable if the email verification only checks the domain. This can lead to:

• Confusion over the exact campus or city each student attends.

• Potential merges in the system if it treats them as a single school.

One approach is to maintain a detailed registry mapping subdomains or unique email prefixes to specific campuses. Another method is to request each school within the network to issue distinct email naming conventions. However, smaller branches might have limited IT resources, complicating domain partitioning.

What happens if a user moves and changes schools multiple times in a short period?

Frequent school changes can appear suspicious or could be entirely legitimate (relocation, job transfers for parents, etc.). The system might:

• Allow a certain number of “school switches” per semester or year before triggering stricter verification.

• Temporarily display both the old and new school, with an explanatory label, to prevent abrupt changes from confusing followers.

• Employ a more in-depth review process, such as requiring an administrator to confirm repeated transfers.

A specific edge case is if the user moves to a location far away, the location-based verification signals might conflict. The system might see contradictory data (old location in one city, new location data in another) and flag potential fraud. Prompting the user to supply updated proof (like an acceptance letter at the new school) helps disambiguate.

How do you handle language barriers or illiteracy issues during verification?

In countries or regions with multiple languages or literacy challenges, the verification instructions, user interface, and documentation steps might not be readily understandable. Some students might fail verification simply because they cannot navigate the system effectively. Mitigation strategies:

• Provide localized interfaces and instructions in multiple languages commonly spoken in that region.

• Offer a support channel where a trained agent or AI system can walk the student through the verification, possibly using audio or video guidance.

• Accept alternative forms of identification or data validation (such as voice-based checks for school faculty in certain regions).

A subtle pitfall is misinterpretation of official documents if they are not in the platform’s default language. Optical Character Recognition (OCR) or translation features must be robust enough to handle various scripts and forms.

How can you address the possibility of social engineering attacks where verified friends vouch for someone who is not actually a student?

A cunning attacker could simply be “friends” with enough real students who are willing to help them bypass checks. For instance, the attacker might bribe or pressure actual students to confirm them as a peer in a group-based or social-endorsement verification system. A possible remedy involves:

• Weighted endorsements: A single verified friend’s recommendation might not be enough; the system could require multiple independent verifications from accounts with no overlapping suspicious patterns.

• Reputation scoring: If certain endorsers historically make too many unverified or suspicious endorsements, their credibility diminishes.

• Random audits: Periodically re-check suspicious relationships or run separate verification flows that do not solely rely on friend confirmations.

A difficult edge case is legitimate students who attend multiple extracurricular or magnet programs and have large diverse friend networks, which might look suspicious if the system purely checks high overlap. A nuanced approach that factors in normal behavior distribution is crucial.