DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The admissions change we can maybe all agree on . . ." and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The admissions change that the original poster proposes is to limit international students at US universities to no more than 5% of the class, creating more space for US citizens. At least at first, this suggestion is not well-received. Several posters argue that international students normally are full-pay and sometimes even pay higher tuition rates. That money helps universities meet financial needs that would otherwise have to be covered by increasing costs to other students. Other posters argue that universities have an interest in attracting the brightest minds and that often requires recruiting foreign students. Just about every assertion that the original poster included in the original post was contested. For instance, the original poster's claim about elite colleges having significant foreign enrollment was shown to be false. Similarly the claim that financial aid for international students is rare was challenged with data showing otherwise. One of the arguments in favor of international students was that they increase diversity on campus. The entire concept of "diversity" is controversial these days, especially after the Supreme Court's ruling about affirmative action. Many posters predict that Asians and Asian-Americans will dominate admissions at elite universities going forward. Some look forward to this development while others raise it as a concern. As a result, some of those responding interpret the original poster's argument as an simply another attempt to reduce the number of Asian students. The debate over whether this proposal was primarily aimed at Asians became so heated that I eventually locked the thread. While off-topic, another idea that received considerable attention in the thread was that we should expand our thinking about which universities are considered "elite". This argument is that universities beyond those currently considered to be among the top should be thought of as being of similar caliber and also targeted by top students.

The most active thread since my last post was the thread about the closing of Nottingham school that I discussed last week. I'll skip that one and start with the next most active thread which was titled, "Kate Middleton looks really happy lately" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster started the thread by posting a series of photos in which the Princess of Wales is smiling. Started on Friday, the thread has only reached 14 pages which means that, despite a few efforts, the thread has not been taken over by posts about Meghan Markle. Had that been the case, this thread would be at least 50 pages and likely have been locked by now. As a rule, I avoid reading Royal Family threads so there is not much that I will be able to say about the responses. From skimming, it looks like many posters are not convinced that the Princess is truly happy. Others think that she is happy, but only because the scheming and conniving in which they believe she has engaged has paid off. To be sure, a few agree with the original poster and think that she does seem happy and not for nefarious reasons. The thread also seems to have veered off into a general discussion about the British Royal Family in general and the pros and cons of the family in the current day.

The most active thread yesterday, unfortunately, appears to be the creation of a troll. Titled, "Was I wrong in telling my girlfriend she has no say when my kids come over?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum, the original poster describes a conflict he is having with his girlfriend about his adult children's habit of coming and going from his house at will. Reading the post triggered my troll-dar and I immediately checked to see what other threads this poster had started. This thread is at least the second by this poster to be included among the most active. In this thread, the poster, who appears to be male, is divorced but has had a girlfriend for about three years. Based on other threads, since the beginning of this year the poster has also been married for six months, has been unmarried with a boyfriend, and had a girlfriend for about six months. While this poster may not be consistent in his relationship situation, he does appear to have established a pattern when posting. His posts are lengthy, generally laden with an abundance of background information, and focused on a problem which is actually fairly minor but has caused him to consider somewhat drastic action (in this case breaking up with his girlfriend of three years because she wants his kids to stop unannounced visits). In a previous thread, he broke up with his girlfriend of six months because she asked him to help with home repairs. Personally, I find these posts to be too long, too boring, and not the sort of thing that I would want to read. But, the formula does seem to work with many of our readers given the length of the threads. This is not a case of the poster sock puppetting or otherwise trying to keep the thread alive through artificial means. The poster only responded once in this thread and only once as well in the home repair thread. He just seems to have a knack for getting posters to engage.

Yesterday might be described as the coming of the second wave of Supreme Court-related threads because the first two threads I will discuss are both related to recent Supreme Court cases, but were started after the threads on those topics that have dominated the site for several days. The first thread was titled, "Will Admissions Officers pick up on clues in application regarding URM?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster asks whether college admissions officers will be able to pick up clues in applications in order to identify underrepresented minorities and suggests that colleges might want to "lock in" the stronger URM applicants in order to maintain diversity on their campuses. Many of those responding agree that applications will provide plenty of clues about URM status and several suggest that admissions officers probably already have plans prepared to maintain diversity. One poster pointed out that the Supreme Court has not invalidated the First Amendment and that applicants don't have to hint, they can freely disclose their URM status. Some posters insist that regardless of whether URM status is determined through hints or through explicit declaration, it can't be used as a factor in the application process. One thing that is very clear from the responses is that those opposed to affirmative action see the courts as their weapon of choice and repeatedly threaten legal action in response to unwelcomed admissions decisions. It is obvious from discussions such as this one that hopes for Asian and White applicants have been massively raised and it is likely that a bunch of folks who never stood a chance of being accepted by Harvard are going to be very disappointed to learn that they still have no chance of being accepted by Harvard. These folks will still insist that their place was unfairly taken by URMs who did not deserve to be admitted. Whereas affirmative action was once blamed for this unfairness, now conspiracies and unfounded allegations will be used to explain why an URM candidate was accepted. A common argument against affirmative action in the past was that it unfairly gave the impression that all URMs on campus had received a boost rather than earning their place and that eliminating affirmative action would remove that taint. Threads such as this show that this is simply not the case. URMs will still be considered by many to be unworthy of admission to a top college, though their explanation of why will be somewhat less coherent.

Since yesterday was a national holiday, usage of the site was lower than normal and many of the most active threads were threads that I've already covered. So, some of the "most active" threads that I'll cover today weren't actually all that active. The first one that I'll discuss was titled, "Complaint ag Harvard Re Legacy Admissions" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to articles describing a civil rights complaint filed against Harvard University arguing that the University's legacy and donor admissions preferences violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several posters supported ending these admissions preferences, which strongly favor White applicants. Others argued that such preferences are different than affirmative action and should be continued. I was only able to read the first few pages of this thread before I became ashamed to be associated with the low level of discourse occurring and had to stop reading. A significant number of the posts that I read consisted of some of the most poorly-informed posters I've ever encountered calling each other "dumb". For example, one message said, "You’re so dumb you don’t know how legacy admits work. It is NOT just ‘oh legacy, he’s in’ you moron." Much of the discussion dealt with athletic preferences which are not a subject of the complaint. Nevertheless, a considerable number of the posts are arguing who is favored by such preferences. All of these discussions related to admissions preferences have been inundated by racist posts. I removed a few from this thread this morning, but it would require more time and effort than I have available to clean up the entire thread. Based on many of the posts in threads such as this one, if a significant number of Black students are still admitted to top schools next year, there is going to be a mass explosion of heads. While Asians are often the target of racist posts, a considerable number of posters who either identify themselves as Asian or appear to be Asian post very racist things about Black people. Of course, non-Asians also post similar messages. Between the racism, name-calling, and the general lack of substance in the posts in this thread, I really found it unbearable to read.

The most active thread yesterday "Wedding Gifts for future daughter in law" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster requested suggestions for a wedding gift for her future daughter-in-law who does not wear jewelry. She immediately received a number of suggestions for art, gardening-related items, and a watch. A watch was ruled out because the original poster has just helped her son pick out for for his future bride. Many posters weigh in against art or paintings because they are too personal and there is a good chance the daughter-in-law might not like what is chosen. Nobody really specifically objects to the gardening implement suggestions, but there is no indication that the young couple will have a yard that will allow gardening. Other suggestions include a vase, a quilt, or a classic Chanel purse. Several posters ridicule all of the suggestions as reflecting the interests of "boomers" that will likely not be appreciated by a young woman. When asked for their own suggestions, however, the younger posters don't really offer any ideas. Despite a watch being ruled out, discussion repeatedly returns to suggestions of watches. Some posters say that they no longer wear watches and give reasons why watches are no longer necessary. For instance, one poster says that ovens have clocks so women don't need watches. This provokes a poster to respond saying that, in this case, the original poster should buy her future daughter-in-law an oven. Throughout the thread posters emphasize that the gift should reflect the future daughter-in-law's interests and not the original poster's. The best way to ensure this, posters advise, is to ask the woman what she would like. However, several posters note that it can be uncomfortable asking for gifts. Almost as controversial as watches were the suggestions for a quilt. This was considered by some to be an old fashioned idea that might be more appropriate for rural backwoods regions. But, other posters were big fan of quilts. A few posters suggested forgoing material items and, instead, offering an experience such as a spa day. Many posters said that they were very appreciative of high-quality cookware that they had received as wedding gifts. I don't think any gift suggestion escaped criticism and all of the ideas had their detractors. The thread is actually pretty funny at times and is worth reading merely for the entertainment value. For instance, when a poster's suggestions of a gardening bench or a quilt were ridiculed as coming from a boomer, she responded by confessing to being a boomer, having two cats, and promising to log off DCUM and return to her crochet project. She said that she would leave this thread to the "young whipper snappers".

The most active thread since I last posted was the thread about the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision which I've already covered. But, only a few posts short of that one was a thread titled, "APS Closing Nottingham" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. "APS" refers to Arlington Public Schools and "Nottingham" is an elementary school in north Arlington. Apparently, the APS school board recently announced a proposal to send current Nottingham students to other nearby schools and use Nottingham as a swing space for schools that are being renovated. Changes of school assignments are always controversial and the length of this thread at 37 pages shows that this case is not an exception. However, the initial reaction from Nottingham parents in the thread was surprisingly subdued. They were far from thrilled with the proposal, but indicated that they could live with it. There was far more outrage from parents associated with the schools to which Nottingham students would move with near apocalyptic predictions regarding the extra traffic it would cause. But, it appears that the conventional wisdom expected Nottingham families to react with outrage and entitlement. When a few posters responded in ways that fulfilled that stereotype, they become the face of Nottingham parents. Frankly, I think it is an unfair portrayal, but posters complaining that they were being victimized because they are white and wealthy and that some would even be killed because of this decision made easy targets. Many of the pro-Nottingham responses were justifiably lampoonable. One poster was inspired to create a sarcastic version of Martin Niemöller's famous quotation, "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...", paraphrasing it to say, "First they overcrowded Glebe And I did not speak out..." While Nottingham parents threatened everything from moving out of Arlington to legal action, they didn't quite reach the point of comparing the closing of their school to the Holocaust. Though in the case of some posters, that may only be a matter of time. Still, and I am adamant about this, many of the Nottingham posters were level-headed and entirely reasonable in their responses. They just didn't get much attention. Nobody is likely to be thrilled with the closing of their much-loved school and their children's future schooling that had appeared to be settled suddenly being thrown into question. On the other hand, some of the posters with ties to other schools seem to be taking an inordinate amount of joy from this proposal. For instance, one poster wrote, "Hahahaha. Yes. Karma for Nottingham who was oh so obnoxious in the 2018 go round." This was a less respectful version of a point made by several other posters. According to them, past efforts by Nottingham families to successfully oppose proposals that would have added additional students to the school left Nottingham under-enrolled and vulnerable to this sort of development. A final decision on the proposal to convert Nottingham into a swing space is apparently not due for almost a year. So, this is not likely the last we've seen of this thread.

Today's post is going to be a little different. One reason for that is because almost half of the most active threads yesterday were on the topic of the decision by the US Supreme Court to prohibit race as a factor in college and university admissions. The most active thread of the bunch on this topic, as well as being the most active thread of the day and already the fourth most active thread of the last 30 days was titled, "US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is already 73 pages long and has almost 1,000 posts. All in less than 24 hours. The second was titled, "SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. In comparison, this thread is positively subdued at only 42 pages and less than 600 posts. Mind you, that would be enough for the most active thread of the week most times. Several posters reported these threads expecting that I would want to lock one rather than have duplicate threads. But, I was afraid that mixing the Political and College forum users might have an impact similar to that of of crossing the proton streams in Ghostbusters. I couldn't take that risk. When there are events like this court decision that spur incredibly active threads, some posters fear their posts will be lost in the mix and, instead of joining an existing thread, start new ones. The more clever among them will try to find an unique spin because I will lock or delete an obvious duplicate. One such thread was posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum and titled, "Won't the AA ruling be particularly bad for private school URMs?" Similarly, another thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum titled, "So what is changing? Questions about SC affirmative action decision". I didn't actually know about the last two until just now or I might have locked them. I haven't read any of these threads, other than a few posts that were reported. We have been preparing for weeks for this Court decision expecting this type of reaction on DCUM and assuming that we would be inundated by reports and basically have to devote ourselves fulltime to moderating the threads. However, there have been very few reports and for the most part we ended up ignoring the threads. They likely could benefit from some supervision, but the threads are simply moving too quickly to keep up.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I said something really stupid/insensitive to gf and now she’s given me an ultimatum" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. I am not going to bother describing the topic of the thread because the poster was likely trolling and definitely sock puppeted throughout the thread. I had actually meant to check this thread yesterday because it came to by attention for some reason, but I didn't get around to it until this morning. Fairly quickly in the thread posters believed that they recognized the writing style of the poster and began linking to other threads that they suspected were from the same poster. The original poster denied being the author of the other threads and even challenged posters to ask me so that I could disprove the allegation. I think that there are significant elements in common between this thread and many of those believed by others to be from the same poster. But, it would take more effort than I am prepared to commit to confirm they are all from the same poster. The sock puppeting in this thread alone is enough to put the thread's authenticity in doubt. For instance, in one post, the original poster writes, "OP is a jerk" and in a subsequent post writes, "OP was already a jerk to begin with." This poster seems to be suffering from both identity and self-esteem issues. For whatever reason, the relationship forum has attracted a lot of drama seekers. The result is thread after thread of likely imaginary relationship conflict. Trolling the forum is a strange pastime if you ask me. I have to admit some amazement with the posters who are able to remember threads from, in some cases, years ago and match them to the poster of a current thread. Trolling an anonymous forum may seem like the easiest thing ever, but be warned. These posters will catch you. I don't know how they do it, but they do it.

Yesterday's most active thread was the "Karen" thread that I discussed yesterday. So, I'll skip that one and start with the next most active thread which was titled, "I cannot believe there are still people out there spanking their children..." and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she saw in another thread that some parents still spank their kids and she is "floored". Spanking is a perenial topic that is always divisive. As in this thread, there are posters who believe that spanking is necessary to create discipline. As one of the first posters to respond writes, "It's pretty obvious your kids are the ones disrupting everyone else, OP." Such posters attribute a host of negative behaviors to children who are not spanked. In response, posters with views similar to those of the original poster argue that discipline is possible without spanking. "You do know you can discipline without hitting right?", says one such poster. In between are posters such as one who writes, "I think a swat on the butt is no big deal. Spanking with an eye to hurt is a different animal." Basically, these three positions are stated and restated throughout the thread, along with a large helping of stories about posters' own experiences growing up. Several posters seem to take a perverse pride in having been spanked when they were young. Some posters also discuss laws against spanking that exist in other countries and suggest that spanking is a barbaric and unenlightened practice. Others blame a host of today's problems on a decline in spanking. One of the more bizarre exchanges I stumbled across involved the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation not to spank. A poster argued that this recommendation is not valid because the organization is silent about the practice of "cry it out" which the poster apparently also considers abusive. This left me pondering whether there are people out there who support spanking but find CIO too barbaric. However, it turns out that the poster in question actually opposes spanking. She just has a bone to pick with the AAP and apparently believes that criticizing the organization is more important than acknowledging a policy position with which she agrees. Another argument made in the thread is that far worse things happen to children than spanking so, it is implied, spanking is not worth the concern. I imagine such posters refusing to fix flat tires on their cars because other cars have blown their engines or been totaled in wrecks.