DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was once again the thread in the "Political Discussion" forum about the indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, I've already discussed that thread so I will start with a thread titled, "What Schools Do You Consider ‘Prestigious?’" which was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster asks what universities people in the DC metropolitan area consider to be prestigious. Ater reading this thread, it occurred to me that this thread would be great research material for both a psychologist and a sociologist. But, sadly, those are both fields that I suspect are terribly unappreciated by the participants in this thread and, as such, any findings by those professionals would be ignored. Nevertheless, of interest to a psychologist would be the original poster himself. The poster's main interest in the thread appears to be to include Duke University among elite colleges. The poster posted multiple lists of schools he believes to be prestigious, always including Duke. The poster then repeatedly sock puppeted responses to his own posts expressing approval of his own lists. The poster would respond to other posters' lists suggeting that entries on their lists be replaced with Duke. The poster also posted standalone posts arguing that Duke was an elite school. At one point the poster favorably compared Duke to Stanford University. I am not sure if "delusions of grandeur" would be the correct diagnosis here, but probably not too far off. A second participant in the thread with whom a psychologist might be intrigued is a poster whose obsessions is with "ALDC" applicants. That refers to "recruited athletes, legacies, those on the Dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff", or those who are often granted advantages in college admissions. This poster posted at least 20 times in the thread, almost always either mentioning "ALDC" or replying to posts that did. The poster seems to consider "ALDC" synonymous with "rich white people" and implies that they are academically weak relative to other students. The poster also argues that the entire concept of "prestigious" universities is an effort by rich white people to make themselves feel good. The poster writes off entire universities due to their perceived popularity with ALDC students and dismisses certain majors as being the choices of ALDC admits. A sociologist might be interested in how this thread illustrates the decreased lack of esteem in which DCUM posters seem to hold traditional liberal arts educations. There is an argument throughout the thread about whether Yale University should be included among elite colleges, apparently due to its perceived weakness in STEM fields. Traditional liberal arts majors such as English are downplayed, even if taken at Harvard. Poster after poster suggests greater prestige for schools with strong STEM programs rather than those that have strong liberal arts offerings.

The most active thread yesterday was a thread in the "Political Discussion" forum about the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump. Since I've already discussed that thread, I'll go on to the next most active thread which was titled, "Etiquette re landscapers taking their lunch break on my front lawn" and posted in the "Lawn and Garden" forum. I believe that this is the first appearance of a thread from this forum in the most active list. The original poster explains that she has landscapers come weekly to mow her lawn. She is very happy with both the cost and performance of the service. However, often the crew members take lunch just before or after working on her lawn. They lounge around on the ground under a cherry tree in her front yard. They don't leave any trash or cause problems of any kind. Nevertheless, this bothers the original poster. However, she is concerned that complaining will cause problems of some sort and wants to know what others think about the situation. DCUM posters rarely are unanimous in their responses, but in this thread they are very close. Overwhelmingly, posters are appalled that the original poster is upset by this behavior. I don't think more than 2 posters sided with the original poster. The rest considered the original poster to be, at best, unfamiliar with American customs (the original poster described being an immigrant) or, at worst, being a horrible monster. Just about everyone said they would have no problem with the landscapers eating lunch in their yards in this manner. Several said that they routinely offer drinks in similar situations and some even invite workers to sit on their porches or other more comfortable seating. Given the near universal reaction, one would have thought that the original poster would quickly accept that she was wrong. But, no. Instead, the original poster rejected any post that wasn't supportive of her — at one point clearly saying that only the supportive posts were "decent". This attitude further enraged those responding who doubled down on their opinion that the original poster is a terrible person. Any attempt by the original poster to defend herself or offer additional clarification only seemed to make things worse. At the rate things are going, there is a fairly good chance that the original poster will enter the pantheon of DCUM folklore legends  beside Pinecone Mom and Lightly Fried Tuna Lady.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Dates and paying bill" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she is 29-years-old is dating a man who is 41. While he is not wealthy, he does make about three times as much as the original poster. The original poster explains that she has picked up some of the expenses on dates, but she is bothered by a recent incident involving paying for dinner. On that occasion, her date had invited her out and chosen the restaurant. They ordered the same things. At the end, the guy grabbed the check and the original poster assumed that he would pay it. She offered to pay the tip, but he responded, "only the tip?". He then suggested that she pay for the drinks, which she did, but felt uneasy about the entire situation. The original poster added that the guy has only had a single relationship that lasted any length of time, that being 8 months. So, she wonders if he is unaware of social norms. But, to some extent, what this thread highlights is the lack of true social norms in this regard. Those responding explain a range of practices. Several think that whoever initiates the date should cover the expenses. Since that is most frequently the man, they end up paying more often. But, women can contribute by arranging dates in response. Others suggest that it is okay for the woman to contribute to a date, but think that using Venmo to transfer a portion of the bill is not the way to go about it. Rather, these posters suggest that the original poster should not have offered to pay anything at dinner, but then suggested to treat for  dessert or another round of drinks elsewhere. Some posters have made paying for dates almost a science. For instance, arguing that the man pay entirely for the early dates, but then contributions are made relative to income. A few male posters weighed in to complain that women want equality except when it comes to paying for dates. This provoked a few posters to respond that such posts reflected poorly on the manhood of those writing them. Other women posters claimed that this is simply a dating preference. If a man wants to split costs with a woman, he should date women who also like to split costs. Maybe this should be included on dating profiles? Many of the responses didn't address the meal paying issue at all. Rather, posters deduced that given the man's lack of long term dating experience, other women must have quickly realized that he was a loser. The original poster was repeatedly advised to move on and not waste time with this guy. Towards the end of the thread, it appeared that the original poster was ready to do this.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "President Biden acknowledged 4 year old granddaughter" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started after President Joe Biden and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden provided a statement to People Magazine discussing the daughter of Hunter Biden and Lunden Roberts about whom the Bidens had previously been silent. The child has been the subject of considerable legal contention between Hunter Biden and Roberts and Republicans have been vociferous in their criticism of President Biden for not having previously acknowledged the girl. As could be expected in today's political environment, the statement did nothing to stem the flood of Republican attacks on Biden. Indeed, even the original poster claimed, "The statement today seems politically motivated". In addition, Republicans simply moved the goalposts. When a Biden-supporter pointed out that Republicans had complained that Biden had not acknowledged the child and were now complaining that he had discussed her, a Biden-critic replied saying, "Biden hasn’t laid out plans to welcome her to either the [White House] or the Biden family home". As anti-Biden posters sought to portray the controversy surrounding the child as a significant moral failure by President Biden, pro-Biden posters suggested that the moral outrage was selective given the moral shortcomings evidenced by former President Donald Trump. For instance, Trump reportedly urged his former wife Marla Maples to get an abortion when she was pregnant with Tiffany and Trump has often given significantly less attention to Tiffany than his other children. Similarly, Biden supporters reminded Republicans of the support demonstrated for Herschel Walker even after all of his paternity issues were revealed. In a classic case of hair-splitting, a Biden-critic responded asking, "Was he running for president?" The more relavent question would have been, "is he a Democrat?" given that Republican morality concerns tend to be entirely partisan in nature. On the other hand, a small number of Democrats in the thread expressed discomfort with the way the Bidens have handled this issue. But, one poster in the thread described themselves as "a person born to an unwed mother" and expressed considerable understanding for Joe and Jill Biden. In this poster's view, it was entirely appropriate for the President and Fist Lady to remain aloof from the conflict between Hunter and Roberts. As the poster explained, "if Hunter has no relationship with the child then the Bidens can't either."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If you are wealthy would you send your kids to a W school over private?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. For those not familiar with the nomenclature, "W" schools are Walt Whitman, Winston Churchill, Thomas Wootten, and Walter Johnson Montgomery County Public Schools high schools. All the schools have "W" somewhere in their name and all have student bodies that are generally wealthy and heavily White and Asian. Academically they are very good schools and, hence, highly sought-after. The original poster of this thread can afford private school but wonders if it is worth the cost and wonders, if cost were not an issue, if others would choose a private school over a "W" school. The background of this post is that private schools are often advertised as being notably better in a range of metrics than public schools. Whatever basis in reality this contention may have normally, it is a more difficult argument when applied to schools of the caliber of the "W" schools. Therefore, the original poster is asking about the value proposition of private schools in this scenario. Very broadly speaking, replies can be divided into two categories. On the one hand are those that favor one option or the other based on specific factors and how those will impact the student in question. For instance, one poster chose a "W" school because she believed her child with special needs would receive stronger support at that school. Other posters preferred private based on smaller class sizes that they believe better suited their children. The second category of responses might be described as focusing on the "soft" or "social" benefits of private schools. For example, in response to a post describing the academic achievement of a "W" school student, a poster asked, "Is you [sic] kids polished? Can he dress properly?" and "Does he have a Rolodex of very wealthy friends that can get him a job with the snap of a finger?" This school of thought essentially concedes that academically there is little difference between these public schools and privates (indeed, many parents argue the publics are better academically in some instances), but instead focuses on other presumed advantages. However, not all posters agree that those supposed advantages end up amounting to much and don't believe they are good reasons for choosing private schools. As is true with almost all school-related discussions these days, this one also gets sidetracked into arguments about COVID and how schools responded. One argument made is that public schools were closed longer than private schools which set students back further and therefore public schools are now at a disadvantage. Another debate is over whether private school students are ensconced in a bubble and, therefore, not prepared for the real world. This is countered by the proposition that "W" school students are in very similar bubbles. If true, that would seem to be a point in favor of the "W" schools which apparently provide the same bubble as private schools, but with no tuition fees.

Last Friday a thread about swim teams was among the most active threads that I discussed. I believe that was the first time that a swimming thread made this blog. But, not only has a swim team thread made the most active list again, this time it leads the list as yesterday's most active thread. This one was titled, "Swim Team Drama" and was posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. Since I have never been involved with swim teams, I don't understand much of what posters are talking about, including the original poster. The drama cited by that poster involved parents being upset about the times used for divisional lineups. Whatever this was, it stirred up drama in the thread itself as parents debated the rules back and forth. Other drama discussed often involved coaches, especially younger ones who seemed to disappear when needed. But, other than these examples, most of the dramas mentioned involved parents. Parents trash talking, parents arguing with each other, parents having issues with coaches, and even parents suing their pools. There also seemed to be a lot of drama surrounding team lineups. A number of posters reported drama-free seasons. Several others said the only drama on their teams was of the competitive type involving close races or slower swimmers improving and over-performing in the heat of a match. Based on this thread, I would guess that the bulk of the drama is caused by parents not understanding the rules, or — more likely — thinking they understand the rules when they don't. The original poster's example of drama was still being discussed 17 pages later, but apparently much of this is due to differences between leagues. There is also ongoing discussion about how to dress for the team banquet. I'm not sure if that actually counts as "drama", but plenty of posters have something to say about it.

If you can believe it, the thread I discussed yesterday about the University of Mary Washington was tied as the most active thread again. Since I've already discussed that one, I'll start with the thread with which it was tied. Titled, "Why does every tourist have a backpack" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum, the original poster is interested in the question posed on the thread's title. She doesn't understand the need for a backpack or a sling and explains how she and her husband equip themselves while touring. While no slings or backpacks are involved, she lists more than a half-dozen items that her husband carries in his pants pockets. To say that this thread did not go well for the original poster is probably an understatement. DCUM apparently has a very pro-backpack userbase. The first mistake made by the original poster, which was pointed out repeatedly, was not understanding that different people have different needs and different preferences. This is a surprising shortcoming for someone who professes to be a seasoned traveller given that one of the goals of travel is to see things that are different than in your own life. Being open to new ideas and not being judgemental are two qualities that help travel to be more enjoyable. Several posters took issue with the number of items the original poster's husband carries in his pockets, with several ridiculing him for possibly wearing cargo pants. The original poster's only subsequent post disabused the others of that idea and explained that the items, while plentiful, were all quite small. Still, the fact that she and her husband seem to never leave home without Pepto Bismol raised a few eyebrows. Posters have a host of reasons for carrying backpacks while touring, including carrying many of the items the original poster's husband stuffs in his pockets. In addition, quite a few carry water bottles and, especially if they have kids, snacks. Several of the female posters pointed out that their clothing often doesn't have pockets, so duplicating the original poster's strategy of carrying things in her pockets won't work. One irony of the thread is that as posters explained what they carry in their backpacks, they sometimes mentioned items that other posters hadn't considered, but could see being useful. Therefore, if this thread has any lasting impact at all, it might be to increase backpack usage, or at least the number of things carried in them. Also, given all the discussion of Pepto Bismol, I should probably charge Procter & Gamble a fee for product placement.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in the New York Times that discussed an analysis of college admissions data. According to that analysis, the wealthiest top 0.1% of applicants had a huge admissions advantage, the poorest applicants had a slight advantage, while those in the middle had a disadvantage. The article actually paints a somewhat more complex picture. As one poster, quoting the article, explained, "colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings". While the article mostly focuses on how this system perpetuates the "intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity", posters in the thread were more concerned by the disadvantages suffered by those in the middle that the article illustrated. As the original poster noted, that is where most DCUM posters are represented. Most of the college forum posters have always seemed to believe that college admissions were unfair and that they are particularly unfair when it comes to the forum's posters. So, for many posters, this article simply justifies what they already believed. Some posters ignored the advantages enjoyed by the wealthy and, instead, focused on the slight advantages received by the poorest applicants. As one poster explicitly put it, "there is a clear bias towards the lower half of the income bracket and again sthe upper half (half, not the 0.1%)" But, as another poster pointed out, unlike other groups, poor students are not overrepresented in student bodies. My understanding after reading the article is that there just are not that many poor applicants who meet the admissions requirements. Those that do have a great chance of admission, but there still simply aren't many of them. Ironically, that was almost exactly the same argument made by one of the apologists for the ultra-wealthy who wrote, "who really cares about the very small number of ultra rich?" Like the original poster, most of those participating in this thread are most interested in discussing the disadvantages suffered by those with middle incomes. Some posters even parse the data to show that differences even among varying strata of the middle income segment. But, basically, this is the other side of the coin used to explain the poor and ultra-wealthy advantages. While there are few members of those categories, there are a lot of applicants in the middle and, as such, the competition is fierce. The bottom line described in the article is that there is an entire system of "affirmative action for the wealthy" that includes legacy admissions, admissions of friends and family of large donors, athletic admissions, and advantages provided to private school students that give the ultra wealthy an extreme advantage. As illustrated, an applicant in the 99.9th income percentile would have a roughly 3 times more likelihood of being accepted by an elite college as a student in the 90th percentile.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread about Virginia's new policies regarding transgender students about which I already wrote. So, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "Gosselins" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I have led a fairly fulfilling life to this point with little to no exposure to the Gosselins. I would have been quite happy to keep things that way. I have heard the family's name in passing and I understand that there was a reality television show called "Kate Plus 8". But, beyond that, I know virtually nothing about them. So, this thread is very confusing to me with lots of names being cast about by posters who seem to have very detailed knowledge of everyone involved. The thread was started back on May 15 by a poster who simply asked if the "the twins" were graduating from college and where "the septuplets" were going to go to college. This was a major gaff by the original poster that was quickly pointed out. The Gosslins have "sextuplets", not "septuplets". The thread sort of languished until the past few days when, apparently, various members of the family began giving interviews criticizing each other. That reignited the thread which gained 12 pages over the weekend. I, of course, am not going to read the entire 28 pages of this thread or even the new pages. The only thing I could conclude from skimming some of the recent discussion is that this is not a thread that I am going to be able summarize. Posters have different opinions about different family members, but there is too much that I don't understand for me to have any idea about what anyone is talking. All I can say is that the family is divided and, similarly, posters are divided. I have been happy living in blissful ignorance regarding this family and I prefer to continue to do so. Therefore, rather than delve into the details of what is going on, I am just going to throw up my arms in resignation and leave it to those of you who are interested to read the thread for yourselves.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "New VA trans policies for schools" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The thread addresses new model policies issued by the Virginia Department of Education regarding the treatment of transgender students in schools. The new model policies require students to use facilities that match their biological sex and require referring to students by names matching the sex on their official record unless parents request something different in writing, It will be up to local school systems to adopt policies consistent with the new models. As would be expected, posters are strongly divided about the new guidelines. For instance, regarding the role of parents in a student's social transition, posters favoring parental rights strongly agree that parents should be informed if their children are using different names or pronouns at school. They consider a failure by schools to inform parents of such matters as "conspiring" against parents and, in the most extreme cases, examples of "grooming". The new model policies go beyond merely informing parents, however, and prevent schools from using names or pronouns that differ from the sex contained in the official records. Parents opposed to these policies want schools to be safe places for students in which children can confide in trusted adults without fear of repudiation by their parents. There is also considerable disagreement about the guidelines concerning bathrooms and locker rooms. There is a lot of fear and anxiety among some posters concerning students assigned as male at birth sharing girls facilities. These parents welcome the new guidelines that prohibit this. On the other hand are parents who view this as discriminatory. While I did not see it mentioned in the thread, my understanding is that this issue has already been decided legally in favor of transgender students. Ironically, this is based on legal proceedings that took place in Virginia. A transgender student, Gavin Grimm, sued the Gloucester County School Board when he was prohibited from using male bathrooms. Both the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rule in Grimm's favor and the US Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, leaving those rulings in place. This would seem to mean the new guidelines are in contradiction to legal findings. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin may welcome a legal battle on this issue given the political advantages he seems to see in attacking transgender rights. Moreover, the current Supreme Court Justices may not be as sympathetic to transgender students as in the past. At any rate, transgender issues remain among the most divisive topics on DCUM.