DCUM Weblog

The two most active threads yesterday have already been discussed, so I'll start with what was actually the third most active thread yesterday. Titled, "Algebra 2 is currently offered at TPMS" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, this is quite a bizarre thread. The best way that I can think of to convey the essence of this thread is to transport us all back to the time of my youth when I would occasionally stay up late to watch the "The Twilight Zone", the original not the remakes. Imagine the voice of Rod Stirling introducing an episode as you read this. So, come with me, if you will, to the Twilight Zone. For the last several days a poster has revived several old threads in the MCPS schools forum in order to highlight old posts about the math class offerings in various MCPS schools. The argument this poster is trying to make is that Algebra 2 is only offered at "a few wealthy schools" and either implying or explicitly claiming (I'm not sure which) that Algebra 2 is not offered at Takoma Park Middle School. This thread was created in response to that poster to assure everyone that Algebra 2 is indeed being offered by TPMS. Yes, dear readers, this is what resulted in the third most active thread yesterday. The very first response is from the poster who has been reviving all the threads, who simultaneously claims that Algebra 2 is only being offered at Frost Middle School and that TPMS does offer the class, albeit reluctantly. I'm not sure how both of these claims can be true, but the poster goes on to repeat this contradictory argument multiple times. The poster, who also has a bad habit of replying to their own posts, would ultimately end up posting 42 times in this 11 page thread. Not that they are obsessed or anything. I can't fully immerse myself in this particular twilight zone and haven't read all of the pages. But, from what I understand, some MCPS elementary schools offer a class called AIM. I have no idea what that stands for, but the class seems to be some sort of advanced math that prepares students for algebra. Many of the students who complete this class naturally want to continue into algebra and, eventually, algebra 2. Therefore, TPMS provides a class to meet this demand. Apparently, students who did not take AIM in elementary school are not able to take algebra 2, presumably because they lack the prerequisites. Depending on your point of view, this is either a huge travesty of justice that represents the gross inequities plaguing MCPS or a completely normal and acceptable arrangement. Basically, this debate went around and around until I eventually locked the thread. Yes, I had to lock a thread about Algebra 2. It truly is the Twilight Zone.

As has been my habit, I didn't post on this blog over the weekend. Therefore, today I'll discuss the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "UK Coronation" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Obviously, this thread is about the coronation of King Charles III. At 34 pages, you would think that this thread would have covered just about everything, but you would be sadly mistaken. There is a second 12-page thread in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum focused on the fashion of the coronation. That thread was the 8th most active over the weekend. I don't have a lot to say about either of these threads. They are too long to read now and I haven't been interested in reading them beforehand. My only interaction was a result of posts from each thread being reported. The most common reason for reports was due to the threads going off-topic into discussions of royal drama, especially involving Meghan Markle who didn't even attend the coronation. I also managed to avoid most news or discussion about the coronation on TV or social media and, frankly, I'd like to keep it that way. As a result, other than my knowledge that there is nothing that will prevent some people from discussing Meghan Markle, I know very little about the event. I'm sure that any DCUMer with even a passing interest in the British Royal Family has already perused the threads, but if you have such an interest and have not already indulged, we have 46 mostly Meghan-free pages at your disposal.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The thread is about the killing of Jordan Neely, an unhoused individual who suffered severe distress while on a New York City subway train. According to witness reports, Neely was shouting that he had no food or water and that he was willing to go to jail to obtain them. A passenger on the train, identified in some press reports as former marine Daniel Penny, placed Neely in a chokehold and held him until Neely died. The New York City medical examiner has ruled the death a homicide. Penny was taken into custody by the police and then released without charges. The original poster of the thread is understandably appalled by this killing of a man who does not appear to have been presenting a danger to anyone. But, if there is one thing that I have learned from DCUM, it is that there is virtually no killing of a black man that some posters will not rush to justify. As such, posters were quick to defend Neely's killing. Indeed the very first response claimed, with no evidence, that "he was dangerous and needed to be subdued" and "Why wouldn't someone understand that?" To be clear, there are both posters like the original poster who do not think that the killing was justified and posters who are fully behind it, like the first poster to respond. From reading the posts, I see the merging of two separate trends in our society. On one hand, the theory of "stand your ground" has morphed from what I believe was its original intent of being the right to defend yourself from a clear and present danger to a justification to kill basically anyone who you perceive as a threat. So, essentially, "I felt threatened" has become a justification for murder even if a realistic threat did not exist. On the other hand, unhoused individuals have become increasingly visible, especially in cities, since the COVID pandemic. Many of these individuals suffer from mental health problems and, occasionally, some of them are violent. The result seems to be in the public's mind that unhoused people are ipso facto a threat. The convergence of these ideas is that many DCUM posters — and indeed many members of the public at large — seem to believe that it is perfectly okay to kill an unhoused individual who is simply being a nuisance.

Despite the college admissions season mostly coming to a close, college admissions topics are not going to disappear. Two separate college admissions topics were among the most active threads yesterday. I've been thinking about this because so many college topics come up in these blog posts and it occurred to me that, since DCUM is now over 20 years old, most of our original members have children of college-age or older. I don't think younger parents are as interested in forum discussions and, instead, spend their time on TikTok and Instagram. So, I think we have fewer posters interested in discussing newborn issues and more who want to talk about colleges. As a side note, I suspect that we are getting close to having, if we have not already had, second-generation DCUMers with posters who are the children of DCUM posters now becoming parents.

Yesterday I finally locked the transgender athletes thread that has been the most active thread for several days. Even so, it tied for the top spot yesterday. The other top thread was titled, "Met Gala 2023" and posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. As you can surmise, the thread was about the Met Gala. There is not a lot for me to say about this thread. I know very little about the event and have no opinions about it. The thread itself is mostly a series of pictures showing exotically dressed celebrities with posters raving about how good they look. I have not read much of this thread but it seems that those responding appreciated everything they saw. The one notable exception that I came across was Brittany Mahomes, a former professional soccer player and founder of the Kansas City Current professional women's soccer team. The fitness entrepreneur, who is married to NFL Quarterback Patrick Mahomes, was criticized both personally and for her choice of dress. But most of those mentioned in the thread received postitive reviews. If this sort of thing interests you, there are 18 pages for your viewing pleasure.

Today I'll look at the yesterday's most active threads. The leader continues to be the transgender athletes thread that I've already discussed and which has been the most active topic for several days now. I'll skip that and look at a thread titled, "I feel bad for low-income/first-gen students at elite schools" which was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. One theme that is frequently apparent in the college forum, as well as some of the school forums, is that efforts to increase diversity of schools result in less qualified students taking the places of those who are more deserving. This thread is another of that genre with the original poster taking a rather unique angle. Instead of merely criticizing the performance of low-income and first generation students — most of whom are likely racial or ethnic minorities — the original poster expresses sorrow for them. The original poster provides data compiled by the The Daily Princetonian — the student newspaper of Princeton University — from a survey of graduating students. Based on that data, the original poster finds that low-income and first generation students (those who are the first generation in their family to attend college) lag behind their peers in several metrics. The original poster wonders why Princeton is seeing such discrepancies if education is supposed to be the great equalizer. Some posters point out that low-income and first generation students still face significant disadvantages — for instance low-income students may have to work while their wealthier peers participate in free internships. Others point out that the gaps are not really that large and, moreover, the opportunties for these students likely exceed what would have been available to them if they had attended less prestigious colleges. But, as can be expected, there are posters who claim that this is evidence that universities are admitting unqualified students for ideological reasons. One poster suggested that the original poster was feeling sorry for these students for the wrong reasons, pointing out that these students often doen't get much support from home because nobody understands their experience and at school they are painfully aware that they are not part of the "elite". As such, their experience can be isolating. Later the thread devolves into a lot of discusion about the quality of k-12 education provided to low-income students and how that allegedly leaves them unqualified for college.

As usual I skipped blogging over the weekend other than the short post about the design update in the forums (something I'll get to later). So, today I am looking at the most active threads since Friday. The leading thread was actually the thread about transgender athletes that I discussed on Thursday. So, I'll skip that one and go to the next most active thread which was titled, "‘I’d rather have a happy kid at UMD than a miserable one at Harvard’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The quote in the thread's title is paraphrased from a post in another thread to which the original poster linked. The original poster disagrees with the sentiment expressed in the quote and thinks that kids who get burnt out and are miserable at Harvard would probably feel the same at any middling or better college. The poster cites her own experience as someone who was pushed by her parents and went to a high-pressur high school and believes that the intensity paid off. The original poster also references a thread that was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forom that was allegedly by a Columbia University student who precisely fits the profile of a miserable Ivy League student. That post was from a well-known troll who alternates between posting in the guise of a student and her disappointed parent. I received a number of reports by posters suspecting the original poster of this thread was also that troll. I am unable to confirm or disprove the suggestion. At any rate, the discussion in this thread goe in a lot of different directions. Some posters agree with the original poster that pushing children to succeed can benefit them. Others agree that kids who are over-stressed or depressed in due to the pressure of their high schools will probably continue to suffer from those conditions whether they attend Harvard or a lower-ranked school. But many posters argue that pressure on kids that results in depression and other ill effects is not helpful. If the same kid who is miserable at Harvard will also be miserable at a state university, it does not excuse putting pressure on kids. In fact the opposite is true. It is an indictment of that practice. Another poster contends that developing a strong sense of self, having fun, and making friends is more important to a child's future well-being than attending any particular college. The point being that, yes, a damaged child will be damaged regardless of the university they attend, so don't damage them in the first place. Rather allow them to attend to their current and future mental health rather than placing all effort and hope on getting into Harvard. Nothing can dissuade the original poster, however, who continues to reiterate her position throughout the thread.

Today we have released a slight redesign for the DCUM Forums. For years, posters have been asking for a design that was optimized for mobile users. An attempt to deploy such a design a few years ago ended amidst a host of user complaints and performance issues. I hope that this design has resolved both of those problems. There will not be a lot of differences for those using desktop devices. Mobile users, however, will find a completely redesigned interface. The top navigation bar and the left side menu (where "Recent Topic" is located), can now be found in two "hamburger" buttons in the top corners. The default font size for all devices has been increased. So, if you suddenly find the fonts to be too large, adjust the zoom level of your browser. I found that I have been running my browser with the pages zoom 120 percent so in this design I made that size the default and now have my browser at 100 percent zoom level. For those of you who simply cannot abide change, there is a link at the very bottom of the page to the legacy design.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "DC shut out from all but one, now wants a gap year" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title explains, the original poster's son, who had applied to a range of colleges, was shut out of all but his least favorite schools. Now, her son has lost interest in that college and no longer wants to attend. Instead, he wants to take a year off and work on his grandparents farm. Due to labor shortages, his grandparents are thrilled to have his help. However, the original poster and her husband not happy with this idea. They are concerned that next year will be even harder for their son to get accepted to his desired colleges and fear that he might not want even want to go to college next year. As you can expect, posters are divided about what to do. A considerable number support the son, thinking that he will have a year to mature and have a better idea about what he wants to do. They also argue that it is a bad idea to force a kid to attend a college against his wishes. Others believe gap years are a waste of time and that the son is reacting emotionally to a set-back. Some warn that his admissions options might even be worse next year and that he will be left with no choice beyond community college. Several posters focus on making the best of the gap year with suggestions such as taking online classes that can be transferred later and deferring his current acceptance so he will still have that opportunity. Another suggestion is to encourage him to attend the college to which he was admitted, but consider transferring to another school that he might like better. There is general agreement among those responding that a year spent helping his grandparents on their farm is a significantly more understandable use of a gap year than backpacking across Europe. Some posters think that an application essay based on that experience would write itself.

I woke up this morning feeling really good, sort of had an extra spring in my step, and thought to myself, "I'm going to kill it today". Then I sat down at my computer, pulled up the list of yesterday's most active threads and there, right at the top, was a thread about Meghan Markle. More specifically, a thread titled, "Meghan Markle Pink Short Suit at Lakers Game" and posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. So, this is why I got out of bed this morning? To write about Meghan's clothes? What is there to say? Meghan wore a suit. It was pink. She was at a basketball game and the suit got wrinkled. She also rolled up her sleeves. Apparently having wrinkled clothes and rolled up sleeves are major fashion faux pas (I say as I look at my wrinkled shirt and rolled up sleeves). I know nothing of fashion, but my intuition suggests that Washington, DC is not on the cutting edge of fashion trends. Similarly, I suspect that Los Angeles is light years ahead of us. So, when posters started complaining that Meghan's outfit was out-of-date and more fitting for the 90s, I remembered the one rule of fashion that I ever learned. "Keep your old clothes because they will eventually be in fashion again". Sure enough, it turns out that our future is going to look a lot like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman". Surprisingly, this thread stayed pretty much on topic. Only toward the end did it start to diverge into the sort of Royal Family in-fighting that characterizes most of these threads. Of course, Meghan and her outfit had both their fans and their detractors. To her credit, the original poster was definitely a fan. But, other than the wrinkles and rolled-up sleeves, most of what posters thought was wrong with the outfit turned out to have been choices made by the designer. Perhaps Meghan didn't wear it well, but she wore it correctly. Given the number of posters insisting that the suit represents the current style, I suspect that a year from now DC will be filled with women dressed in colorful boxy shorts with blazers draped over them like a towel hanging from a bed post. There will be one group that will conspicuously stand out by not adhering to the trend: the Meghan haters for whom the look as been forever ruined.