DCUM Weblog

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.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Biden will run again" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread follows President Joe Biden's announcement by video that he will run for reelection. This thread exemplifies much of what is wrong with the DCUM political forum and, indeed, the entire US political system. First, the initial post is lazy, simply complaining that the country is incapable of nominating anyone less than 70 years old. Hopefully that poster realizes that an announcement of a candidacy is not a nomination. A nomination is still to come. Moreover, the country has previously nominated a number of candidates younger than 70, so this statement is actually untrue. Finally, this topic could have done with a bit more substance. If the original poster is not happy with the current candidates, who does he propose take their place? Which person younger than 70 does the original poster prefer, and why? Most of those replying share the original poster's concern that Biden is too old and another candidate would be better. However, there a few ideas about who that candidate might be and those that are proposed are also met with criticism. Democratic-leaning posters seem to be frustrated with their inability to identify a perfect candidate who lacks even a single flaw. This is a problem because many posters demonstrate that even the slightest flaw is a dealbreaker. Probably the clearest example of this is a poster who says she would not vote for California Governor Gavin Newsome because his ex-wife is in a relationship with Donald Trump, Jr. Has anyone checked on the relationship status of Marla Maples to see if that would disqualify former President Trump? Biden enter the presidential race last time because he believed defeating Trump was essential and he believed that he had the best chance to do it. Enough Americans agreed with him to put him into the White House. Biden seems to believe the same thing continues to be true. Democrats don't seem happy about it, but few have presented much of a case to show that Biden is wrong. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, you go into the campaign with the candidate you have, not the candidate that you wished you had. As things stand now, the election appears that it will be little more than a referendum on Trump. Biden's main campaign issue will be Trump and all the dangers he presents. Trump's main campaign issue will also be Trump because nothing else matters to Trump other than Trump.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Tucker out at Fox News????" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson leaving the network. While Fox's announcement said that the network and Carlson had "agreed to part ways", it is pretty clear that this was a decision taken by Fox management and came as a complete surprise to Carlson. Both Carlson fans and detractors were similarly surprised and the early responses in the thread were a mixture of surprise and joy. The general sentiment was that this was a much deserved outcome to Carlson's years of lying and provocation. A number of posters wondered what Carlson would do next with many speculating that he would simply join another network. Some speculated that he might run for president or vice president. There was quite a bit of discussion about why Carlson was suddenly removed from his position. He had concluded his Friday night broadcast by saying, "We'll be back on Monday" but his unceremonious removal on Monday morning prevented that. Many posters, including myself, guessed that Carlson's departure had something to do with the Dominion lawsuit that just cost Fox $787.5 million in a settlement fee. The Washington Post reported that it was due to private comments Carlson made about colleagues and Fox executives that were revealed as part of the Dominion lawsuit. Yet a third explanation that was widely circulated claimed Carlson's firing was related to a lawsuit by Abby Grossberg, a former booker for his show, that alleged sexual discrimination and a hostile workplace. Carlson fans were in short supply in this thread. A few showed up to defend his intelligence or to predict great things for him in the future, but, in general, they were surprisingly quite. One thing I noticed from reading this thread is the stature given Carlson, not just as a Fox News personality, but as an informal leader of the Republican Party. In many ways, former President Donald Trump has sucked the oxygen out of the party with the leading elected Republican, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, often viewed as a "Republican in name only" or RINO who doesn't command the loyalty of many grass root party members. Only Carlson, with his Fox megaphone, has been able to break through the Trump distortion field. It is unlikely that whoever replaces Carlson at Fox will have near the politcal impact.

As is my habit now, I skipped blogging for the weekend. Therefore, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t U.S. hospitals let women sleep quietly for the night in the hospital after giving birth?" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum. The original poster argues that hospitals should allow postpartum mothers to sleep through the night while the baby is put in a nursery. The poster says that recovery should be treated like recovery from a surgery with no interrupted sleep. A nurse immediately corrects the original poster to say that patients recovering from surgery are also awaken several times per night to take vitals, administer medicine, and draw blood. Nevertheless, several posters agree with the original poster that new moms should be allowed to sleep. Multiple posters explain that this is what is known as "baby-friendly" care aimed at encouraging breastfeeding and bonding. The majority of those responding clearly consider it "mother unfriendly". This is a 21 page thread so I can't read it all, or even very much of it. But, from what I see, posters have strong opinions about the best way to treat mothers who have just given birth. Most, like the original poster, would be happy to get a good night's sleep after hours of labor. A few don't want to give up their babies for even a minute and prefer the baby be left with them. While the original poster was addressing the immediate aftermath of giving birth, quite a few of the responders looked at the topic more broadly. Several described checking out of the hospital within 24 hours and recovering at home. There are clear socio-economic and cultural factors at play. Posters with means were able to hire postpartum doulas and other homecare professionals. Obviously, not every woman could afford to do this. There is considerable discussion of birth and recovery practices in other cultures and countries. The US healthcare system is subjected to considerable criticism. Much of the discussion stems from the fact that medical care in the US is largely treated as a business. Therefore, hospitals strive for efficiency and cost-savings and adequate staffing is often an issue. In other countries, healthcare is viewed as a service and emphasis is placed on its quality and efficacy, resulting in what many posters view as more appropriate practices. One of the biggest differences of opinion concerns whether the baby should be treated as a patient with staff dedicated to its care or whether care of the baby should be primarily left to the mother and whatever support she can muster (the father being the most common suggestion). Advocates of both viewpoints weigh-in vociferously.