Sunday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Our Current Situation - Not thrilled" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster describes her child's qualifications and lists the current state of several college applications which include one deferral and several acceptances. In addition, the student is still waiting to hear from a number of other universities. The original poster describes herself as not thrilled with the situation because apparently her expectations exceded the current results. This thread was reported as a troll thread and several accusations of trolling were posted almost immediately. One reason for this is that the original poster switched the gender of the child in the first post, at times describing the child as male and at other times referring to the child as "her". The original poster subsequently blamed this on a typo. I suspect that this is not trolling exactly, but rather the case of an over-anxious parent who has probably started multiple threads and is either trying to prevent posters from making the connection to earlier threads or has some sort of privacy concern that the poster believes can be alleviated by hiding her child's true gender. Despite the concerns over trolling, this thread reach 10 pages which, frankly, I don't have interest in reading. I know from experience that posters in this forum love to nitpick college admissions and I expect that whatever anxieties the original poster may have been feeling at the beginning of the thread were probably doubled by the end of it.

The second most active thread yesterday was also posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This one is titled, "Is Yale losing its luster?" and begins with the original poster's assertion that the university no longer has the cachet that it once had. From what I have read of this thread, which isn't very much, it seems to have a lot in common with yesterday's thread about meritocracy in admissions. There appears to be a fairly common belief that changes to college and university admissions processes have resulted in the recruitment of less qualified students. The third poster to respond made a similar observation and offered some ideas for improving admissions procedures. Whereas many posters who criticize the current state of admissions imply that a return to the old ways would be welcome, the author of this response advances new ideas. I read this response very quickly and had a negative first reaction to it. Then I read it more carefully and found it to be insightful, if far too short. I'd love to see this poster expound her her ideas. Regarding the broader topic of whether or not Yale is losing it luster, I've only read enough of the thread to say that some posters think that it has and others think that it hasn't.

The third most active thread was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum and titled, "I oppose WFH because it will be more difficult for me to meet a spouse". My first reaction upon seeing this thread was to wonder if it was meant to be tongue in cheek. My second reaction was to think it might have been better for the relationship forum. Ironically, having just mentioned yesterday's thread about meritocracy in university admissions, I have reason to believe this poster was the original poster of that thread as well. If so, that probably makes this poster the first in the history of this blog to be responsible for entries on two consecutive days. I further suspect that both threads may be attributed more to the poster's imagination than the threads' grounding in reality. Either way, the original poster's contention that working from home makes meeting a potential spouse more difficult is dismissed by most who respond. Given my understanding that relationships these days begin with swiping right, I was surprised that someone would rely on their office, especially with today's "metoo" concerns. I see that some of those responding share my perspective. Other posters offer suggestions for alternative methods of meeting a prospective mate and others still debate whether meeting at the office was ever really a thing. Several posters, probably demonstrating accurate perceptions, suggest that the original poster is a boomer rather than the member of Gen Z that she is attempting to portray. Since I hate generational labels, I have no opinion on that matter.

The final thread at which I'll look today was titled, "OMG Leave your sibling at home!" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster is angry because she recently hosted her child's birthday party and several parents asked if they could bring their child's siblings or just showed up with them. The original poster says the party was held in a place with limited space. I might have been more sympathetic to the original poster had she not started one of her responses by saying, "Not OP but..." Come on folks, this is an anonymous forum. You don't have to further obfuscate things with shenanigans like this. Many of those who responded supported the original poster and believe that, unless explicitly invited, siblings should not come along. However, some posters faulted the original poster for not explicitly stating on the invitation that siblings were not invited. Other posters described traditions in which "the more the merrier" is the rule. They believe that siblings should be welcome. As at least one poster mentions, siblings at parties has always been a contentious issue on DCUM and guaranteed to rile posters up.