Friday's Most Active Threads

It continues to be college admission season which means that threads about college admissions continue to dominate the "most active threads" list. Yesterday's most active thread was one example. Titled, "UVA EA Stats" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum, the original post consists almost entirely of a link to a blog post by a University of Virginia Associate Dean which provides University of Virginia Early Action admission statistics. The one consistent characteristic of college application threads is the conviction by posters that the procedures are unfair and biased against them. In this case, posters are convinced that northern Virginia is not sufficiently represented in UVA admissions which, they believe, favor applicants from other parts of Virginia. This highlights one of the great contradictions I've come across from reading DCUM. Starting at an early age, many DCUM posters begin plotting their child's course to a prestigious college. If they plan on using public schools, they choose a neighborhood that feeds to top schools, follow school developments like a bloodhound on a raccoon's trail, make sure their kids check all the right boxes for extracurricular activities and take all the correct high school classes. But, then, come college application time they suddenly become convinced that this is all working against them. They come to believe that every other kid in their high-achieving high school, indeed every kid in every high school in the neighboring area, has the same qualifications as their kid. Moreover, just as in the case of Lake Wobegon, all of them are above average. Far above average to hear them tell it. The idea that some of these students, particularly if that student is the poster's child, might be turned down for admission while an applicant from rural southwestern Virginia is accepted simply cannot be countenanced. As such, this thread mostly consists of posters arguing that northern Virginia is being mistreated, other posters trying to convince those posters this is not the case, and a third group of posters who can't pop popcorn fast enough while they intentionally stir the pot or simply stand back and enjoy the show. This basically continues for 15 pages so far.

The next thread I'll discuss was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. Titled, "Greedy rich people", the original poster broadly asks why some rich people are "so incredibly greedy?" More specifically, the original poster discusses a conflict within her family involving her brothers who are fighting with her over an inheritance. Some of those responding address the broader topic, with some explaining that having money does not protect individuals from normal human frailties — greed included — and others suggesting that this is simply a characteristic of the wealthy, without which they wouldn't have become wealthy. A few of those responding do a pretty good job of illustrating exactly what the original poster is describing and suggest offense at the mere suggestion that someone might expect even a penny from them. However, most of the discussion focuses on the dispute between the original poster and her brothers. The original poster acknowledges that her brothers contributed more than she did to support of aging relatives. However, she attributes this to their differences in means. Her brothers had significantly higher incomes and, therefore, abilities to contribute than she did. Now that an inheritance has been divided equally between the siblings, the original poster's brothers are fighting for some of her inheritance based on the fact that they contributed more to the relative's care. The original poster doesn't seem as upset about the possibility of losing money as she is surprised and frustrated by the efforts being made by those who really don't need the funds. Particularly because not even very much money is a stake. Some posters take the brothers' side by arguing that their contributions were essentially loans which should be paid back before the inheritance is divided. Others argue that this was not the case and that the brothers should not expect more than an equal share. A few posters go so far as to argue that the original poster is greedy for expecting an equal share of the inheritance while having contributed less. The one thing clear from this thread is that inheritances can cause particularly nasty conflicts.

The third thread I'll discuss was titled, "Airlines and seating families together" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. This topic seems to be popular as I discussed a very similar thread recently. In this case, the original poster thought that she heard of a new policy requiring airlines to seat families together. She is in the process of booking tickets and wants to avoid paying extra to have assigned seats that are together if such a policy will make that unnecessary. It takes several posts before someone explains that there has been no such policy change and while President Joe Biden has called for a ban on family-seating fees, nobody knows when, or even if, such a change will occur. Instead, everyone simply argues about children and seating. Some posters are adamant that families should either pay more to sit together, expect to be separated, or not bother to fly. Many of these posters would not exchange their seat to allow a child to sit with her parents under any circumstances. In fact, they describe elaborate procedures they are prepared to follow in order to successfully ignore a needy child that might be seated next to them. If you have ever noticed a smug adult adorned in noise-cancelling headphones, a blindfold, and sipping a scotch and water while uncaringly siting next to a young child puking from motion sickness and crying for her parents, you have probably spotted a DCUM poster. At the other end of the spectrum are parents who refuse to pay for assigned seats and happily entrust the well-being and safety of their children to whatever random stranger happens to end up seated next to them. Many of these parents say that they are normally accommodated and that they have not ended up separated, though others have tales of having to fly with their children seated elsewhere. For her part, the original poster provided an update on the second page of the thread to say that she had paid extra for seats that are together. That did not prevent the debate raging for another ten pages so far.

The last thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum, though I am not sure that is the correct forum for the thread. Titled, "Graduate one year early. What next?", the original poster says that her son will be graduating a year early from college and rather than immediately getting a job, he wants to use the $42,000 that will be saved to travel around the world for a year. While the original poster is leaning in favor of this idea, her husband opposes it. She wants to know the pros and cons of doing this. I don't think anyone who replied supported the original poster's son's idea. Some opposed the suggestion very strongly, even saying that the mere suggestion reflected poorly on the original poster's parenting skills. Many considered the child to be entitled and privileged. Others said that they would consider using the money for a house or car, but not travel. When the original poster revealed that her son had studied computer science, several posters warned that things can change a lot in a year in that field and, therefore, missing a year could be a mistake. A few posters had stories about their own gap years or those of friends, but those were not funded by parents. I guess I am in the minority in thinking that this is a great opportunity for the original poster's son and that while I might not completely agree with the amount of money or whether an entire year is necessary, the idea in general should be considered. The son is unlikely to have another opportunity for such an endeavor and, while he is certainly privileged to be in such a position, part of that is his own doing and I don't see why he should be obligated to not take advantage of his privilege in this case. In 40 years the son is much more likely to have better memories of time spent travelling than his first year of work.