Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday, by some measure, was titled, "Why do donut hole families" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread, which garnered and amazing 21 pages of responses in just one day, discusses the families whose finances fall in the "donut hole" between those wealthy enough to easily afford college and those poor enough to qualify for need-based financial assistance. The original poster claims that there are plenty of in-state options, lower-tier private colleges, and even some out of state public universities that are affordable if families are not fixated on out-of-reach Ivy League schools. I don't have time to read much of this thread but from what I can tell, many posters are resentful to have found themselves in the donut hole. Some posters explain that having grown up in less financially well off families, they were forced to take out loans for college. They then got good jobs and worked hard to climb the corporate ladder which puts them outside the bracket that is eligible for need-based aid. However, the burden of paying off their own loans meant they could not save for their own children's college. Now they are too wealthy for aid and too poor to afford top colleges. Other posters argue that the term "donut hole" is misleading because it understates the realities of being poor. Being poor does not mean that college affordability issues suddenly disappear and that poor families struggle just as much, and in most cases even more, than so-called donut hole families. A few posters have little sympathy for families in this situation, describing this as a failure to save and misplaced priorities. Quite a few posters do circle back to the original poster's point that many affordable options do exist if people would choose to pursue them. As one posters writes, "Why isn’t in-state good enough for people? Stop going after prestige and prestigious institutions."

The second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "Has confronting the other woman ever gone well?", the original poster says that she found out about her husband's affair and confronted the other woman, only to be shocked by the woman's accustory tone and lack of empathy. As far as I can tell, the original poster did not post again in this thread and, therefore, essentially tossed a lit match into a barrel of gasoline and walked away. Nevertheless, 10 pages of responses were contributed without her further involvement. There seems to be general agreement that confronting the other woman never works. One explanation for this is that everything the woman knows about the wife comes from the husband who has likely described her in the worst terms in order to justify the affair. Others argue that a woman with emotional intelligence wouldn't find herself in an affair in the first place, and therefore empathy is probably too much to expect. Several posters insist that the original poster's problem is with her husband, not the other woman, and she should be confronting him instead. A few posters describe having been the "other woman" at some point and describe how they would feel had they been confronted. At some point the thread transitioned into championing the other woman with posters describing women they have known in such situations or discussing in general how such relationships come about. However, these posts provoked strongly worded and often angry responses by posters who had little sympathy.

The third most active thread was titled, "JMU decisions out" and, like the first thread of today's post, was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title says, James Madison University announced its regular decision admissions results yesterday. The original poster started this thread in a sort of strange manner. Instead of announcing her child's result or wishing others luck, she posted a plea that those who were accepted but not planning to go to the college turn down their acceptance as soon as possible, saying the situation was "heartbreaking". One can surmise from this that her child was waitlisted and is hoping to be offered a spot as others choose different schools. Other than some initial confusion caused by the original post, this thread appears to have gone the way of most threads dealing with admissions decisions. Those who were admitted are happy. Those who were not admitted insist that their kid is highly qualified and absolutely deserved to have been accepted but was a victim of various circumstances. These circumstances include JMU's use of the Common App, making standardized admissions exams optional, and a result of JMU not having an early decision round of admissions. The theory here is that the Common App and optional tests makes applying easy and therefore attracts a huge number of applicants that are not serious about attending the school and will likely choose other options if they have them. An Early Decision process, which requires accepted students to commit to the university, would provide an opportunity for those who are serious to gain admission. Some posters argue that universities accept more students than they expect to enroll because they know that many accepted students will not end up attending. Therefore, there is not much hope of being offered a slot from the waitlist and those who are waitlisted — of whom there are many in this thread — should move on rather than holding out hope.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. Titled, "Would you move your 15-year-old across the country for a new dream job?", the original poster explains that he is interviewing for a job that would require him to move across the country. This would require uprooting his 15 year old son. The job is a dream job that he has wanted for years and pays well, but he is concerned about his son having to adjust to a new city, new friends, a new school, etc. The poster asks for other's thoughts. Many, maybe most, of those responding advise against moving, saying that it would be too difficult on the teen. They argue that the original poster must put his child's interests ahead of his own. Several posters say that it depends on the child and that some could handle the move better than others. There are a number of posters who relate personal experiences, or the experiences of friends, with such moves, some of which turned out fine and some that didn't. As frequently happens in DCUM discussions, the original poster gets contrary advice. Some tell him not to discuss the potential move with his child until it becomes more likely. On other other hand, posters urge him to bring the child into the discussion as early as possible so that the child can feel like he is having some input rather than being presented with a final decision. Some posters searched for creative solutions such as having the child stay with family here rather than moving (I don't think there is family here, however) or the original poster moving first and the rest of the family following after the child graduates. Both of these solutions seem extreme to consider at a time when the child has not even been made aware of the move. As some posters point out, the teen might welcome such a move and find new opportunties exciting.