Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Are privates that don’t offer merit aid still enrolling the best students?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her child is turning down an Ivy League acceptance due to the cost of the university and, instead, will attend a state flagship school. The original poster wonders if this is an indication that many of the best students may be avoiding top private schools that don't provide merit aid. Many of the threads I've discussed in these blog posts have touched on similar topics. The rising cost of college has resulted in many students/ families earning too much to be eligible for need-based financial assistance but not enough to afford $85k a year colleges. One result is that students turn toward less prestigious, but still very good, schools that offer merit aid. Several of those who responded agreed that this is a trend with many of those saying that they noticed it themselves. On other other hand, others argue that this is not a new development and that students have always turned down Ivy League schools due to cost. The discussion in this thread goes in a couple of different directions. Many of the posts question whether Ivy League schools still have the prestige that they once had. Some posters suggest that in addition to the cost, other factors such as holistic admissions policies, have led to demographic changes that no longer make these universities as elite as they once were. Similarly, many posters argue that state universities that were traditionally not considered academic powerhouses now attract top students. The other direction the discusion takes is continued focuse on the cost issue. Many posters stress the existence of "donut hole" families such as those described above who make too much for need-based aid but not enough to pay for expensive schools. While just about everyone acknowledges that many families are in this situation, there are differences about what to do about it. At least one poster expresses hope that families will begin to save for education at an earlier age. Others argue that many families can't save the amount required for today's college costs. In response to that, a poster suggests that those families have not made paying for college their number 1 priority and that they should take out loans. That, of course, leads to a discusion about loan forgiveness.

Next was a thread posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Titled, "Millie Bobby Brown engaged", the original poster goes on to say that Brown is only 19-years-old which she considers very young for marriage and is engaged to the son of Jon Bon Jovi. I've never heard of Millie Bobby Brown. After so many years of running DCUM, when I see a thread on a topic that is not familiar to me but has nevertheless been very active, I immediately assume that the thread has gone off the rails and is nothing but a big fight. Mostly I am right about this, but occasionally it turns out that I am basically the only one for whom the topic is unknown and my expectations are inaccurate. At first, this seemed to be a case of the latter. I may be the only person on DCUM who has never seen an episode of "Stranger Things". Nor have I seen any other show or movie in which Brown has appeared. So, the obsession some posters have for her is quite surprising to me. Because the original poster was concerned about Brown's age, many posters pointed out that her years as a celebrity have caused her to grow up quick and that she can't be compared to others of that age. More than one poster commented on the likelihood of the couple having children. Some posters expressed concern that a pregnancy might interfere with her role on "Stranger Things" while others look forward to a baby. One poster wondered why others were so interested in a stranger's reproductive choices, resulting in another poster insisting that they weren't strangers, but celebrities. I am sure that says something about our culture, but I am not sure that it is good. Beyond the issues of age and pregnancy, other topcis include Brown's attractiveness, the likelihood of the marriage lasting, and whether or not Jake Bongiovi will cheat on her. Ultimately, the thread does go mostly off the rails and turns into a fight over her age and whether the couple will have children. So, I declare myself vindicated and my initial expectations correct.

Third was a thread titled, "Why don’t advocates for the homeless build spacious housing for them 1-2 hours away from DC?" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. I've said before that the easiest way to be sure that your thread is active is to include so many things that are wrong in your original post that nobody can resist responding in order to correct you. This is a near perfect example of that strategy, though I suspect it was not intended. The original poster suggests building housing for the homeless near the Maryland/Pennsylvania border and busing the individuals to and from DC. The problems with this idea should immediately be apparent to anyone who has any sort of understanding of DC's unhoused population. The first poster to respond compares this idea to reservations and another later compares them concentration camps. A poster asks what would happen if they don't want to go and the original poster responds that they should be given the option of moving to the new location, going to prison, or finding market rate housing. Then when a poster asks if this means that being homeless would be made illegal, the original poster confirms that is the case. The many and varied paths to fascism always surprise me, but homeless being housed in Connecticut Avenue hotels is not one that I had expected. But, that seems to be the case here. As posters point out the flaws of this proposal, the original poster comes up with solutions. He doesn't present any ideas about how to pay for those solutions, many of which have been tried and failed already. Much of what he suggests could be done in existing DC shelters if funding were available. Several posters make fools of themselves in this thread with flippant suggestions like being "homeless" inbounds for Whitman High School so that her kids can go there. I suspect that the amount of time the poster would last living in unhoused conditions could be measured in minutes, but there is nothing stopping her from giving the idea a go.

The final thread at which I'll look today was another one posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Why emphasize arts, theatre, etc when looking at colleges?", I assmed that the original poster was asking why applicants stress these talents on applications. Instead, the original poster was actually asking why schools with good programs in those areas are are given priority when searching for a college. The poster compared the fine arts to athletics, saying that the point was to go to college and it shouldn't matter if you were on a good or bad team. I have to say that this thread has some of the most sensible responses that I've read on DCUM. Many posters point out that students with fine arts or athletic skills may have depended on those talents to get them into the school in the first place and still want to pursue their passions in those areas. In many cases, they may have scholarships as a result of those talents. Another point that was made is that when posters compare fine arts programs, they are not necessarily suggesting that they would choose a school with a good fine arts program over one with a better academic program in the student's field. Rather they are saying that if there is a choice between several schools with good academics, they might pick the one with the better fine arts program. To some extent the original poster is displaying a mindset about which I have complained before which is seeing college in strictly utilitarian terms. Basically, the mindset is that the purpose of college is to help you get a good job and, for instance, an art class is not going to improve an electrical engineer's career opportunities. In contrast, most of the posters in this thread see the college experience as significantly broader than that. To them, college is a period of growth in which various talents should be nurtured, not only those with direct applicability to the job market. Several posters argue that fine arts and sports programs are helpful diversions from stressful academic courses and lead to an all-around more enjoyable college experience. I've been saddened by the number of threads that seemed to view college as little more than a vocational school on steroids and I'm thrilled to see so much full-throated support for a more well-rounded education.