Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "WaPo: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough.". The thread was originally posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, but since the thread is not specific to MCPS, I moved it to the "Schools and Education General Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in The Washington Post discussing efforts by schools to combat the usage of mobile phones in school by students. Mobile phone usage has apparently increased dramatically following the pandemic. The article describes a $16 pouch in which some schools are requiring students to store their phones during school hours, provoking the original poster to criticize the article as an "advertisement" for spending money instead of setting and enforcing rules. However, the article also discusses schools that have forgone the pouches and set and enforced the rules that the orignal poster advocates. The first poster to respond suggests that an effective intervention that only costs $16 per kid would be the cheapest solution yet. My main takeaway from this thread is that, perhaps as a result of their own mobile phone addictions, participants in the thread had a difficult time staying on topic. Within the first four posts, the discussion was switched to talking about textbooks. Then posters turned to talking about the use of Chromebooks and on-line learning. Just to be clear, the Post article is about students using phones while they are supposed to be either studying or listening to their teachers. The phones are not being used as part of the learning process. They certainly are not replacing textbooks or school-issued Chromebooks for that matter. Those topics are interesting and worthy of their own threads, but not relevant to this one. Posters who oppose mobile phone use during class suggest that not only are students distracted themselves by their phones, but they distract others in the class as well. Moreover, the phone are frequently used to cheat. A surprising number of posters were in favor of kids having their phones in class. One poster argued that it was the teachers' fault for not making lessons interesting if kids were distracted by their phones. Quite a few posters joined the original poster in advocating for strictly-enforced policies about mobile phone usage, but others argued that it should not be part teachers' jobs to enforce this and that it could place them in legal or physical danger given that teachers have been either sued or beaten for taking mobile phone away. Another surprising theme of some replies was to claim that mobile phones are analogous to comic books or rock music as things that "the olds" thought were ruining the youth but weren't. I think those type of replies missed the point. To my knowledge, reading comic books or listening to rock music during class, much like using mobile phones, is not considered a problem because it is going to corrupt our youth, but because it is interfering with children's education.

Yesterday's second most active thread was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "I asked out a 19/20 year old girl today who I thought was a grown adult woman", the original poster, who says that he is a 42-year-old divorced dad, describes being outside for a walk when he came upon an attractive women who he believe to be in her 30s. He had noticed the woman around before, but this was his first opportunity to talk to her. After walking together for a while and having a nice conversation, he asked if they could meet again. She turned him down saying that she was about to return to college, causing the original poster to realize that she was probably only about 19-years-old. The original poster feels like a creep for unintentionally hitting on someone so much younger them himself. While there are a number of posters on the thread who don't think a woman should ever be asked out in such circumstances, most posters are fairly supportive of the original poster. He is excused for not recognizing her age and his instant acceptance of her declining to meet him again is, if not exactly applauded, at least mentioned approvingly. As is normal for DCUM threads, some posters missed the point entirely. For instance, there is quite a bit of criticism of the original poster for approaching a much younger woman, missing the fact that the original poster didn't realize that he was doing that and felt terrible about it when he realized it. The thread highlights the clearly differing views about the appropriateness of asking out strangers held by our posters. Some posters think that this is a completely normal activity that the liberal media has brainwashed people into opposing. Others welcome being asked out in the appropriate circumstances, there are just differences of opinion about what circumstances are appropriate. Another poster who is among those who are completely oblivious to the situation that the original poster described, advocates alerting other neighborhood parents that the original poster is a threat to their 13-19 year old daughters. Again, the original poster approached someone he believed to be in her 30s. Learning that she was probably 19 made him feel like a creep. What could this poster possibly imagine that suggests that the original poster is interested in 13-year-olds? Several posters commented on how the young woman had politely and successfully declined the original poster's approach. While there is broad agreement that this is a commendable and even necessary skill for women, there were many complaints that this is required. The implication of some responses is that men should never place a woman in the position of needing to turn down an unwanted approach.

The third most active thread yesterday was titled, "As schools near $100K/year when will that affect the pool of students?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster notes that the University of Southern California now costs $95k a year and wonders at what point schools will become so expensive that it affects their applicant pool either because families can't afford it or simply don't think it is worth it. Some posters believe this has already started to happen and point to the growing interest in universities that provide merit aid and the increased popularity of state universities that are normally cheaper. Others believe that growing interest from wealthy international students will allow prices to continue to rise. Several posters argue that prices will not be an obstacle as long as loans are easily available. This leads to quite a bit of discussion about the problems with student loans. The general consensus seems to be that as long as loans are available, schools have no reason to worry about prices. However, loans are a really bad idea and everyone should avoid them. Nevertheless, people still take out loans, leading to multiple problems, the increasing college costs being just one of them. There is quite a bit of discussion of so-called "donut hole" families — those families who earn too much to be eligible for need-based financial aid but not enough to afford expensive schools. One contention is that the increasing costs really only impact donut hole families but that the donut hold is increasing in size. That alludes to another point made by some posters who argue that rising costs are already having an impact, but that the impact is incremental and, therefore, not easily noticeable. The thread also turned toward ideas for reducing the cost of college. For instance, one poster listed several ways a student could become "independent", meaning that their parent's income was no longer considered when calculating financial aid. Becoming independent means that students will likely become eligible for increased financial aid. This could easily move a student from the donut hole to the group for whom education is paid through financial aid. The thread is full of personal anecdotes and stories of personal experiences dealing with college affordability. These demonstrate the myriad of ways families are tackling this issue.

The final thread at which I'll look was posted in the "Parenting -- Special Concerns" forum. Titled, "Why is it so acceptable to alienate Dad?", the original poster's complete post is simply, "Dad wants to see his kid. Mom refuses." Obviously, there is not a lot to work with here and it doesn't appear that the original poster ever returned to the thread. So those responding are left to their own imaginations. This makes the thread essentially useless as it is little more than posters tossing out one-liners much like a bunch of Twitter trolls trying to "pwn" each other. Basically, female responders blame dads for any custody issues and male responders blame moms. There is also a lot of back and forth about court-ordered custody arrangements which is apparently another of those topics that everyone involved feels is biased against them. At any rate, given the original poster's absence, the thread is certainly not helping him and I doubt that it is doing much for anyone else either. It is, however, providing a thorough presentation of several posters' personal grievances. There's is really not much more to say about the thread than that.