Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed so I'll skip them. As a topic, discussion of air quality easily overwhelmed everything yesterday with threads on various aspects of DC's smoke-filled air popping up in nearly every forum. One of those titled, "Red air quality, are you limiting activity?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, was yesterday's third most active thread. The original poster said that she had moved a meeting that had been planned for outdoors to the inside and was debating about what to do about her kids' swim team in the evening. In many ways, yesterday's reaction to the poor air quality was reminiscent of the COVID pandemic, right down to debates about masks. Many posters went into full panic mode, avoiding nearly any outside exposure and making dire warnings. Others proudly bragged about having just returned from long, maskless runs outside. Posters snarked at those showing concern, implying that they were Chicken Littles. While some posters described a range of adverse reactions to the smoke including watering eyes and sore throats, others claimed to feel nothing as a result of the poor air quality. Discussion turned to related topics such as how to mitigate poor air quality by using air purifiers and who or what was responsible for the smoke. Throughout the thread posters reported about various events being cancelled, again bringing back memories of COVID shutdowns. The COVID analogy was even more explicit in several posts with their authors engaging in past arguments from COVID discussions.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. Titled, "Grandparents insist on taking my kids’ first class seats", the original poster says that her husband used frequent flyer miles to obtain first-class airplane seats for their family which includes a teen son and teen daughter. Subsequently, the original poster's parents purchased coach tickets to join them on the trip but now want to trade seats with the kids. Somehow this managed to turn into a 22 page thread and I won't be able to read very much of it. But, at least at the beginning, most posters sided with the grandparents and thought that the kids should switch to coach. A few believed the grandparents are acting entitled and sided with the original poster's husband who doesn't want them to switch seats. I don't know if it was simply the luck of the draw, but while skimming the thread I can across a number of fairly atrocious posts. One poster couldn't believe that the grandparents were not wealthy enough to afford their own first class seats, claiming that her parents "killed it as equity and real estate investors". This was basically seen as a character flaw in the grandparents. A big fight broke about about culture and the differences in how cultures treat the elderly with many posters proudly claiming that in their culture the grandparents would respectfully be offered the seats. In contrast, other posters argued that in their cultures the grandparents would be too proud to expect someone else to pay for their seats. One solution promoted by several posters was to let the grandparents have the seats on this trip, but not to travel with them again in the future. In the end, posters were able to find fault with just about everyone other than the original poster's teenage son who was said to be willing to exchange seats.

The next most active thread was titled, "married by 30" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Recently, the relationship forum has been home to a number of debates concerning the best age at which to get married. The original poster of this thread cuts directly to the chase, asking for the wisdom behind the advice to get married by 30. There are a number of arguments in favor of younger marriages. For instance, some posters argue that the most opportune time is after you have been out of college for a few years and can enjoy a bit of single life. Marrying before 30 then allows the married couple to spend a few years childfree and enjoying each other before fertility becomes an issue. Others suggest that the most eligible partners will already be taken if you wait too long. Some posters like the idea of being young parents and also being young when the kids leave the house. Some even look forward to being young grandparents. In contrast, many posters think waiting longer has advantages such as being more mature and having a longer period of being carefree and single. Somewhere in between are posters who believe the "best" time is when you and a desirable partner are ready. They fear that fixating on marriage before or after a certain age can lead to poor choices in spouses. One topic of debate concerned the best time to enjoy activities with your spouse. Advocates of early marriage argued that kids would leave home while the parents were still relatively young. The parents would likely have greater financial resources than in their early years of marriage and could afford travel and leisure opportunities that had not been affordable when they were in their 20s or 30s. On the other hand were posters who couldn't imagine waiting until their 50s or older for travel and adventure. They wanted those things while they were young and would put off marriage if that was required. As usual in such threads, many posters describe their own marriages, either as examples to support one or other of the arguments or as a warning of what to avoid. There is also a lot of discussion that is not directly relevant such as mariage trends in various other parts of the country.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Columbia permanently pulls out of US news", the original poster reports that Columbia University has decided not to submit data to the U.S. News and World Report magazine for use in its college ranking guides. The original poster wonders if other colleges will follow. Anyone who has spent time in our college forum will likely be aware of the role played by US News' college rankings. Some posters rely on them heavily and use them to promote or criticize colleges based on how they rank. Others are convinced that colleges game the lists in order to artificially boost their ranking. In this case, it seems to that data Columbia submitted to US News was challenged and a subsequent investigation discovered errors. As such, this doesn't appear to be the most principled of efforts by the university but rather a reaction to having been called out. The university, on the other hand, says that the rankings don't adequately quantify the full Columbia experience. Many of those responding agree with my analysis that Columbia is reacting to having been caught cheating. Others suggest that changes in the US News ranking methodology will cause Columbia's ranking to drop and that motivated the pull out. Several posters in the thread are pleased by Columbia's decision and hope that other colleges will follow. They see the rankings as having a negative impact as students engage in a feeding frenzy applying to the top ranked schools. There are intense debates about the validity of the rankings with many specific examples argued. The thread is rife with dead horses being beaten well beyond their "use by" dates. Of course no thread linked to admissions, however tenuously, would be complete without someone complaining about "holistic admissions" and allegedly unfair admissions practices which several posters are convinced are designed to prevent the best and the brightest students from being admitted. I have no idea what that has to do with this thread, but I am not at all surprised that it is there.