Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The admissions change we can maybe all agree on . . ." and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The admissions change that the original poster proposes is to limit international students at US universities to no more than 5% of the class, creating more space for US citizens. At least at first, this suggestion is not well-received. Several posters argue that international students normally are full-pay and sometimes even pay higher tuition rates. That money helps universities meet financial needs that would otherwise have to be covered by increasing costs to other students. Other posters argue that universities have an interest in attracting the brightest minds and that often requires recruiting foreign students. Just about every assertion that the original poster included in the original post was contested. For instance, the original poster's claim about elite colleges having significant foreign enrollment was shown to be false. Similarly the claim that financial aid for international students is rare was challenged with data showing otherwise. One of the arguments in favor of international students was that they increase diversity on campus. The entire concept of "diversity" is controversial these days, especially after the Supreme Court's ruling about affirmative action. Many posters predict that Asians and Asian-Americans will dominate admissions at elite universities going forward. Some look forward to this development while others raise it as a concern. As a result, some of those responding interpret the original poster's argument as an simply another attempt to reduce the number of Asian students. The debate over whether this proposal was primarily aimed at Asians became so heated that I eventually locked the thread. While off-topic, another idea that received considerable attention in the thread was that we should expand our thinking about which universities are considered "elite". This argument is that universities beyond those currently considered to be among the top should be thought of as being of similar caliber and also targeted by top students.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "General complaint: people are THE WORST", the original poster described going to a coffee shop in order to work remotely and being disturbed by other customers loudly using their phones without headphones. She invites other posters to contribute examples of people being terrible. I've written before that I really don't like these threads that are primarily aimed at spreading negativity. I may start prohibiting such threads because they almost always end up being a problem. I locked this one before the day was out. Almost immediately, a poster corrected the original poster to say that "DC people are THE WORST" and that elsewhere people were better. Are we to believe that DC alone among the world's cites has people who make noise in coffee shops? At any rate, the discussion soon turned toward whether the original poster was justified in thinking that she could work remotely in a coffee shop and expect to be left undisturbed. As one poster put it, "it’s a Starbucks not a library". But, this thread really reached peak absurdity when a poster attributed the problems of people making noise in a coffee shop to "wokeness run amok". This poster supported her contention by misstating Starbucks' policy, which contrary to the posters assertion requires patrons to maintain good behavior. What many of the complaints in this thread highlight are not increasing rudeness among people, but a failure to address social problems. Unhoused people who spend their days sitting in a Starbucks don't have a lot of options. There is similar resentment when they use public libraries. Urban design has actually been optimized to be as inhospitable to the unhoused as possible. They just don't have many places to go. Similarly, one poster complained that they smell bad. Someone who lives in a tent probably can't take a daily shower, but does that really make them "the worst"? At any rate, I apparently locked this thread though I don't remember doing it and, therefore, don't know why. But, it was a good decision none the less.

The next most active thread was titled, "Jonah Hill" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster criticizes an ex-girlfriend of Hill's for publicizing texts that he had sent to her when they were still together. For those unfamiliar with this controversy, as I was, Jonah Hill is an actor who recently had a baby with his current girlfriend. A previous girlfriend — a surfing instructor — has accused him of emotional abuse and released screenshots of texts and Instagram posts in which Hill forbade her from surfing with other men, posting pictures of herself in a swimsuit, and spending time with friends of whom he did not approve. Somewhat surprisingly to me, many posters in this thread defended Hill, arguing that his texts were respectful and simply outlined his boundaries for a relationship. Several agreed with the original poster that his ex-girlfriend was wrong to publish the texts. On the other hand, posters argued that Hill's "boundaries" interfered with his ex-girlfriend's ability to do her job which required publicizing her surfing lessons on social media. This thread is another example of the strange — at least in my opinion — obsessions some folks have with celebrities. Posters know far too much about Hill, his ex-girlfriend, and his current girlfriend. Since I am not interested in reading all that they seem to know, I stopped reading and can't say anything more about the thread than this.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum, wrapping up today in the same forum in which we started. Titled, "Examples of top programs in low ranked schools?", the original poster says that she noticed a university that is ranked outside the top 100 universities that has a specific program that is ranked in the top 10. She wants to know if this is common. The first poster to respond says that the University of Maryland's Fire Protection Engineering program in the number one program in the country. But, as another poster notes, the rest of the University of Maryland's programs are ranked pretty high as well so this might not be the best example. Posters point to a number of high-ranking programs — mostly in niche subjects — at lower-ranked schools. In many cases, this is a result of local circumstances. For instance, the University of New England — which has a campus located directly on the oceanfront — has a top Marine Biology program. The University of Delaware, while still in the top 100, ranks near the bottom of that list. But, owing to the dominance of Dupont in the state, the university has a highly-ranked chemical engineering program. This thread would be particularly interesting to those who are considering somewhat out-of-the-ordinary areas of study since these are mostly niche programs. But, the suggestions could help identify a school that otherwise might fly under the radar. A considerable number of the posts in this thread consist of posters praising the thread, something that is very unusual on DCUM in general and this forum in particular.