Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If you are wealthy would you send your kids to a W school over private?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. For those not familiar with the nomenclature, "W" schools are Walt Whitman, Winston Churchill, Thomas Wootten, and Walter Johnson Montgomery County Public Schools high schools. All the schools have "W" somewhere in their name and all have student bodies that are generally wealthy and heavily White and Asian. Academically they are very good schools and, hence, highly sought-after. The original poster of this thread can afford private school but wonders if it is worth the cost and wonders, if cost were not an issue, if others would choose a private school over a "W" school. The background of this post is that private schools are often advertised as being notably better in a range of metrics than public schools. Whatever basis in reality this contention may have normally, it is a more difficult argument when applied to schools of the caliber of the "W" schools. Therefore, the original poster is asking about the value proposition of private schools in this scenario. Very broadly speaking, replies can be divided into two categories. On the one hand are those that favor one option or the other based on specific factors and how those will impact the student in question. For instance, one poster chose a "W" school because she believed her child with special needs would receive stronger support at that school. Other posters preferred private based on smaller class sizes that they believe better suited their children. The second category of responses might be described as focusing on the "soft" or "social" benefits of private schools. For example, in response to a post describing the academic achievement of a "W" school student, a poster asked, "Is you [sic] kids polished? Can he dress properly?" and "Does he have a Rolodex of very wealthy friends that can get him a job with the snap of a finger?" This school of thought essentially concedes that academically there is little difference between these public schools and privates (indeed, many parents argue the publics are better academically in some instances), but instead focuses on other presumed advantages. However, not all posters agree that those supposed advantages end up amounting to much and don't believe they are good reasons for choosing private schools. As is true with almost all school-related discussions these days, this one also gets sidetracked into arguments about COVID and how schools responded. One argument made is that public schools were closed longer than private schools which set students back further and therefore public schools are now at a disadvantage. Another debate is over whether private school students are ensconced in a bubble and, therefore, not prepared for the real world. This is countered by the proposition that "W" school students are in very similar bubbles. If true, that would seem to be a point in favor of the "W" schools which apparently provide the same bubble as private schools, but with no tuition fees.

Tbe next most active thread was the Hunter Biden thread that I've already discussed so I'll move to the next thread which was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "Fewer women getting married", the original poster asks whether, in light of women earning higher amounts of money, they are getting married at lower rates. This is a variation of a theme that has been addressed repeatedly in the relationship forum and one that I've written about several times in this blog. The question of whether women are less likely to get married these days is something that I would expect could be answered by statistics. But, if any such numbers were posted in the thread, I did not see them (full disclosure, I didn't read the whole thread). But, posters in this thread seem to accept this assumption without argument. Instead, the discussion is about why they are marrying less. The most popular contention is that because women are achieving more academically and professionally, their expectations for a partner are higher. Moreover, they have a decreased financial reliance on men so financial stability is less of a motivation. This point of view is illustrated by a poster who writes, "A man has to bring more than a paycheck to the table to be worth it." Modern reproductive options mean that women don't even have to rely on a male partner for children. As one poster writes, "I plan to have my second child on my own" and says she has a supply of frozen embryos. One factor making marriage less attractive for women is the fear that they will end up carrying the load for domestic chores, including child rearing. Some posters see this is very stark terms such as a poster who wrote, "Most of us are in domestic servitude from the time we enter into any relationship with a man". Similarly, many posters argue that they want equal partners but they are hard to find. For some posters this issue is not their own requirements, but because nobody seems interested in marrying them. Some have simply resigned themselves to this situation. But generally such posters are a minority in this thread. Far more of the posters are less than enthusiastic about marriage. There are married women who regret getting married, divorced women who warn against marriage, and never married women who demonstrate no interest in marriage. On the other hand, there is considerable sentiment toward raising boys to be feminists and prepared to share the burdon at home. So, rather than outright rejecting the notion of marriage, some of the posters are simply hoping to increase the supply of suitable partners.

The next thread I'll discuss was titled, "Maret’s brand of progressive" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster describes touring Maret last year and seeing a poster in the elementary school library that said, "Unapologetically Queer". She wants to know if there is discussion of gender identity with elementary school children. While nobody seems to confirm or deny whether such discussions take place, many posters who don't appear bothered by such a poster respond to say that the school is inclusive. The original poster contends that talking about sexual orientation is the same as talking about sex and talking about sex is not appropriate for 7 year olds. Other posters argue that heterosexual, cis-gendered relationships are the default in our society and, as such, are reinforced constantly. Steps towards inclusiveness of others are appropriate and necessary. The original poster doesn't seem to accept this argument and, instead, repeatedly insists that nothing short of posters saying "Unapologetically Straight" would indicate acknowledgement of straight sexual orientation. Posters in this thread repeatedly mix "gender identity" and "sexual orientation". This suggests to me that the recent trans panic that has inflicted much of the nation is blurring the lines between these concepts. It has been nearly 30 years since the "Heather Has Two Mommies" controversy and acknowledgment of different sexual orientations must by now be relatively common in elementary schools. This is likely even more true in schools such as Maret that probably have a number of gay families. So, what would explain this sudden concern about the poster in question? I think the aforementioned blurring of concepts is the answer. The poster said, "Unapologetically Queer", but to some this was essentially the same as saying "Unapologetically Transgender". For that matter, discussion of race is also included as part and parcel of the concern about the diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda. There are posters who favor an end to discussion of any of these topics. As one posters writes, "Emphasizing differences is the definition of divisiveness." These posters favor "recognizing all of the children for their uniqueness". This really seems to be a school-based version of "all lives matter". Just as saying that Black lives matter never implied that non-Black lives don't matter, efforts toward inclusivity shouldn't be treated as offensive by those who don't suffer from marginalization.

The next most active thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Colleges with freshman in singles with suites - post here", the original poster is interested in "fabulous dorms" that provide "space and privacy". She says that this is not the only thing in which her kid interested, but that it is important. The thread contains recommendations as well as a lot of discussion about posters' views of the topic. Some believe that sharing a dorm room is an important aspect of college. However, I am out of time today and need to finish this post. The thread is 8 pages, so if the topic interests you there is plenty for you to read.