Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were topics that I discussed yesterday. So, skipping those, the next most active topic was titled, "Test optional is total BS" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The subject of college admissions examinations is a well-trod topic in the college forum. Such tests have been frequently criticized as not being reliable indicators of a student's intelligence. Rather, critics say, they are gamed by students who take test preparation classes or have the financial means to repeatedly take the tests. When schools began to make tests scores an optional component of applications, criticism arose that this was simply a means to admit less qualified underrepresented minorities. Two stereotypes — one of robot-like Asian kids who underwent years of text prep and the other of minority students unable to perform well on tests — became part and parcel of the forum's conventional wisdom. In the case of this thread, the original poster argues that test scores should be used as a means of weeding out weak students. According to the original poster, grade point averages are inflated and, therefore, not trustworthy indicators of performance. The poster accepts completely and without reservation the belief that test scores are effective indicators of college success. Moreover, the poster argues that, because of test optional policies, only applicants with high scores submit them and, therefore, the average scores for the schools goes up. The original poster is bothered by students with high GPAs but mediocre test scores discussing to which colleges to apply. This is a 15 page thread and, as I said, the arguments are well-worn and I simply don't have the patience to read 15 pages of the same thing being repeated. Or, even one page for that matter. Frankly, I don't understand why the original poster is so worked up about other kids' test scores. If her child has a high score, that will help him. If not, it's good for him that tests are optional. I think that using test scores as simply an optional data point for fleshing out an application is a good thing. Colleges are frequently interested in athletic achievement. A student who places first in a state-wide athletic competition will probably include that on her application. On the other hand, nobody will, for instance, list that they placed near the bottom or last in that sport at their school. Test scores should be treated similarly. College applications are an opportunity to present your strengths. If a test score is one of those, take advantage of it. If not, hopefully you have other strengths to demonstrate.

The next most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Next Speaker Of the House", the original poster asks who others think will be the next Speaker of the US House of Representatives and how long that person will last in the office. The original poster guesses Steve Scalise who will last one month. I'll just comment on the general topic of this thread rather than repeating the responses. The announced candidates so far are Scalise as well as Jim Jordan. There are reports that Elise Stefanik is also considering entering the race. Multiple members have said that they will support former President Donald Trump, though it is not clear that Trump is all that interested or whether he is eligible due to his felony indictments. Former speaker Kevin McCarthy has said that he will not seek to return to the position. In addition, many members are drawing lines in the sand over issues they want resolved before they vote for anyone. For instance, Carlos Gimenez of Florida said that he will not vote for any candidate until there is a commitment to reform the motion to vacate so that the next speaker will not suffer the same fate as McCarthy. Due to the slim Republican majority, every vote matters and candidates can't afford to lose too many. This creates quite a bit of leverage for each Republican to make demands. It was exactly that type of leverage that caused McCarthy to agree to rules changes allowing a single member to offer a motion to vacate, precisely what led to his ouster. Given the rifts that McCarthy's removal have caused among Republicans, it may be difficult for them to agree on a candidate. In the meantime, Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry is in control. There is some debate about exactly what authority he has in the position. The rules can be interpreted either narrowly to suggest that he can do nothing more than oversee the election of a new speaker — boundaries he has already exceeded by recessing the House and kicking Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer out of their Capitol hideaway offices — or broadly to encompass all duties of the Speaker. So far McHenry has not indicated his view of the extent of his authority though it doesn't appear that he believes fully in the broad interpretation. This may evolve if he is forced to remain in his position for any length of time and, as a result, we might end up with McHenry as the de facto Speaker for the foreseeable future.

The third thread I'll discuss was titled, "Teenager refusing to have contact with relatives" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that her 15-year-old son is introverted and doesn't get along well with her side of the family. They traditionally spend holidays with her family, but her son recently said that he did not want to visit them this year and preferred to stay home even if it meant staying in his room reading and playing video games. The original poster agreed, but when she told her parents they were upset and have been lobbying her for two days to change her mind and join them for the holidays. The original poster asks how she can get her parents and siblings to understand that they want to stay home. Those responding are divided between those who would not let a 15-year-old dictate their family traditions and those who would honor his preference. Some posters find the original poster's family to be difficult and understand why her son doesn't want to spend the holidays with them. Other posters think that the original poster's son is simply rude and doesn't know how to properly socialize. Some posters propose various compromises such as visiting for fewer days but the original poster doesn't seem interested in such an arrangment. A number of posters are concerned about the behavior the original poster is modeling for her son. But, they have different versions of how they see this. On the one hand are posters who think that acceding to her son's wishes might make it likely that in the future he and his family won't want to spend holidays with the original poster. Others believe the opposite is true and that he will feel less resentment and want to spend future holidays with the original poster.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum and titled, "Has anyone successfully avoided giving their *high school* kids smart phones?". The original poster has two children of middle school age who do not currently have smart phones. She doesn't expect them to go all the way through high school without phones, but hopes to put it off for as long as possible. She asks if others have been successful at this. Most of those responding believe that by high school kids need a phone of some sort. Not only is a phone important for social lives, but necessary to receive many communications regarding extracurricular activities. As we've seen in other threads and a bit in this one as well, some posters consider phones for their kids essential because they want the ability to contact their kids at anytime. Even the original poster of this thread values that ability and says her kids have smart watches that allow texting and phone calls. But, several posters are concerned about their kids having access to apps and Interent sites that might create distractions from their school work or that might present dangers to kids. Therefore several posters recommend the "Gabb" phone which is apparently a phone with very limited capabilities. Other posters recommend iPhones but with liberal use of the parental controls to restrict apps and other capabilities. What might be a generational divide becomes apparent as posters discuss how kids socialize these days. Some parents question whether kids get together in-person anymore or just communicate online. Others explain that in-person activities are common, but are often organized through apps or texting. This, in turn, leads to discussion about whether smart watches are sufficient for these purposes with posters suggesting those would be too limiting. Many students use their phones for accessing school resources or even doing assignments.