Monday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were the thread about college protests and the thread about paying off a spouses's student loans. I already discussed those threads in yesterday's blog post, so I'll skip them today. The next most active thread was titled, "Honestly, how do you manage dual income marriage with kids?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that both she and her husband have "highly intellectual jobs" that don't pay all that well but are intellectually stimulating, have prestige, are fun, but also are stressful. They each make around $200k annually, which caused some posters to question the original poster's description of their jobs as not paying well. They have two kids and, despite "a lot of help around the house" are increasingly having relationship conflicts. As the original poster explains it, between their long hours and frequent travel which also requires time for recuperation, the original poster and her husband are struggling with family life. The original poster is particularly frustrated because she feels that she picks up most of the load around the house and her husband, rather than recognizing that she is tired and overworked, expects her to be the "sexy available girlfriend" when it is convenient for him. She asks how others have made this situation work. On the face of it, what the original poster is describing is a very common scenario — a struggle to balance work with parenting. It has been a decade since Sheryl Sandberg urged women to "lean in", yet as the original poster demonstrates, while women struggle to overcome barriers at work, they also encounter barriers at home. This topic has been covered a million times in the relationship forum and most of the advice offered is standard fare. Posters suggest hiring more help, attempting to better balance responsibilities with her husband, cutting back on travel, etc. Some of those responding argue that the original poster is simply expecting too much and that she should accept that she can't have it all. Almost immediately I started receiving reports suggesting that the original poster was a troll. Initially, I couldn't find any indication that this was the case and I was baffled by the suggestion because this is such a common scenario. But, after considerable digging, I discovered that the original poster was sock puppeting throughout the thread, often replying to herself in the third person. Later in the thread she introduced a new twist to her story and then immediately sock puppeted a response. Ironically, some of the original poster's sock puppeted responses contained pretty good advice. So one of the original poster's personas should just listen to what her other persona has to say. I also note the irony of someone with an intellectually-challenging and prestigious job who lacks time and energy for sex toiling away having a conversation with herself on DCUM.

Next was a thread posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum which was titled, "Forbes 20 'New Ivies'". The original poster did little more than link to a Forbes article that claims that Ivy League schools have lost some of their luster and that public schools and non-Ivy private schools have started to compete with them for prestige. In many ways, this article makes an argument similar to that in the thread about Nate Silver's thoughts on the same topic that I discussed last week. As was the case with Silver, the Forbes' article bases much of its conclusions regarding Ivy's on "vibes". Even Forbes' rudimentary attempt to quantify the attractiveness of graduates of various schools to employers fell very short. Respondents were all subscribers to Forbes' "Future of Work" newsletter and, as such, I question just how representative those who responded are of employers in general. Moreover, the number of respondents less likely to hire Ivy grads and the number more likely to higher top public school grads were not that much different than one another, which is frankly not unexpected. But I wonder what the results of a similar survey conducted five or ten years ago would have said? Isn't it likely that there has always been a group of those responsible for hiring who, for whatever reason, preferred non-Ivy grads? Without historical data, it is impossible to determine whether Forbes' finding is new or simply reflects a long-standing reality. I also take issue with Forbes' methodology for determining the "New Ivys", or the schools that Forbes believes are rising in stature. Forbes relies almost entirely on standardized test scores which leaves out all California public universities. Note that I have degrees from two of the schools that Forbes listed and I have a son attending a third. So, from a personal point of view, I like these lists. But, I am still not convinced. Nevertheless, from a purely "vibes" point of view, there does seem to be an upswing in the prestige of many state flagship universities. I have discussed thread after thread in which posters have turned to public universities due to the financial hurdles they face at private universities. Similarly, many of the schools on Forbes' lists have become common backups for Ivy applicants. As such, they attract a considerable number of Ivy-caliber or near-Ivy caliber students. One of the most astute responses, in my opinion, argued that the responses that Forbes received from hiring managers reflect the fact that very few Ivy graduates are hiring managers. More insightful, I think, was this poster's second argument that the schools most at risk of losing their luster are the second tier private universities because, due to their cost, the return on investment just is not there compared to top state schools. I am far from an expert but in my only moderately-informed opinion, this is exactly right. Whatever luster the Ivys and so-called Ivy-plus schools have lost is marginal at best. Top public schools have increased their prestige and value proposition and currently present the best second-choice to those schools.

Third for today is a thread titled, "2024 College Graduates, how’s the job market?" which, like the previous thread, was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster has a child who is considering pursuing a computer science degree but has heard bad things about the job market. Therefore, the original poster would like to hear other's experiences. Immediately this thread got diverted to a discussion of plumbers and the fees that plumbers charge. The point of the poster who started this seemed to be that pursuing a job as a plumber makes more financial sense then getting a computer science degree. True or not, this doesn't really address the question. The same poster also implied that computer science jobs could be replaced by artificial intelligence which provoked its own debate. Many of those responding claimed that graduates of top computer science programs were having no problem finding jobs, but that those in lower-ranked programs were struggling. But even this generalization was disputed with claims that graduates from top programs were also having problems finding jobs. Moreover, many of the experiences reported by posters in the thread show exactly the opposite scenario. As several posters pointed out, a lot can change in four years and it is hard to say what the situation will be when today's high school juniors and seniors graduate from college. The impact of artificial intelligence is unknown. With regard to AI, several posters bring it up and offer opinions about what it will mean for future jobs. My own view is that AI is having and will have considerable impact in some areas. However, I am very suspicious of the hype surrounding it which very much reminds me of the hype around cryptocurrency. In both cases, I believe that there is a considerable amount of snake oil involved. In the computer science field, I suspect that there may be some short term disruption as employers try to replace humans with AI, but that as things shake out, the impact of AI on the computer science job market will not be as significant as feared. Moreover, I predict that in many cases AI will mostly be used as a tool that augments a human's work rather than replacing it. Nevertheless, computer science has long been a field that requires constant acquisition of new skills and a willingness to adapt to change. This will likely become even more true than before and those pursing computer science degrees should be prepared for maximum flexibility.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Titled, "Are there any genuinely normal, well-adjusted celebrities", the entire text of the first post was "Any?". Let me start with what should probably be boilerplate text for every entertainment forum thread that I have to discuss. I am not interested in topics such as this. I am even less interested when the entire text of the first post is a single word. I am very doubtful that, other than a few exceptions, posters in this thread actually know the celebrities about whom they are writing well enough to comment about how well-adjusted they are. I suspect that this thread is mostly going to reflect the effectiveness of various celebrities' public relations apparatuses. The first two posters to respond both do a good job of speaking generally to the topic, both making good, though opposing points. Being a celebrity involves significant visibility. The first poster argues that the most intelligent celebrities work very hard to control visibility to planned and controlled exposures. Everything else is kept private. The second poster argues that those who pursue such visibility are not well-adjusted almost by definition. But the thread then turns to posters simply naming celebrities and stating their opinion about how well-adjusted they appear. There is a bit of a pattern of a celebrity being mentioned and then a poster responding in total amazement and advising the previous poster to "Google" the celebrity. We never really find out what we would discover by Googling, but it seems like it would be bad. Jennifer Garner was mentioned early in the thread and then came up repeatedly throughout the rest of it. Nearly every participant in the thread seemed to have an opinion about whether or not she is well-adjusted. Frankly, I am not even sure what the original poster means by being "well-adjusted". Most posters appear to interpret it as being "normal" so celebrities who have avoided the celebrity life-style are mentioned. But, it could just as easily mean being adjusted effectively to the celebrity lifestyle. In that case, surviving decades of sex, drugs, and rock and roll would be the ultimate in adjustment and there is no better example than Keith Richards. He was number 1 on the "Expected to Die" list as far back as 1973. Not only is he still kicking, but he lives a pretty normal life these days. That seems pretty well-adjusted. But, I probably should Google him.