2024

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "How to fix our crisis" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The "crisis" in question pertains to the U.S. education system, which the original poster believes is failing on many levels. According to her, the SAT is not rigorous, American students are dropping out of STEM programs "like flies", and students are not graduating with the skills needed to compete for entry-level jobs. This is a 19-page thread full of fairly dense posts and, as such, not easy to summarize. Two things the thread demonstrates are the acute politicalization of education and how data can be manipulated to support an argument. Almost immediately, posters associated the original poster's argument with recent statements by failed businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, who has similarly argued that American culture has accepted mediocrity instead of striving for excellence when it comes to education. When a poster described a comedian who had joked about "MAGA friends", a poster immediately assumed that this was a rebuke of rural White kids, and one poster instinctively posted about alleged deficiencies among urban kids, presumably meaning Black and Hispanic children. It is not clear why posters made the connection between "MAGA friends" and rural White students or even why remarks about MAGA attitudes about education are considered derogatory. After all, it was President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump who famously said that he loved the "Poorly Educated" and attacks on higher education have been a hallmark of MAGA ideology. While many posters preferred to support their arguments with data, there was considerable disagreement about how data was used. For instance, some posters referred to data showing that American students lagged behind those of other countries as evidence that the American education system is failing. On the other hand, posters suggested that if the U.S. data was limited to the performance of White and Asian students, the U.S. performance would be near the top. This, the posters argued, showed that the U.S. education system was clearly capable of producing high-performing students. If true, however, this data does show the inequality in our system. Similarly, some posters refused to accept that the U.S. education system is failing or suffering from significant problems. Other posters agreed with the original poster that there is room for improvement, but there was little agreement about what exactly should be done. The original poster proposed that calculus be made a requirement for high school graduation. Many posters objected to this, arguing that, for most people, calculus has little value. The original poster also proposed not awarding high school diplomas to those who failed to meet the increased graduation requirements. It is not clear to me that the original poster's proposals would actually increase the education level of American students. Rather, it would probably just create a larger number of individuals who lack a high school diploma. A better strategy might be to ensure that calculus classes, as well as classes necessary to prepare for the course, are widely available as options for those students who want to study the subject.

Yesterday's most active thread was one that I discussed in yesterday's blog post about predictions for the election winner. I'll skip that one today and start with a thread titled, "Michael Moore expects large female turnout on Abortion" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Frankly, this is the sort of thread that I hate and I should have deleted it as soon as it was created. Just about everything is wrong with the thread. As most probably know, Michael Moore is a filmmaker who has produced such movies as "Roger & Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and "Fahrenheit 9/11". Moore is also a political activist with left-wing populist views. He tends to be pretty perceptive. At a time when Washington pundits were literally laughing at the idea that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump might win the presidential election, Moore predicted — accurately as it turns out — that Trump would win. Apparently Moore has said something about female turnout in the election due to the abortion issue. The original poster did not link to any such statement and I haven't bothered to Google it and, as such, I have no idea what Moore said. Nor do any of the participants in the thread as far as I can tell. The original poster takes issue with Moore's expectation, asking where these women were in 2022. Before I read a single response in this thread, I already had a second reason for not liking it. The original poster's memory of 2022 is faulty. While it is true, as the original poster notes, that Republicans gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, it was was by a small margin. Predictions had been for a "red wave" that was supposed to nearly wipe out the Democrats. The red wave never materialized. The Democratic loss can be attributed to New York State Democrats completely mishandling their redistricting process and basically handing several seats to Republicans. Where the women were in 2022, the original poster should know, was at the polls and voting for Democrats. Moreover, since then a number of special elections, ballot initiatives, and referendums have shown that the abortion issue has been a potent motivator of women. Again, without seeing Moore's actual statement, I would be more likely to criticize him for stating the obvious rather than for being wrong. There are a small number of MAGA women on DCUM who rush to threads like this to proclaim that they are not single issue voters and, to the extent that abortion is a priority at all to them, it is a very low one. But other women are just as strident to say that abortion rights, which realistically are inseparable from women's healthcare generally, are their prime motivator. The thread then turned into a debate about abortion which is the third reason that I hate this thread. DCUM has had innumerable abortion debates. There is nothing left to be said. If posters want to repeat the same arguments from countess previous threads, I have no issue with it but I would rather not have to read such posts for the millionth time. I seriously doubt that a single abortion rights proponent will change their mind because an anonymous MAGA called them a "baby killer" or claimed that Democrats support abortion after birth. I suppose that there is some hope that an abortion opponent might be persuaded when informed that abortion bans create health dangers for women that have nothing to do with abortion. Perhaps that is enough to justify this thread, but I am doubtful.

The most active thread yesterday was the one that I discussed yesterday about the presidential candidates and McDonald's. I finally locked that thread because it was ridiculous. After that was a thread titled, "Divorced women in their 40s seem to be doing better in the dating market", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster repeats the claim made in the thread's title that divorced women in their 40s seem to be doing better in the dating market. Better than what is not quite clear. Better than when they were younger or better than other age groups? Who knows? The original poster makes a second claim that divorced men in their 40s are having less success. So perhaps she means that women in their 40s are doing better than men in their 40s? The original poster wonders why the women are more successful then men in this age group. If you detect an underlying note of skepticism in my tone, it is not your imagination. The original poster provides no information concerning how she arrived at these conclusions. Did she conduct a nationwide poll? Survey online dating sites? Or has she relied on purely anecdotal examples? Again, who knows? Nevertheless, most of those responding seem to accept the original poster's claims as true. This thread was really hard for me to follow because many of the posters seem to be on a completely different wavelength than me, and frequently from each other. Like the original poster, those responding kept making broad pronouncements about the state of dating but then, almost universally, someone popped up to contradict the statements. For instance, in response to the claim that men in their 40s are having less success, men in that age bracket posted about having tremendous success with dating, even — as one says — when balding with a "dad bod". Several responses suggest that short-lived flings are not hard to find. Many posters made clear that there are lots of divorced women in their 40s who are not interested in long term relationships, but rather are seeking short term intimacy. In those cases, there are plenty of younger guys willing to serve, not to mention men of the same age. Therefore, the success that divorced women in their 40s may be experiencing could be simply due to their interest in brief sexual encounters, something for which there is obviously always a market. One suggestion that comes up repeatedly is that while women in their 40s interested in sexual hookups can easily find younger guys, who for that specific purpose might be better prospects, guys in their 40s can't as easily find younger women. But guys in their 40s don't seem to be suffering from relationship droughts. In some cases they are finding matches with women who are seeking longer term or more serious relationships and, in other instances, their wallets make up for their other shortcomings. After reading this thread, I am fairly confident that the only generalization that can be made about divorced folks in their 40s and dating is that you can't make any generalizations. If there is anything eye-opening about this thread — and it is only eye-opening because I really hadn't thought about it before — it is the large number of women, especially those who are divorced, in their 40s who are not interested in long term relationships. If they were seeking such relationships, I suspect that their rate of success would be considerably lower.

The Kate photo thread once again led as the most active thread, racking up more than 10 times the number of posts as the next most active thread (nearly 11 times in fact). The next most active thread was titled, "a final warning to high school students in the college admissions game", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a YouTube video by a current student at Princeton University who expresses strong disappointment with Princeton and warns high school students who are currently in the process of choosing colleges to avoid the university. He warns about a number of other top colleges as well. His main complaint is that rather than being a supportive environment, Princeton — at least according to him — is very cutthroat and, he believes, damaging to students' mental health. He advises applicants to ignore college rankings. He argues that instead, students should investigate the atmosphere of schools to ensure they choose a school with a supportive environment. Due to the video's name starting, like the title of this thread, with "a final warning" and the very depressed attitude of the narrator, I was a little concerned that this was a suicide message. But, hopefully that is not the case. Despite the serious nature of the video, I almost broke out laughing as I read the replies. Multiple posters blamed the student's distress on test optional admissions policies. Their theory being that he is an undeserving student who probably would have been filtered out by a low test score and is now discovering that he doesn't have the chops for Princeton. I don't know whether this demonstrates the posters' determination to protect Princeton from criticism or their one-track fixation on test optional policies. A number of posters wonder why the student simply hasn't transferred. Others just brush off his complaints with one poster even describing him and others like him as a "tik tok like ‘geniuses’" from whom she would never take advice. For the record, this video was on YouTube and the other social network is "TikTok". Other's suggest that while the student may be accurately portraying his own personal experience, he is wrong to extrapolate that experience broadly across Princeton, let alone other top universities. Some posters come to the students defense, though many of them tend toward offering explanations for his struggles rather than accepting that his description of student life at Princeton is valid. A few posters, however, do find the student's complaints to be believable. They point to a rash of suicides at Princeton and its relatively low freshmen retention rate as evidence that the environment might be overly stressful. The bottom line is that those posters who want their children to pursue top universities such as Princeton appear unlikely to heed this warning. Some others who either have ruled out the school or don't consider it to be a realistic option in the first place, find some solace in believing their children are better off elsewhere.

The most active thread over the weekend was the Gaza war thread which I have discussed before and will skip now. After that was a thread titled, "Do you ever recognize repeat posters?". Posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the original poster says there are a couple of posters who are "frequent flyers" and she is able to recognize their posts. She asks if others are able to recognize anyone. For some reason DCUM posters love to reminisce about old threads and, in many ways, this thread is simply a version of doing this. While some posters do seem to have someone specific in mind, in many cases the descriptions of alleged repeat posters really describe trends or habits instead of individuals. For instance, one poster complained about someone who constantly writes, "Try to keep up", but that phrase is used by a host of users. Similarly, another poster suggested "The grammar Nazi", which could refer to any number of different users. Perhaps in response to these posters, one person claimed to recognize "The posters (plural) who think only one person ever writes certain words or phrases". Another poster, wrote, "Many of the examples listed are not about repeat posters, rather they posted something memorable. That's a different discussion." But, this is the destiny of any thread that provides DCUM posters the opportunity to wax nostalgic. Despite all of this, a few posters did describe repeat posters who are recognizable to me. But, those posts normally went unremarked upon. An exception was a poster who I have been combatting for sometime who likely suffers from some sort of mental health issue. The poster has a few recognizable posting patterns and, as a result, was mentioned by multiple posters, though without apparent understanding that they were all describing the same poster. I am fairly certain that they were describing different habits of the guy, without knowing they were describing the same person. Later in the thread, posters started multiple debates over whether a single or multiple posters were responsible for some of the poster's posts. As a result, that poster was probably the most mentioned individual in the thread. Some posters claimed that they recognized a poster who would use a specific phrase only to have another poster chime in saying that they used that phrase but that it was also used by others. When a poster brought up someone who is obsessed with DEI, a debate about DEI broke out. If nothing else, that clarified that there are multiple posters obsessed with DEI to the extent that they can't even control themselves in a thread of this sort which has nothing to do with the topic. One poster appears have recognized himself and offered a defense saying, "Today white men are facing the greatest discrimination known on this earth" which left me uncertain about whether this was satire or the guy actually believes this.

The most active thread since Friday was the Gaza war thread which, like the war itself, shows no sign of ending. Because I've already discussed that thread, I'll go on to the next most active which was titled "What is it with people given childless couples unsolicited fertility advice?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she is 36 and her husband is 34. They have remained child-free due to financial reasons. Others, generally people who are not even all that close to the original poster and her husband, constantly give them fertility advice such as encouraging her to freeze her eggs or not to delay motherhood. The original poster is fully cognizant of the issues involved and doesn't need other telling her about them. The original poster asks why some people are so concerned about other's fertility. I'm not sure the relationship forum is the best forum for this topic, but I am also not sure which forum would be better. So, I'll leave the thread where it is. The first several posters made at least half-hearted attempts to address the question, but ironically, they couldn't stop themselves from also offering fertility advice. In fact, the thread almost immediately became emblematic of exactly the phenomenon about which the original poster was complaining. Without knowing a single thing about the original poster beyond the sparse information contained in the original post, poster after poster presumed to be in a position to "fertilitysplain" to her. I didn't have to read very much of this thread before I concluded that the answer to the original poster's question about why people are obsessed with the fertility of others is that a huge number of them lack any ability to prevent themselves from commenting on the topic. The advice appeared to come so automatically to some posters that I doubt that they realized what they were doing. If this were not an important topic to the original poster, it would be funny. She basically asked, "why is everyone so concerned with my fertility?" and ninety percent of the responses were "you have to have children now, right now!" Probably because DCUM has such a generally affluent userbase, very few users seemed capable of understanding that someone realistically might face financial challenges. As the original poster responded with additional information, it emerged that she has had to support herself since age 18 and always worked in retail. She has not had the opportunity to go to college and has exhausted her earning power. Her husband is apparently in a similar situation. I wonder what the reaction would have been had the original poster started a thread describing her financial situation and stated an intention to have children? She probably would have been derided as a prospective wellfare queen or criticized for poor financial planning. As it was, one DCUM Marie Antoinette expressed shock that an adult works in retail. She may as well have advised the original poster to eat cake.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Donut family: Pay for T10 or go to state for almost free" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Yesterday I discussed a thread that was about "dead zone" families who are families in the top 3-10 percent of income but struggle with admissions to elite colleges because they are beat out by the top 1 percent. Sometimes, however, children from those families, and families just below them in income level, do get accepted. Those families often face a separate issue. They are too wealthy to be awarded financial aid but don't have the financial resources to pay expensive tuitions out of pocket. These families are often referred to as "donut hole families". The original poster says that her daughter has been accepted to a top 10 university but has been awarded minimal financial aid. It will cost them about $60k per year  for her to attend the university. In constrast, she can go to the University of Maryland-College Park for a third of that. The family has limited retirements savings, currently rents, and has been saving for a downpayment on a house. They have about $200k household income. The original poster's daughter plans to study something in the arts but is otherwise undecided. The original poster wants her daughter to have the best degree possible, but also wants to prioritize retirement savings. There are of course a variety of opinions about which option is best, otherwise this would not have been such an active thread. One view is represented very succinctly by a poster who wrote, "[t]he way to set her up as well as possible is to minimize both loans and the chance that she will have to support her destitute parents in retirement." With this in mind, UMD or a comparable option would be the best choice. But, others argue for the value of a degree from a top 10 university and suggest pursuing that option even if it requires taking out loans. That view is very much in the minority, however. Several posters question the original poster's financial planning and prior financial decisions. Others question the value of an arts degree. Quite a few posters point out that the daughter will probably need to attend graduate school. Therefore, the undergraduate school is not that important. The original poster's plight highlights one characteristic of financial aid calculations that continually irks me. She has $250k sitting in a savings account to be used as a downpayment for a house. From a school's point of view, that is tuition money and, therefore, offsets need for financial aid. As a result the original poster is being punished for saving. Had she spent that money on a house last year — or even blown it over a wild week in Las Vegas — her daughter would be in a stronger position for financial aid calculations.

The two most active threads yesterday were the Harvard president's resignation thread and the Gaza war thread. I will skip both of them since I've discussed them previously. After those was a thread titled, "Top colleges that are actually on the table for unhooked standard strong kids." and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster lists a number of prominent universities that she believes are realistic targets for a student with a high grade point average, a test score, and strong extracurricular activities. As the title says, she describes such students as "standard strong" and specifies that they are "unhooked", meaning that they are not legacy admits, supported by a major financial donor, athletic recruits, or underrepresented minorities. In other words, where does a run-of-the-mill White kid with a 3.8 to 4.9 GPA, 1500 SAT, and a handful of ECs have a shot of being accepted? Those responding dispute some colleges on the list and suggest others. There is also a discussion about what constitutes a "standard stong" applicant and what might instead be a "standout" student. Posters also argue that in most cases, admission to these schools will only be possible through Early Decision applications. As such, the proposed schools cannot be viewed as a list of targets because applicants are limited to one ED application. So, at best, potential applicants could only make one selection from the list. Even then, as some posters point out, their chances will be very narrow due to the highly-selective nature of these schools. Many of the posters describe admissions records of high schools their children attended and others demonstrate detailed knowledge of admissions of a range of schools. As I've written in the past, a number of posters in this forum follow college admissions with the dedication of a sports fan obsessing over runs batted in or catches per yard statistics. It occurred to me while reading this thread that, if I could figure out how to do it, a "fantasy college admissions league" would be a successful enterprise. Forum members could "draft" college applicants and win points based on their admission results. There could even be different rounds for each application type such a ED, early admissions, regular admissions, and so on. This could keep a number of these posters busy from September through April.

Yesterday the top two most active threads were both on the same topic, the resignation of Harvard President Claudine Gay. The first was titled, "Claudine Gay resigns as Harvard University’s president" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. There was some debate about whether this topic belonged in the college or political forum (it was posted in both), but I ultimately decided that it was a political topic. The controversy surrounding Gay began with a Congressional hearing and the opposition to her was led by overtly political figures. Therefore, I locked this thread and well as several similar threads also started in the college forum. By the time I locked the thread, it had grown to 10 pages in just 3 hours. On the surface, opposition to Gay was based on concerns that she was not sufficiently combating antisemitism and had engaged in plagiarism. But, beyond that, opponents made clear that they saw Gay as a symbol of the "woke" environments that they believe are dominating elite universities. Gay, who is Black, was attacked by many who saw her as unqualified and chosen more for her skin color than her abilities, much as they allege that unqualified minority students are admitted to elite universities in place of more deserving White and Asian applicants. Gay has been the target of a campaign led by Christopher Ruffo, the same person who turned Critical Race Theory into a political weapon to be used against school boards. Right-wingers were ecstatic at the news of Gay's resignation. But, they were quick to declare that they were not stopping here. "Two down, one to go", wrote one poster referring to the previous resignation of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill and the apparently hoped for resignation of Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth. Magill, Gay, and Kornbluth all had appeared at a Congressional hearing in which they came under agressive questioning about antisemitism on their campuses from Representative Elise Stefanik. Other posters signaled their desire to see the entire Board of Harvard replaced. Rufo has broadened his CRT attacks into a campaign against the entire framework of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" and gained traction among many who view DEI practices as unfairly benefitting minorities. One poster expressed his criticism of DEI by accusing it of "[e]levating highly unqualified and mediocre talent into senior roles and fast tracking people simply because of the need to fill an identity gap." This entire effort is aimed at reclaiming elite academia for those who rise based purely on merit, as if such a world ever really existed.

Happy New Year to everyone in DCUM land. To start the year off, I am going repeat something that I did last January 1st. Instead of looking at the most active threads over the weekend as I would normally do, I am going to review the top ten most active threads for the entire year. Most of these are ones that I have discussed in blog posts so I won't say very much about each thread. But, this might provide an interesting overview of the topics that dominated DCUM in 2023. As is suited for a New Year's countdown, I am going to start from the bottom of the list and work towards the most active.

The tenth most active thread of 2023 was titled, "APS Closing Nottingham" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. I originally discussed this thread on July 3, describing plans by Arlington Public Schools to send current Nottingham Elementary School students to other nearby schools and convert Nottingham into a "swing space" to be used by students of schools that were being renovated. The thread reached 180 pages before I locked it. Ultimately, as one poster wrote, "Notties always win...", and APS reversed its plans and will keep the school as it is.