Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was again the college protests thread which, again, had several times the number of posts of the next most active thread. But, since I've already discussed that thread I'll skip it today and move to the next most active thread which was titled, "NYT: ‘Peak College Admissions Insanity’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a New York Times article with the same title as the thread. The author of the article, a former official in the US Department of Education, describes a number of developments that led to admissions for the 2023-2024 school year at selective universities becoming a chaotic and unpredictable experience. As the author wrote, "even the gatekeepers seemed not to know what the new rules were." I was about halfway through this article when I decided that it was clearly written for the express purpose of trolling DCUM. The article hit on all of the hot button DCUM college forum topics including the obvious ones such test optional admissions, early decision, and financial aid. But it also hit some of the deep cuts such as when the author name-checked Northeastern University. When he brought up "yield protection", I imagined the forum's yield protection obsessives setting off fireworks in celebration. In many ways, the article is the culmination and distillation of all of the most active college forum topics that I have discussed in this blog. The article emphasizes the impact of early decision applications and how they have changed the admissions calendar. It discusses the importance of colleges making standardized tests optional and the huge growth in the number of applications the top universities receive. The decision by the US Supreme Court prohibiting the use of race in college admissions received only a cursory mention, putting the article somewhat at odds with DCUM's college forum where the topic is heavily discussed. DCUM posters quickly caught on to an error in the author's understanding of when applicants accepted in the early decision round must pull applications from other colleges. However, financial aid decisions this year were delayed due to changes in the FAFSA application that postponed its availability. So for this year, the author may have been correct. In addition, posters pointed out additional factors that the author did not appear to consider. Generally, however, posters agree that the current college admissions process is filled with unknowns and that there appear to be few rules. As one poster summarized things, "High school seniors think this is checkers, but the schools know it’s chess. This has all become frankly terrifying for students, who are first-time players in a game their opponents invented."

The next most active thread was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Americans, does it bother you when immigrants complain about America?", the original poster says that she is an immigrant who received citizenship due to marrying her "white American man" husband. Her husband gets angry when she complains about things such as US foreign policy, the junk food, and Americans' "lack of style". She says that her husband tells her that she should be happy to live in the US and should not be anti-patriotic. She wants to know what others think. Many posters have no problem with immigrants complaining. As several point out, the 1st Amendment applies to immigrants as well. Moreover, as one poster points out, there is no "patriotic" position with regard to many of those topics. Americans themselves disagree on those things. But others are only comfortable with complaints up to a point. If immigrants are constantly suggesting that things are better in another country, these posters argue, they should go to those countries. Others are bothered by their perception that immigrants might only be in the US for the jobs and don't really like the country. Many of those responding seem to care or not care based on the issue. Some topics are fine to complain about but others they consider off-limits. This thread is hilarious in parts due to posters making themselves looking somewhat foolish. If immigrants needed justification for their complaints, they could probably find it in this thread. Some posters hear the word "immigrant" and have a Pavlovian response to complain about "open borders". One poster listed five separate types of complaints, and his rebuttal to them, that he dislikes when they are made by immigrants. Most of these are variations of a failure to proclaim the United Staates as the best country to ever exist. Moreover, the poster explicitly rejected equal rights for immigrants because their ancestors didn't "develop the country". This way of thinking could lead to an entirely new method of granting rights. Recent immigrants could work but not complain, children of immigrants can complain, but only about certain topics, and then additional rights can be doled out based on the number of generations your ancestry goes back in the US. On DCUM, a very common tactic in response to an unwelcome post is to engage in "whataboutism" in which, instead of addressing the post itself, a poster asks "what about" something else to deflect from the post. Many of the posters in this thread engage in similar whataboutism and react to immigrants' complaints about the US by pointing out flaws in the immigrants' countries of origin. It is particularly ironic when posters are offended by general statements about the US because not everyone here is the same, but then turn around and make blanket statements about other countries. I suspect that attitudes towards criticism by immigrants, or indeed anyone, is very context specific. The same person who would be upset by complaints about American attitudes towards guns would probably be fairly comfortable with criticism of American "woke" culture. And vice versa.

Next was a thread titled, "Why can’t boys join Girl Scouts ?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that the "Boy Scouts of America" has renamed itself "Scouts BSA" and girls are able to join. Therefore, the original poster wants to know why boys can't join the Girl Scouts. As several posters point out, these are two separate organizations, each having their own rules. The Girl Scouts has not had an incentive to change its rules. In contrast, several posters argue, the Boy Scouts only changed their rules in the interest of self-preservation. A child abuse settlement and significant drop in membership threatened its existence and opening membership to girls was a way to expand membership. As one poster pointed out, this is like "asking if IHOP serves hamburgers why doesn't Burger King serve pancakes. One thing has nothing to do with the other." Almost immediately discussion in the thread veered off from the original poster's specific query and into a general discussion of membership policies. Apparently Scouts BSA troops have their own rules and, as a result, some are boys only, some are separated between boys and girls, and some are coed. Several posters stated their support for girls-only spaces such as the Girls Scouts. In response, other posters advocated for boys-only spaces. Then the thread turned into a debate about whether today's Scouts BSA provides spaces exclusively for boys or whether other organizations provides boys-only spaces. Basically, much of the thread became an illustration of how easily posters can completely miss the point. A typical course of discussion starts with a poster proclaiming the necessity and desirability of girls-only spaces, followed by a poster who agrees with this but also argues for the importance of boys-only spaces. Then someone complains that others support girls-only spaces but demand that boys' spaces be coed (despite nobody doing that). This then leads to complaints that the Boy Scouts are no longer boys-only and seem to blame that on those demanding coed spaces. But, as was explained among the very first posts in the thread, nobody demanded that the Boy Scouts become coed, that was the organization's own choice which it made in its own interest. Then another variation of this train of discussion repeats. Posters repeatedly complain that boys are not allowed to have their own spaces despite many boys-only spaces being pointed out. Then, as if to prove that the thread could get even more inane, a poster started arguing that the Girl Scouts could be sued for not allowing boys to join. One realization that I've had from reading this thread is that many people have trouble understanding the differences between public and private entities. The Girl Scouts, as a private organization, can establish its own membership rules. This confusion is understandable, however, given how frequently the government manages to excerpt itself with private entities.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Birth rate plummets", the original poster linked to a CBS News article saying that US birth rates had dropped to a record low level. While birth rates increased during the pandemic, this drop was the continuation of a downward trend that had existed prior to the pandemic bump. The original poster suggests that the drop is a response to abortion restrictions caused by women fearing pregnancy risks that are increased by difficulties obtaining reproductive care. The article itself offers no suggestions concerning the cause of the birthrate drop. As can be expected of threads in the political forum, posters, like the original poster, respond through their politically partisan lenses. Conservatives blame "Bidenomics" for creating a situation in which families can't afford children. Similarly, inflation is blamed. One poster blamed "modern culture". Other posters blame the lack of support within the US for women, children, and families. Posters predictably drag out their own personal cause de jure, such as one who blamed COVID vaccines. Rather than trudge through 26 pages of posts, most of which won't be worth the effort, I'll just provide some of my own, perhaps not very well developed, thoughts. Several things are indisputably true. The US does a terrible job of supporting young families. The cost of having a family is high and getting more expensive daily. But even countries that effectively address these issues are seeing a drop in birthrates. In addition, women are more frequently valuing their careers over parenthood and/or economic realities make their careers financially indispensable. Since this is true in countries that have addressed the cost of having children, it could be part of the explanation. But I suggest that there are lots of different contributors to the drop. All of the things mentioned could play some role. However, I'll posit another idea. For generations we have been raised to view life as a series of stages. You were born, went to school (at least through high school, maybe including college), got married, bought a house, and then had kids. Increasingly, this path is not available to young people. More importantly, many may reject it completely in favor of different paths. Other threads that I have discussed have described how young adults are less likely to pair off then in the past. Women have less need to find a man, being able to get by just fine without them, and online dating has changed the way many people view relationships. These factors can interact rather than simply being cause and effect. If young people are not marrying, buying a house is less important. Conversely, if high housing costs make buying a house impossible, it may well create an obstacle to getting married or starting a family. In addition, lower birthrates don't mean zero birthrates. Some of the drop is simply the result of smaller families. All developed societies observe a drop in birthrate. To some extend, decreased birthrates could simply reflect the success of educational, social, and financial development across our society. In that case, rather than fret about it, we should be pleased.