Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was the one about Fairfax County Public Schools boundary changes in which posters are stridently debating boundary changes that haven't been proposed. I'll skip that thread since I have already discussed it. The most active thread after that was titled, "Do many people pick publics because of money?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she chose to attend a private university and because her family did not pay for it, she used a combination of loans and financial aid. After graduation, she worked in investment banking with a salary high enough to pay off her loans quickly. Now she is surprised that many students are choosing state universities rather than private colleges. She wonders if this is due to financial concerns and implies that, if so, that would be a bad decision. Whether by accident or intention, this poster managed to offend many other posters. She had very strong opinions, starting with her contention that private universities are almost by definition better than state universities. Next was her belief that attending a prestigious private university would immediately lead to a high-paying job. Her overall tone suggested that attending a state university is misguided and short-sighted, something with which fans of state universities did not agree. In response, posters pointed out that college costs are significantly higher now than they were when the original poster was a student and, hence, loans tend to be larger and not as easy to pay off. Several posters argued that state schools such as the University of Virginia provide a better education than many private universities and, for in-state residents, at a much lower cost. The original poster's attitude was influenced by the fact that because she and her husband have significant income, the can easily afford the high costs of a prestigious private university. Her suggestion that others should just as easily be able to pay — or, if not, could take out loans that wouldn't end up presenting a financial burden — put her pretty firmly in Marie Antoinette territory. Many posters were quite unapologetic about the fact that they were choosing state colleges for financial reasons. The University of Virginia in particular has many fans on DCUM and posters argued that being able to get an education that rivaled that provided by many top private schools at a much lower cost made a lot sense. Moreover, posters pointed out that not everyone wants the same experience for college. Some much prefer the environment of large state universities. As I have noted in several earlier blog posts, there has been an anti-Ivy League trend on DCUM recently and this has developed into disenchantment with many top private universities. This played into the thread as well as many posters displayed hostile attitudes towards top private universities and clearly didn't share the original poster's respect for them.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. Titled, "Time off request rejected", the original poster says that she generally never asks for time off from work but a recent request for a single day off was rejected. Requests for time off are supposed to be submitted two weeks in advance and the original poster only submitted her request 9 days ahead. Hence her request was rejected and she is very upset because she had been able to arrange a college visit for her son and is now not sure what to do. I've noticed that generally when a poster posts what is basically a complaint, as is this case, posters react depending on how sympathetic they are to the complaint. Posters whose complaints are viewed as frivolous normally get a pretty rough response. Those who seem to have a valid complaint normally receive more supportive responses. I was curious to see where this post would fall. It seems that most posters considered the original poster's complaint to be perfectly valid and therefore, they tried to be helpful. Many posters advise that the original poster speak with her managers or the human resources department to try to get the decision reversed. The original poster is reluctant to do this because she is pessimistic that such conversations would be productive and they would probably only frustrate her further. Others suggest that she simply call in sick that day and then update her resume and begin looking for another job. The original poster is not enamored of calling in sick because it will be obvious to her managers that she is lying. Nevertheless, she seems to believe this is her best option. She is also leaning toward looking for a new job. Many posters were aggravated by the original poster's unwillingness to talk to her managers. The original poster repeatedly explained that her managers are secondary to HR when it comes to approving leave. Moreover, she doesn't have close relationships with any of her managers who are responsible for a large number of employees. But many posters simply refuse to accept this explanation and it causes the sympathy for her to erode. Posters begin criticizing her for being a "wet noodle" and suggest that her lack of assertiveness is the reason she has not advanced very far in life. Much of this discussion is about workplace relations. In many cases, those like the original poster who are hard-working and dedicated are not rewarded with similar loyalty. Therefore, many posters don't believe that employers deserve respect or loyalty either. Such posters have no issue with making waves or taking other steps that demonstrate their lack of respect. The original poster is reluctant to challenge the decision, but her employer's rigidity with regard to the request for leave may result in the loss of a dedicated employee.

Next was a thread titled, "Memorial Day cookout - charge guests for attending?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that grocery prices have gotten very high and wonders whether it would be okay to charge guests at his Memorial Day cookout $15 to attend. He says they will be serving ribs, brisket, and crabs and that this would be a really good deal for those attending. He argues that it would be impossible to get that type of food for that price elsewhere. I would say that there was universal opposition to this idea, but a very small number of posters were, if not supportive, unwilling to immediately rule the proposition out. Yesterday I discussed a thread in which a poster complained about his in-laws eating all of his food at his Memorial Day events. Responses in this thread were very similar to those in that thread. Most posters argued that if the original poster cannot afford the event, he should not host it. Others proposed turning it into a potluck and asking guests to bring a side dish, dessert, or drinks. Some even suggested using online resources to help manage who brings what. A third idea was to simply provide less expensive food, replacing the ribs, brisket, and crabs with hotdogs and hamburgers. The original poster was not immediately dissuaded and continued to argue that, financially, this would be a great deal for the guests. Other posters repeatedly explained that Memorial Day cookouts are not necessarily about the food. People attend them as social events, a chance to hangout with friends and family. They don't choose to attend parties the same why that they pick restaurants. Charging, as the original poster proposes, would be a major violation of social norms and an etiquette violation beyond most of those responding's willingness to tolerate. The thread's length has nothing to do with the variety of advice being offered — there weren't that many different suggestions — but more due to repetition, snide remarks, and off-topic tangents. Among the latter was a discussion of a trend to charge to attend wedding receptions and the difference between a "farmer's warehouse" and a "barn".

Today's post began with a thread in the "College and University Discussion" forum and it will conclude with a thread in that forum as well. This thread was titled, "boy, do T20 school love private high schools.". The original poster says that based on what has been posted on Instagram, students from local private schools have been very successful in being accepted by top 20 universities. The original poster also stresses that from what she can tell, most of those being accepted are "unhooked". In the college forum, "hooks" refer to non-academic measures that facilitate acceptance, such as being a legacy, recruited athlete, or related to a large donor. The original poster has touched on two topics that are constantly debated in the college forum. One is the college placement success of private schools versus public schools. The second is the importance of hooks. Conventional wisdom, as well as my anecdotal experience suggests that private school parents will spend three years of high school insisting that their choice of a private school had nothing to do with college but was simply a "better fit", had increased rigor, or they were attracted by smaller classes. But, year four comes along and suddenly they are all interested in whether they have received their money's worth in terms of college acceptances. There have been so many threads on similar topics that I have only bothered to skim this one. In general — of course there are always exceptions — but in general, private school parents believe that public schools engage in grade inflation, are not academically as strong, and offer multiple test retakes and, as such, make it easier to get good grades. They believe that top colleges are on to this and, therefore, find private school graduates more attractive and likely to be better students. In effect, they see private school as being its own sort of hook. For the past couple of years, however, they have been concerned that in a quest for "equity", top universities were prioritizing public school students. The good showing this year has made some parents happy to see this trend reversed. Whether or not things have actually changed is another question. Evidence is mostly anecdotal and it is hard to say if the past years were worse for private schools and whether this one is actually better. What is true is that for the most part graduates of the area's top private schools tend to be privileged. The costs of these schools makes them prohibitive for most families. Privilege normally finds a way to gain advantages. For instance, as one poster in this thread points out, many of the private school acceptances being discussed occurred as a result of Early Decision applications. ED, as it is called, requires students to commit to the school if accepted, often without knowing whether they will receive financial aid. This is not a hurdle for those families able to simply write a check for a top college as many of the well-healed private school families are able to do. But, for those less well off families more likely to send their kids to public school, this is a risky proposition. As a result, the acceptance success of private schools may be a result of their rigorous academics or it may be owed to application processes that favor the wealthy. Without more methodical study, it is difficult to say.