Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Once again yesterday the most active thread was the one about the Democratic National Convention and, once again, I will skip the thread because I've already discussed it. After that, the most active thread was titled, "MIT releases post-affirmative action class of 2028 data" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a New York Times article reporting on admissions results at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is the first highly-selective university to release statistics regarding the composition of its freshmen class since the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited using race as a factor in college admissions. The topic of race and admissions has been the subject of many lengthy and heated discussions in DCUM's college forum. The results at MIT were almost exactly what critics of race-based admissions had predicted. The number of Asian applicants admitted increased while the number of Black and Hispanic students decreased. Both the NYT article and posters in the thread noted that the MIT results defied expectations by some that universities would use information gleaned from student essays to advantage Black and Hispanic students as a way around the Supreme Court restrictions. MIT, at least, does not appear to have done this. Posters in the thread described that sort of work-around as "cheating" and the Times article suggested that schools that engaged in the practice might expose themselves to legal action. Still, colleges seem to want to recruit diverse student bodies. Even Sally Kornbluth, MIT's president, seemed to lament the loss of diversity in a quote reported in the Times article. However, the MIT data would seem to present a significant roadblock to maintaining diversity. By being the first out of the gate, MIT's results set the benchmark by which other universities will be judged. If the admissions statistics of other top universities do not show similar drops in Black and Hispanic admissions, the schools will be accused of having "cheated". While many of the posts in this thread mention "Asians" and make broad generalizations about them, what comes across if you are paying attention is the significant diversity in that community. On the one hand are Asians who, despite the MIT results showing increased admissions of Asians, seem to feel that everything is stacked against them and, as a minority, they are prejudiced against. On the other hand are posters who seem to believe that the MIT results show that Asians will soon dominate. As one poster writes, "in 10-20 years most of these institutions will be led by Asian Americans." But, in the middle are Asian posters who value diversity and are not thrilled with the MIT results. Given that the term "Asian" encapsulates both east and south Asians, we might want to begin using other designations. China and India are the world's two most populous countries. That's a lot of people to identify by a single label. This issue is a topic of dispute in the thread. The missing element from the MIT data is the demographics of those who applied. Apparently, MIT did not collect that information. There seems to be general agreement among posters that the vast majority of applicants to elite schools have the academic qualifications required and are separated by other factors. Therefore, a drop in the number of Black and Hispanic applicants might explain their drop in admissions. It would also be interesting to see if those groups have higher or lower rejection rates. But we simply don't have those numbers.

The next most active thread yesterday was one that I discussed yesterday about cultural essays used in college admissions. Since I've already written about that one, I'll go to the next most active thread which was posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. Titled, "Michelle Obama looks AMAZING", the original poster didn't have anything more than that to say and didn't even include a picture. Nevertheless, the original poster received more positive feedback than possibly any other original poster in the history of DCUM. I think that all but two of those responding agreed that Obama looked amazing. Posters loved her outfit, many agreeing that it gave her a warrior-like appearance. They loved its tailoring, its color, and everything else about it. The two dissenters only disliked the outfit. They also thought that she looked terrific otherwise. Basically, this thread was a lovefest. To the extent that there was any disagreement at all, it involved Obama's weight. Everyone thought that she looked slim and fit. However, posters disputed what might have led to her weight loss or even if she had lost weight at all. Some posters argued that she hadn't lost weight but that her outfit was slimming. Others felt that she had lost weight, but most likely due to exercise and working out. A few posters created controversy by suggesting she had relied on Ozempic, an allegation that some posters seem to consider one of the lowest blows that could be leveled at a woman. There was also considerable back and forth about Obama's style as compared to Vice President Kamala Harris' clothing choices. Posters agreed that Harris dresses much more conservatively. Some argued that this was a job requirement, that as a presidential candidate she has to appear serious. Obama, on the other hand, is free to dress as she wishes. A few posters argued that Harris could dress somewhat less conservatively and that there is a middle ground between Obama's style and Harris' current style that they would find more appealing. One sort of funny disagreement occurred right at the beginning of the thread when a few posters praised Obama's dress. I was confused because Obama had been wearing pants. Other posters questioned what the earlier posters had been watching and pointed out that Obama was wearing capris.

Next was a thread titled, "Nicole Shanahan says RFK Jr. campaign considering joining forces with Trump", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster describes a report in Politico that says that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s running mate, Nicole Shanahan, had said in an interview that Kennedy is considering dropping his presidential bid and endorsing former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The original poster asks why Kennedy would do this. Several weeks ago, Kennedy's son released a video of Kennedy and Trump having a phone conversation. It was later reported that Kennedy had offered to drop out and endorse Trump in exchange for an appointment in a Trump administration. Later, news was reported that Kennedy had made the same offer to Vice President Kamala Harris, but had been rebuffed. Therefore, it is possible that Trump, having seen his earlier election lead evaporate, has decided to make a deal with Kennedy. Trump supporters in the thread believe that this is great news for Trump and will put him ahead in the swing states, likely giving Trump the victory in November. They believe that Kennedy is a reasonable person who has seen the Democratic Party go astray and now wants to help Trump in order to save democracy. Democrats, on the other hand, consider Kennedy to be a somewhat insane conspiracy theorist with a lot of fringe beliefs whose Republican-funded campaign was always aimed at hurting Democrats. Now that polls show that he is hurting Trump more, he is dropping out and using another tactic to hurt the Democrats. There is considerable disagrement about the impact of Kennedy dropping out and endorsing Trump. If Kennedy's supporters all move in a group to support Trump, that could provide him with the margin of victory in several swing states. However, it is not at all clear that Kennedy's supporters will make such a move. Many Kennedy supporters might simply stay home and some could vote for Harris. As a result, it is not clear that there will be any impact on the election. Donald Trump Jr., whose previous most notable accomplishment was championing the least popular Vice Presidential candidate in recorded history, recorded a podcast in which he offered a full-throated endorsement of Kennedy joining a future Trump administration, agreeing with a suggestion that Kennedy could serve as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and also suggesting Kennedy might lead the Food and Drug Administration. These are absolutely insane ideas that highlight both the Trump campaign's desperation and lunacy. The most hilarious aspect of Kennedy potentially endorsing Trump is how it feeds directly into the Democrats' criticism of Trump and his team as "weird". Trump clearly resents being described as "weird", but joining forces with a guy who stashed a dead bear cub in Central Park, contracted brain worms (possibly from eating a dog), and has more or less admitted to being guilty of sexual assault is not going to help Trump combat that description. As one poster in the thread wrote, "Weirdos Unite!" Kennedy has scheduled an announcement for tomorrow so I guess we will see what happens.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. Titled, "jobs are very hard to find for recent grads.", the original poster says that her daughter graduated from an Ivy League university with a degree in Biomedical Engineering and has been unable to find a job since January of this year. In addition, several of her friends with similarly prestigious degrees have struggled to find jobs. The only friends of her daughter who have found jobs relied on family contacts. The original poster says that her daughter is very depressed and the original poster feels helpless that she cannot assist her. Many posters reply with advice such as widening the circle of companies to which she applies, nurturing contacts and networking, being willing to relocate, and contacting her school's career center. The original poster's daughter has done all of those things with no luck. Other posters report that they have children or know of other recent graduates who are experiencing the same thing. Sometimes responses to threads are so disjointed that it makes summarizing the thread impossible. This is one of those cases. There are multiple conversations intermixed, posters responding who haven't read previous messages, responses that seem completely unconnected to the thread at all, and posts that are on-topic and relevant, but posted amidst a group of posts for which they have no context. The effect is sort of like walking into a crowded room where everyone is in individual conversations and raising their voices trying to be heard. Meanwhile, a few others are walking around making random pronouncements. It is difficult to find much coherence. At any rate, there are repeated admonishments that the original poster's daughter should get a job waiting tables, that she should move somewhere else, or that she should join the military. Discussion of the military suggestion goes on and on. There is also a debate about general schedule (GS) rankings used by the government and which GS levels would be appropriate for a recent Ivy graduate. Finally, posters started arguing about the wisdom of certain schools as investments. It's a little too late for the original poster's daughter to be worrying about that since the investment has already been made. Hearing that the family may have spent their money unwisely is probably not particularly helpful at this moment, thought the point does seem very important to some posters.