Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Before I get started on the most active posts today, I want to draw attention to the new tab our navigation bar titled, "Contribute". This is in response to posters who offered to make donations to DCUM if we would discontinue the video advertisements that we had introduced. If you are interested in such a contribution, the "Contribute" page provides linkes to Patreon and PayPal allowing you to to that. All contributions will be greatly appreciated.

The most active thread yesterday by some measure — more than doubling the number of responses of the next most active thread and racking up an amazing 19 pages in less than a day — was a thread titled, "Travelled to interview, not sure what to think of prospective boss" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster describes an in-person interview for her "dream job" for which she had waited a long time for the previous job-holder to retire. The night before she was flying, her prospective boss texted her to say that he would pick her up at the airport and take her to lunch. This did not go over well with the original poster and, after some back and forth, she was able to get those plans changed. The prospective boss had arranged a full itinerary that included quite a bit of one-on-one time which made the original poster uncomfortable. The trip ended with the original poster being told that she would be offered the job. A few days later, the prospective boss texted her again which bothered the original poster and she told him that she would be available on another day (she later clarified that she was busy organizing a conference). This caused him to angrily reply back saying that maybe he should not offer her the job. The original poster ends by saying she believes that he is interested in more than a professional relationship and that she cannot take the job. She asks for advice about what to do. There are several issues included in this post and even more become evident as posters respond. There is the obvious issue of possible sexual discrimination or harassment. In the original post, the poster does not detail anything like that but seems uncomfortable simply being alone with a man. Some posters accept this as a reasonable concern but others think the original poster is overreacting. A second facet is the question of the boss's management style. Even taking the potential gender issues out of the discussion, many posters suggest that the prospective boss and the original poster may not have compatible working styles. Multiple posters stated that what the original poster described sounds very much like the typical interview in academia and the original poster confirmed that the interview was at a state university. This leads posters to advise the original poster that she likely does not understand what working in academia involves and that her expectations are massively unrealistic. Eventually the original poster did describe a comment by the prospective boss that was likely inappropriate, but posters are divided about whether it amounted to sexual harassment. Whether posters sympathized with the original poster or not, almost everyone agreed that if the original poster is not willing to put up with the boss, her only option was to turn down the job. Nobody seemed to see any effective recourse such as complaining to the human resources departement. I mostly stopped reading after the 4th page but as best I can tell, the same arguments simply repeated page after page with posters getting increasingly frustrated with the original poster.

The next two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. After those was a thread posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum titled, "Top Stats students that had difficult admissions last year". The original poster asks others whose children had "top stats" and great extracurricular activities but had lots of rejections last year to list the schools which did not accept them. Almost immediately, the responses started emphasizing the race, ethnicity, and gender of the applicants. Based on the responses, it is clear that Black, White, and Asian applicants with strong qualifications, both male and female, had frequently been shut out of top colleges. Many posters were particularly adamant that Asian males face significant hurdles. The college forum has many recurring issues and discrimination against Asians, especially Asian males, has become one of the more common of those. Much of the discussion focused on what students could do to improve their chances in the application process. Several posters emphasized the need for applicants to distinguish themselves as unique and also demonstrate true interest in and knowledge of the schools to which they were applying. Essays and interviews were often cited as having great importance because test scores are decreasing in value as schools become test optional and almost all serious applicants have very high grade point averages. One other thing I noticed is that in response after response, posters described students being shut out of all top privates, but ending up in great programs at state flagship universities, often with merit aid. They say that their kids are happy and it appears things worked out well for them. The bottom line of all of these admissions threads seems to be that there are plenty of applicants with top stats, great extracurriculars, well-written essays, and who interview well. Therefore, admissions to elite universities becomes basically a crapshoot.

The third thread that I will discuss was titled, "Which are the top academic rich kid schools?" and, like the previous thread, posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster lists several universities that she believes attract rich kids with good academic credentials and then claims that they all dropped in the recent US News & World Report rankings because of "a revised focus on the poors". Had I seen this thread before now, I would have deleted it for no other reason than that I don't like the original poster's attitude. The original poster is a little unclear about her goal with this thread but it appears she wants her child to apply to schools that cater to rich kids. I am not sure what she thinks would be gained in such an environment, but I am fairly certain that I would not be impressed by any clarification. Those responding list a number of schools that they think fit the bill, but many of those suggestions are disputed by others. There is a discussion about schools becoming test optional and whether that is a sign of prioritizing minorities and first generation students. An unstated assumption of this thread is that rich kids are naturally stronger academically and that standards are lowered for first generation students, minorities, and those in lower tax brackets. At least one poster challenges that assumption by arguing that test optional policies can also be used to favor wealthy, but academically weak, applicants. Probably half, if not more, of the thread is devoted to discussing Georgetown University and whether or not it meets the original poster's criteria. Many posters suggest that it is stingy with merit aid and, therefore, only an option for the rich. But, another poster says that the school provides significant need-based assistance allowing less well off students to attend.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum and titled, "change my mind: can't pay a living wage to all". The original poster, in a very convoluted manner, outlines what a subsequent poster describes as a "capitalist manifesto". The original poster lists items such as living without roommates and raising children that the poster doesn't believe should be affordable by those earning a minimum wage. As best as I can decipher the original post, the original poster thinks that living without roommates and being able to afford children are luxuries for those who have pursued advanced education or training and therefore earned those privileges. While some posters agree with the original poster, others disagree. In some cases vehemently. There are some well-thought-out responses in this thread and I encourage you to read it if the topic interests you. But, I am going to avoid discussing those and provide my own take on this subject. In my view, the biggest danger facing the United States as an open and democratic society is increasing financial inequity. The rich are getting richer and everyone else is either treading water or getting poorer. Requiring living wages that allow even the lowest earners to afford decent housing and raise children will have no real impact on the richest of the rich. It likely would have even minimal effect on the wealthiest of the middle class. But, price increases resulting from such wage increases are noticeable to the true middle class. However, price increases are not inevitable, but rather choices that are made, generally by the wealthy. Throughout the Covid pandemic and its aftermath, CEO compensation and the wealth of billionaires have increased. Rather than passing price increases on to consumers, CEOs could simply skip on their second or third yacht. Maybe not bother with their 10th home. What we are seeing is the funneling of money to an increasingly wealthy group while the middle class is asked to finance the basic needs of the poor. This has the impact of further enriching the already wealthy while decreasing the prosperity of the middle class. In other words, it increases the gap between the rich and the not rich. Rather than wringing our hands over whether a fast food employee should be able to afford decent housing and a family, the middle class should use its voting power to seek a more equitable distribution of revenue. Also, there is power in a union. All of us should be supporting unions.