Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread by some measure was the thread that I have already discussed about Vice President Kamala Harris' round of interviews that she has been conducting this week. Yesterday Harris was interviewed by Fox News' Bret Baier and posters' reactions to that event added several more pages to the thread and, as a result, the thread had nearly three times the number of posts yesterday as the next most active thread. The second and third most active threads were also ones that I've already discussed and I will therefore start with the fourth most active thread today. That thread was titled, "DEI at Michigan--NYT article" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by the New York Times but offered no description or summary of the article, simply saying that it is a "must-read." Unfortunately, the article is extremely long and a summary would have been very helpful. The article is about the diversity, equity, and inclusion program at the University of Michigan. The university launched its first DEI program over a decade ago and is now on the second version of the program. The Times article describes how DEI has been deeply integrated into almost every aspect of the university. Considerable time, energy, and money has been devoted to implementing DEI, but, according to the article, the result has not been positive. Minority students don't believe the program is having the intended result, non-minority students often react with disdain, and professors are often fearful of being accused of violating DEI policies. The DCUM college forum is full of posters absolutely obsessed with affirmative action, the use of race in college admissions, and the demographics of admitted students. A number of such threads have been among the most active threads and I have, therefore, discussed them in this blog. It is no surprise then that this thread attracted a lot of attention. It is also not a surprise that most of the posts were by posters opposed to DEI and that the thread largely consisted of criticism of the university's program. Posters criticized DEI generally and the University of Michigan's implementation of it specifically. They claimed that the program was a waste of money that could have been used more effectively to help minorities in other ways. Some posters claimed that DEI creates resentment and increases racial conflict rather than lessoning it. Other posters went to the defense of Michigan's DEI efforts, arguing that racial relations in the country are terrible and at least Michigan was trying to address the topic, even if its efforts weren't perfect. Other posters were willing to defend DEI more broadly and claimed that most of the criticism was from those who had previously been privileged and were now upset that they no longer held a special place in society. The University of Michigan generally has a good reputation on DCUM but also has a number of critics. Many from the second group used this opportunity to bolster their claims that Michigan is not as good as its reputation would suggest. Those accusations resulted in considerable pushback from Michigan boosters. Posters argued that DEI or not, the school was still a top school.

Yesterday's next most active thread was also posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Fascinating article from the WSJ re the methods of an ‘elite’ college counseling firm", the original poster linked to an article in the Wall Street Journal and, like the original poster of the previous thread, did not bother to say anything about the article. The original poster merely hoped that the gift link provided worked (it did). Also as in the case of the previous thread, the article was very long and a summary would have been nice. The article describes Crimson Education, a college counseling firm whose leader is described as the "Steve Jobs of college counseling". The firm's programs can cost as much as $200,000 and children as young as 12 participate. Crimson Education has not only had success getting it clients enrolled in top universities, but has become something of a darling of Wall Street, both in terms of investment and as a source of clients. In many ways, this thread is the counterpart to the thread about DEI. While DEI strives for equity, those paying top dollar for these services are definitely seeking an advantage. Crimson Education will go to great lengths to prepare the children for college. For instance, one student "has 23 tutors helping her on academic subjects and test preparation." The article also looks at college counseling more broadly, saying that 23% of Harvard freshman in 2023 reported working with a college counselor. Many of those responding react very negatively to the article, describing those who utilize the service as "fake people who have done nothing real on their own" and criticizing universities that accept them. Others try to draw lessons from the article that might be used to strengthen their own kids' chances at top colleges. My favorite response was from a poster who said that the same information was available in the DCUM college forum for free. Many posters consider college counseling services, and especially Crimson, to be rackets that may even engage in outright fraud. Multiple posters bragged that their kids had been accepted by Ivy League schools without using private counselors. Some posters suggested that they have lost respect for colleges that accept applicants that have gone through such programs. Along those lines, a number of posters said that at their kids' high schools, most of the students accepted at top private universities had utilized private counseling that had artificially boosted their applications. The truly smart kids in the class choose state flagship universities instead, suggesting that in pure academic terms, some public universities might actually outshine prestigious private schools. The college forum often seems to alternate between parents looking for an advantage for their kids and parents complaining about advantages — real or imagined — that other kids may have. Sometimes the same posters do both. This thread is clearly in the "complaining about other's advantages" category. The forum is often dominated by those with very cynical views of college admissions and this article does nothing to decrease such views. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Next was an article titled, "Trump just lost Michigan", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster embedded a tweet posted by Kamala HQ, the X account used by Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. The tweet contained a video of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump criticizing the importation of auto parts that are then assembled in U.S. factories for cars that are said to be made in America. Trump claimed that "We could have our child do it." Trump was specifically describing a Mercedes factory in South Carolina but the original poster suggested that by insulting auto worker jobs, Trump would lose Michigan. Many posters argued that this is further evidence of Trump's mental decline. Others, however, suggested that there is nothing that Trump could say that would turn off his base. One poster suggested that auto workers dont't pay attention to the news and, therefore would probably not find out about what Trump said. This ignores the fact that the United Auto Workers which has endorsed Harris has been publicizing Trump's remarks and can easily reach their members. Discussion in the thread diverged in a number of different directions. Some posters discussed the political climate in Michigan which in addition to having many residents involved in the auto industry, has lots of Arab and Muslim Americans who are upset about Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon. As a result, how residents will vote is in flux with with new variables at play. Other posters continued to delve into what they view as Trump's reduced cognitive capabilities. They debated whether this is simply a function of age or possibly linked to the assassination attempts he has suffered. Some posters, on the other hand, argued that Trump was correct and that these are low-skilled jobs that will soon be off-shored. Another defense of Trump was to argue that his statement had been taken out of context. These posters are correct that Trump was criticizing the importation of parts that he would rather see manufactured in the U.S., but that doesn't change the fact that he ridiculed the auto workers' jobs in the process. Some posters argued that auto workers are more inclined to be Trump supporters and that Trump would do more to assist the auto industry by using tariffs to stem imported cars and parts. Other posters pointed out that auto workers have done much better under President Joe Biden than under Trump and that Biden has done much to assist the auto industry, a pattern that Harris will continue. The thread is filled with off-topic posts as posters debate everything from inflation to which candidate would be more likely to destroy the country.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. Titled, "If you don't wear shoes in your home, what do you wear?", the original poster asks what others who avoid shoes in their house wear in cooler months on various types of flooring. Posters replied with a variety of answers with some going barefoot, others wearing slippers, and some using socks. Others have dedicated shoes for inside use, often of the slip-on variety such as Crocs. However, the thread almost immediately devolved into a snarkfest. One poster claimed to ride a pony from room to room, another takes Uber, and a third a unicorn. Basically this thread is 8 pages of mostly answers of this sort. If you are in need of a laugh and your requirements for humor are not particularly sophisticated, this thread might be for you. Other posters's responses say that they rely on UFOs, levitation, a zipline, snowshoes, and clown shoes. After several pages of this the original poster seems to have thrown in the towel and joined the fun. She first suggested that she wears Uggs inside but then replied to her own post criticizing Uggs as shoes and not something to be worn inside. She then claimed in one post to wear slippers and in another to stick to socks. She also expressed disgust for those who go barefoot. As some posters pointed out, this thread was not exactly dealing with rocket science and neither the original poster nor most of those replying were taking it very seriously. Beyond that, I don't really have anything more to say about the thread.