Search Results

Kai Cenat, Livvy Dunne, Baby Gronk, and The Rizzler: are we “cooked” as a society? “Brainrot” is a term regarding the adverse psychological and cognitive effects of consuming low-quality internet content. This low-quality entertainment was initially seen on TikTok but has gradually become a favorite type of content on Instagram Reels. Indeed, there isn’t actual “rot” occurring, but the idea of people wasting their time mindlessly scrolling through social media while generating revenue for big tech companies is a waste of time. Thus, we are rotting our minds instead of attempting to be productive. Over the past year, hearing brainrot phrases while walking in the halls hasn't been uncommon. Editor Will Cohen often says, “Let’s watch the Talk Tuah podcast.” Others can be heard saying, “What the sigma” and “I like my cheese drippy bruh,” a term popularized by Logan Paul, creator of Prime, and Mr. Beast, creator of Feastables. Generation Alpha, born between 2010 and 2024, started mindlessly consuming an internet meme called Skibidi Toilet last year. Yes, the word Skibidi is almost as rot-inducing as the meme's concept: a man with his head coming out of a toilet. Then it was Baby Gronk, a child football player who became famous for “rizzing” up Livvy Dunne and comparing his football ability to that of Patriots legend Rob Gronkowski–“rizz” is the slang term for having charisma, and Livvy Dunne is a social media celebrity who became famous for her gymnastic ability. Essentially, Baby Gronk and Livvy Dunne collaborated for views.  What do these collabs mean exactly? It’s simply money. Viewers of both fans mindlessly consume content from both parties. Each collaboration is like an advertisement for each celebrity. Viewers might see and follow a new person like Livvy Dunne, Baby Gronk, Logan Paul, or Mr. Beast. By gaining these new followers and views, each creator earns profits and pumps out more content so kids stay entertained. Therefore, there is a cycle between each collaboration and the subsequent new followers and views from which all the creators profit. An internet meme has roughly a 6-week lifespan, but how has brainrot persisted for over a year since its inception? The answer is new creators. Today, the Costco Guys initiated a new era of brainrot. The Costco Guys are a father and son duo famous for their TikTok video of a father, Big AJ, and son, Big Justice, and their love for Costco’s double chunk chocolate cookies and chicken bakes. They have generated millions of views of these rot-inducing videos, enabling them to travel to many college campuses and spread their influence. Most recently, they created a song called “We Bring The Boom,” where they introduced characters like The Rizzler, a 7-year-old kid who became famous for his “rizz-face.” Think handsome Squidward from that SpongeBob episode, and that's The Rizzler. The creation of all these new characters and new content continues to fuel brainrot. Brainrot was once a singular meme. Now, it’s a category that has spread like an infection around the internet. Are we “cooked” as a society? Probably not. Massive memes like brainrot existed in many prior years under different pseudonyms. Many of my senior friends and those now in college can remember the days of MLG memes—a massive collection of flashing colored lights popularized by the video game Call of Duty. MLG memes peaked around 2013 but were still prevalent up until late 2017. Today, they are nearly nonexistent. The dying of these memes comes after the viewers deem them not as entertaining as they once were, prompting them to move on to the following best form of entertainment. I predict that we are in the final stages of the brainrot epidemic. Generation Alpha is slowly starting not to be as entertained as they once were with brainrot, which will hopefully be the end to the worst era of the internet. Jack Francini

From Darling, I  and Daddy Issues  to Dochii and Daniel Caesar, Chromakopia has sparked an overload of opinionated conversation, but here is a (somewhat) more concise review of Chromakopia’s story telling, lyrical vulnerability, and cultural commentary.  Compliments and Controversy: the Chromakopia Review Tyler, the Creator’s unexpected announcement of an album, released just days afterwards, broke his tradition of dropping music on uneven years, raising an online storm of conspiracy theories about features and bringing up extensive debates about his music. The album initially faced criticism, such as from the half-asleep ears of Marcus Douge who called it “pretty mid”  before listening a second time. But just as Chromakopia grew on Marcus, others began to give the album its deserving acclaim. Tyler, the Creator already had a solid standing in the music world, and this album reaffirms his talent . Chromakopia’s storytelling blends raw dialogue and nuanced lyrics to form a rich, layered soundtrack that includes both the emotional turmoil from realizing the reason for his father’s absence and the one and only Sexyy Red.  Any invested fan of  Tyler’s music is aware of the interconnectedness of songs within albums, and Chromakopia expands these connections by continuing plot lines and themes from older albums. Although the release of the Chromakopia was seemingly random, there were actually ties from previous albums such as Call Me If You Get Lost: The Estate Sale.  Tyler foreshadowed Chromakopia’s vulnerability through the Sorry Not Sorry  music video that opens on a stage with alter egos of Tyler, in character of previous albums such as Cherry Bomb and Flower Boy, except for one. The only non-album related version of Tyler stood shirtless, potentially symbolizing the emotional exposure of the “era upon us” that he references in the outro. Chromakopia builds recognizable themes of resentment and heritage that ties all the way back to songs from 2013 such as Answer  that explores Tyler’s complex “emotional daddy issues” as Sarah McLaughlin eloquently put it. In that song, Tyler expresses discomfort in carrying the features of a man who is nothing but a stranger who fills him with resentment, and from there, Chromakopia moves towards the present day, where Tyler shows the same unease with carrying his father’s features in Like Him. Here, Tyler’s mother reveals that his father wasn’t absent by choice, but forced from Tyler’s life, connecting other songs such as Hey Jane  and I Hope You Find Your Way Home  to themes of fatherhood and developing emotional availability. Chromakopia’s exploration of struggles with vulnerability and identity spanned the entire album but certain songs, such as I Killed You, highlighted a history of identity erasure of people of color as Tyler underscores the pressure for Black people to conform their appearance and self-expression to mainstream eurocentric standards. Take Your Mask Off  also touches on the suppression of identity in a poignant commentary on appropriation, internalized homophobia, and the erasure of self. Tyler, the Creator has always had a public voice rejecting conformity and embracing personal identity, and Chromakopia perfectly executes the expression of this sentiment by continuing to push limits to an uncomfortable extent. Unlike previous albums where each song on the album’s list would remain mostly within the same genre or general energy and flow, Chromakopia showcased Tyler’s musical variety and range through a medley of styles that he previously kept separate. Integrating multiple songs with completely different vibes that could easily correlate to different eras of Tyler’s music, this album features songs such as Darling, I  that seem on brand for Tyler’s Flower Boy ’s more melodic and upbeat songs that are more comfortable in mainstream spaces, and places them alongside with tracks such as Noid  and St. Chroma which both call to mind the percussion heavy and intense production of IGOR  and Goblin .  Although the first listen might be off-putting to newer fans, or disappointing to delusional Frank Ocean fans  desperately hoping for a feature (myself included), Chromakopia still maintained and elevated Tyler’s trademark experimental and bold style. Through incorporating a wide range of features such as Lil Wayne, Sexxy Red, Daniel Caesar, and Doechii, Tyler blended his own unique style with each artist’s vocals and flow to best compliment each other and give the album a diverse range. Tyler’s music is commonly misunderstood immediately after its release, but it seems that Chromakopia is steadily becoming more appreciated, and even fans who were initially disappointed have grown to believe that it “might be the greatest album of the year”  as said by Marcus Douge. More loyal fans, such as Sarah McLaughlin, appreciated the skilled production and composition from the beginning, praising how Tyler  “goes through each theme, idea, or concept flawlessly”  and maintains an interconnectedness between his various eras of art and life in the powerfully experimental album that is Chromakopia. Amrita Tromge

Modern masculinity and its perverse effects on the upcoming election The 2024 election is the current culmination of the surmounting bipartisan divide that has plagued the United States for decades, but notably since Trump’s victory in 2016. Meanwhile, the world is advancing technologically. Since the pandemic, algorithmic short form media has dominated the entertainment industry. Political campaigners obviously are not oblivious to this ever growing social trend, and thus have flocked towards platforms such as TikTok and Instagram reels to take advantage of the feedback loops and echo chambers perpetuated by the algorithmic engagement systems.  Perhaps at the helm of the negativity that sprouted from this clever political exploitation are Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, both famous conservatives. While Tate is infamous for his belligerent and misogynistic attitude, he isn’t exactly known for well articulated rhetoric and comprehension. The man even claimed that women shouldn’t possess the right to vote. Thus, while impressionable towards a younger audience, his bravado doesn’t sustain any sort of longevity within his fandom. Peterson, however, has garnered a large following due to his elocution, and this eloquence helps him promote his twisted idea of masculinity.  Peterson, now also joined by billionaire and endeavoring internet personality Elon Musk, foments hate towards ideas such as “political correctness” and identity politics. Just like Peterson’s glib language, Musk’s affluence also aids the Republican party’s validity, as surely one of the richest people in the world has the firmest grasps on public affairs. Regardless of this logical fallacy, due to their combined colossal platforms — Musk owns X, and has been known to censor “tweets” despite ironically advocating for free speech — these influential figureheads can easily prey on susceptible young men.  These ideas happen to be reiterated by Donald Trump, the current Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. Recent polling from the Harvard Kennedy School shows that almost 58% of young men support Trump, versus the 37% that support Kamala. Despite the theory that most voters will return to logos and rationality, this conjecture falls short when an entire demographic has yet to develop their prefrontal cortexes.  Potentially joining the nominal leaders of online conservatism is Joe Rogan. While Rogan may not be as outlandishly dramatic as his peers, he nonetheless occasionally perpetuates the common misinformation shared among his ilk. Additionally, Rogan isn’t steadfast on any political party: he endorsed Bernie Sanders back in the 2020 election, and later in 2022 called himself a "bleeding heart liberal” and was a surprising advocate for same-sex marriage. However, Rogan has also claimed to prefer the Trump administration to Biden’s, and maintained a similar sentiment toward Kamala Harris’ campaign. While at the time of writing this Rogan hasn’t espoused a specific candidate for the 2024 election, he has hosted the former president Donald Trump on his podcast very recently on October 25, 2024. Rogan did not outright endorse Trump, and even criticized and corrected Trump on multiple occasions; however, the casual communion of the two might suggest to Rogan’s largely young adult audience a large implication of political endorsement. Similarly, Rogan would go on to host Republican Vice President candidate JD Vance on October 31, 2024. With Rogan being a podcaster with 18 million followers on YouTube alone and both videos having amassed 57 million views combined as of November 3, 2024, these last minute interviews could garner vital voters in the tumultuous upcoming election.  In light of our assembly with Dr. Matthew Dickinson, one should recall that less than 2% of Americans are the most vocal on our nation’s politics. The outrageous videos and comments online are not written or even liked by the average person. While the Republican party has brazen figureheads which perhaps reflect poorly on the GOP, the loud minority does not represent the political party as a whole. No matter your affiliation, please remember to maintain civility and rationality in political discourse.  Ethan Yuan

As skepticism towards American Democracy grows, understanding the roots of public distrust and fostering accountability may be key to restoring public faith. Imagine stepping into the voting booth and wondering if your vote matters at all. You check a box, but in the back of your mind, a nagging question remains: does the government even care about what I want? According to a recent New York Times/Siena College poll, nearly half of Americans believe that the nation’s democracy is not doing a good job representing ordinary citizens, while more than three quarters express that American democracy is currently under threat. Political polarization, media misinformation, and a growing tide of populism all contribute to the growing disillusionment of American government and democracy. This crisis of faith raises pressing questions: can the upcoming 2024 election restore our confidence to some extent, or are we doomed on a dangerous slide toward an even more divided nation? One factor driving this distrust is increasingly polarized political beliefs. The deepening divisions between not only political parties but also the American public make it harder for people to believe that political institutions serve all citizens instead of just one political faction. Citizens often witness political gridlocks that leave pressing matters unresolved, and they are left wondering why a nation with such abundant resources can’t seem to get anything done. In fact, there are perverse incentives for members of the opposing party in Congress to not work with the sitting president. Suppose Joe Biden were to pass a bill that’s extremely popular around the country. That would lead to him, and in turn the Democrats, getting credit for that bill so that the Republicans stand a lesser chance of winning in the next election. Therefore, the Republicans will try to prevent those bills from being passed. This institutional setup has always been the case in the United States, but in the period of the last few decades, tactics of this nature have increased drastically. In this zero-sum thinking, victory for one party seems like defeat for the other, and this mindset erodes public faith in a system that does not seem to represent all citizens fairly. Adding fuel to the fire is social media misinformation that distorts the public’s perception of both the political process and election integrity. During the 2020 election, rumors of widespread voter fraud by the Democratic Party caused an uproar, especially surrounding the increase in mail-in voting due to COVID. While these claims lacked substantial evidence, they fed pervasive fears that the democratic process was being tampered with. This kind of misinformation, whether deliberate or not, creates a ripple effect in which the public is swept into doubt and makes it harder for people to agree upon a set of basic facts.  At the heart of this erosion of faith is the rise of populism–a phenomenon fed by economic insecurity that has reshaped the way many see their leaders. While some populist leaders sincerely aim to make the government more responsive to the people, others exploit the frustration of those who feel neglected by a system that seems to favor elites for personal or partisan gain, further inciting division and weakening faith in democratic institutions.  Dr. Matthew Dickinson, a political science professor at Middlebury College, sees both danger and opportunity in the upcoming election. He contends that he is “hopeful that this election is not going to have the same negative repercussions as the last one,” but “not optimistic that’s going to happen.” Indeed, the process of healing America’s faith in democracy cannot happen overnight by merely holding an election. For public trust to heal, Americans must see leaders genuinely invested in the public good instead of just the next election cycle. If political leaders continue to rely on divisive language and prioritize winning over governance, skepticism will only deepen.   Ultimately, the government must demonstrate accountability to its people. This entails educating voters on the realities of policy-making: though the president often receives blame or praise for national or global events, the majority of issues are beyond the direct control of the president. While Biden faced criticism over handling border issues during his term of office, a bipartisan border control bill he attempted to advance early this year was voted down by Republicans under the lead of Donald Trump, who opposed this bill on the grounds that it offered a disadvantage to his immigration-focused reelection. By focusing on who truly holds power instead of assigning blame, Americans may be better equipped to hold their representatives accountable and advocate for change. As the tendency for voters to vote on a nationalized basis increases, it is critical that we bring attention to micro factors and learn who really is responsible for the outcomes we are seeing rather than blaming it on the president. Until then, perhaps the real question isn’t why democracy is failing us, but whether those in power are willing to confront why.  Jessica Wu

The Breakdown on How Celebrity Endorsements Have Affected the 2024 Presidential Election The nation is in the midst of watching the highest stakes popularity contest play out. In the wake of the 2024 United States presidential election, there has been a drastic increase in celebrity endorsements across both parties as the presidential candidates vie for the votes of the undecided. Political endorsements are thought to spark electoral interest, sway voter opinion, and raise money. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have already outlined their presidential agendas and “concepts of a plan” for the next four years, yet the election remains extremely close, with the outcome hinging on just a few key battleground states. In the tight race, each individual vote matters. Both candidates, therefore, have resorted to highly publicized celebrity support, hoping that celebrity endorsements will give them a slight advantage. Celebrities like Taylor Swift, Lebron James, Beyoncé, and Oprah Winfrey have all formally endorsed Kamala Harris, stimulating a wave of excitement for her campaign. Similarly, Bruce Springsteen, Mumford and Sons, and Gracie Abrams have performed live at her rallies, igniting enthusiasm in between speeches. Recently, actress Julia Roberts voiced an ad, addressing the election’s impact on female votes and educating the public on the importance of voter turn-out. As popular celebrities continue to publicly support Harris, other influential citizens are following suit. On October 24th, 82 American Nobel Prize winners came out with their support for Harris, completely denouncing former President Trump’s candidacy, and stating that if elected he would “undermine future U.S. leadership… as well as jeopardize any advancements in [the] standard of living.” Even Saturday Night Live seemed to endorse Harris this past weekend with her cameo on the show. As the Harris campaign comes to a close, Harris’ team hopes that the widespread popularity of her most famous celebrity endorsements will translate into Democratic votes.  Kamala Harris isn’t the only candidate to receive celebrity endorsements, as Donald Trump has also acquired support from some influential names. For instance, Hulk Hogan, Kanye West, Mel Gibson, and Dr. Phil are among Trump’s biggest followers, with many of them speaking at his rallies. However, the biggest and arguably most loyal celebrity endorsement came from the owner of X, Tesla, and SpaceX—Elon Musk. Musk has donated over $75 million to America Pac this year, his own political action committee which supports Donald Trump's presidential campaign, as well as pledged to give away $1 million a day to voters in battleground states who sign his political petition. Musk has also created a safe haven for extreme right-wing viewpoints on X, allowing the spread of pro-Trump propaganda. Similar to Harris, Trump hopes to win votes through his influential supporters in key states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Arizona. But the question remains with celebrities casting their lots: do these endorsements actually make a significant difference in the outcome of elections? Research says yes ! After Taylor Swift endorsed Harris in October, 400,000  people accessed vote.gov the following day. Likewise, Elon Musk, who has over 200 million followers on X, has seen a viewership increase of 138%, a retweet increase of 238%, and a liked tweet increase of 186% since July. Such celebrity support can make or break the election. For instance, in the 2008 presidential election, it is thought that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama propelled him to a victory over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and later a victory in the presidential election. Similarly, musician Al Johnson, one of the first celebrity endorsements to make a real difference in a campaign, drove the Republican presidential candidate, Warren Harding, to triumph.  In an ideal world, individual thought outweighs conformity to public opinion, and personal bravery triumphs over fear of group judgment. Similarly, political opinions would be formed through careful analysis and honest reflection of a candidate’s policies, rather than another person’s beliefs. Yet, in a time of widespread social media, it is increasingly easy to shy away from forming one’s private personal opinion. So for the time being, celebrity endorsements do  matter. However, as Harris and Trump sideline policy discussions to focus more on their image, it is important to remember that when deciding who to vote for, the candidates’ presidential plans, their ideas for the future, and their moral character do  matter, and if nothing else, maybe it is worth scrutinizing the same for the celebrities supporting them.   Ryan Wolff

Is the Family Weekend a success or a failure? Every year Middlesex welcomes over one hundred new families to our community, bringing diverse backgrounds, experiences, and heritages to this special place. We gather as one to celebrate all of what Middlesex has to offer and all that each individual brings to Middlesex in return. Fall Family Weekend is a highly-anticipated event every year, as every student hopes to share with their loved ones the MX magic that brings this campus to life. However, Family Weekend is not only a time of bonding within families, but also an opportunity to welcome unique viewpoints and experiences. Indeed, whether you call the small town of Concord home or if home is all the way across the ocean in China, South Korea, South Africa, Finland, and beyond, MX connects people from all around the world. Family Weekend started with an international family dinner on Thursday night, warmly welcoming families who traveled from different nations to eat together under one single tent. The next night, all families streamed into the MX gates. Starting the night off with class receptions, parents of each grade gathered together to bond over snacks and beverages, soon moving onto the formal dinner in the rink. The jazz band played lovely background music as families enjoyed a delicious meal. After dinner, all the families slowly filed to the chapel where Chamber Orchestra, Small Chorus, and Swag captivated the audience with beautiful music. Starting off with an instrumental piece, our orchestra, conducted by Dr. Wetzel, impressed the audience with Molly On The Shore. Then, Swag swept the entire audience with an astounding performance of Blackbird by The Beatles, with many stating that this performance was one of the best in Swag history. The Bullfrogs took the stage afterwards with Uptown Girl and MXolydians with Since U Been Gone, lead by soloists Alvie Zobel de Ayala and Izzy Johnston. Finally, Small Chorus ended the night with I Have A Voice with soloist Chris She, and the entire audience left with their jaws dropped.  However, despite the outstanding performances, many people did not have room to sit during the chapel performance due to overcrowding, and others sat behind large pillars, completely blocking their view of the talented musicians. Instead, students should attend, without their families, the same musical concert performed the night before in the Terry Room, while parents can enjoy the performances in the chapel alone. Indeed, Alison Fiedler ‘27, a member of Swag, stated that she was also slightly disappointed that not as many people showed up to that performance as she hoped. Having a large population of the student body go to that concert would mitigate both situations. After a good night of sleep, families are back on campus early in the morning to attend their child(ren)’s classes. From A block to G block, our parents met every single one of our teachers, living a day in the life as a Middlesex student. At least for my parents, they always tell my brother and I after attending our classes how lucky we are to have access to this level of education, teachers who truly want to help you improve, and class structures that develop your learning capabilities.  Ultimately, although it could benefit from minor adjustments, Family Weekend serves as a time for connection and bonding, whether between or among families, everyone leaves with stronger relationships than before. Michelle Cai

Looking outside the bubble: As the presidential election comes to a conclusion, how can Middlesex students learn to engage with the politics that affect them. Embarking on the 2024-2025 school year, Middlesex hones in on the new word of the year: Engage. At Middlesex we’ve learned to immerse ourselves into our academics, commit to our sports, and foster relationships with one another. But as the presidential election looms over us, how can we as a community learn to engage not only with events that affect us on campus, but events that affect us as citizens? It is true, of course, that the typical MX day leaves little time to read headlines and catch up on current events. But the Middlesex grind can’t be used to justify the rapid decline in media literacy and political engagement across campuses everywhere. The truth is, the more polarizing politics becomes, the more jaded young adults are. Extremist ideology has overtaken political discourse to the point where we as a society have lost our understanding of a middle ground. It seems like young adults who identify with far-left and far-right beliefs engage more fervently in political discussion; however, for the demographic of young minds who may not hold strong biases–or haven’t been given a chance to form them–one can often feel unrepresented by politics and therefore become disengaged. Even more so, when the politicians who our generation is expected to look up to as the standard for respectful and proactive discourse behave so abusively towards one another, how can our generation learn to engage in respectful and proactive discourse ourselves?  In breakout groups following Professor Matthew Dickinson’s lecture on the 2024 election, most students in my class stated that because they aren’t voting in the upcoming election, they feel as though it doesn’t affect them, and they therefore pay little attention to the race. This seems to be a common attitude students share, as other peers I’ve spoken to have related the same answer. But if past elections have taught us anything, it’s that whatever happens over the next few weeks–and the next four years–will have ramifications that will shape this country’s social climate immensely, whether we are able to vote or not. Indeed, the next president, whomever he or she may be, will almost certainly nominate supreme court justices who will rule on issues such as abortion. Although here in Massachusetts abortion rights may be something we take for granted, as we begin to look at colleges across America, we would do well to consider how the landscape of reproductive rights and healthcare might affect our sex lives in college. How many of us will have to live in fear of getting pregnant like our grandmothers once did? Being informed lets us move forward, not back to the 1960’s. A giant step towards engaging in political discourse is to take a step back and think about where we are getting our information from. Apps like Instagram, Tiktok, and X are riddled with political bias to feed you short, digestible information that may or may not be correct. Because our generation grew up with social media and got comfortable with mistaking entertainment for news, we owe it to ourselves to seek out sources that we can trust. Even more so, young adults need to show that  they  can be trusted with the nuances and gray areas of political life. Speaking to my peers, some have said that they don’t like to get involved with politics because they see it as “an adult thing.” But our generation must unlearn the stereotype that politics isn’t for us.  As the 2024 Presidential Election comes to a close, how we’re engaging in politics matters. Whether it's reading The Times or having a conversation with a fellow peer, we must learn to become curious, and tolerate the discomfort of asking questions that may change our views, or even create a new one. Our school needs to look outside the Middlesex Bubble, and realize that this election is not only happening to voters, but it's also happening to us. Kat Stephens

Investigate stress levels at Middlesex compared to similar boarding schools. Are the all-nighters spent on essays at MX really legitimate? Do students across other schools share the same struggles, and if so, how do they cope? All-nighters, desperate pleas for extensions and skipped meals, have long been core tenants of the Middlesex experience. While some students cope better than others, Middlesex is undeniably a stressful environment. Are sleepless nights and frantic rushes against due dates exclusive to Middlesex? What does the workload look like at other New England boarding schools?  In a conversation with Middlesex students on campus, Linda Wang ‘27 relates: “the weekly workload at MX often overrides time I have for everything else — especially other extracurriculars and time to just…chill.” Comparatively, Jeannie Kang, a current sophomore at Phillips Academy, affirms that “while there are notions about Andover being an academically all-consuming school, students generally find time for themselves throughout the week.” These two starkly contrasting reflections on academic pressure unavoidably raise a question: is Middlesex just inherently more demanding than other boarding schools?  Upon further reflection, however, Jeannie Kang relates a more nuanced outlook on academic pressure in prestigious and demanding institutions like Andover. “Phillips Academy, like any boarding school, allows students to pick up stress on a spectrum – whether through course choices or the number of extracurricular activities one chooses to engage in. On net, Andover’s academic structure isn’t actually too demanding – serving as a 5-class day school with reasonable work-load moderation.” However, beyond this seemingly euphoric outlook on work lies a greater level of pressure.  Both Jeannie Kang and Lero Phiri, Choate Rosemary Hall ‘27, relate an underlying issue of social pressure at Andover and Choate. Lero Phiri argues that, “while Choate itself doesn’t expect too much from me… the expectation to do a lot is embedded in most students at Choate. These expectations often translate into my own internalized expectations of what I should be doing in my free time.” Lero concludes that living up to the expectations and the caliber of his peers is equally as pressurizing as the class programs themselves.  While Middlesex is comparatively just as demanding–if not more structurally stressful than these other boarding schools–there is a largely unanimous consensus on campus that MX is a promotive environment. David Yang ‘26 relates that “while students at MX are certainly well-accomplished, I’ve never felt pressure to live up to those same expectations.” Similarly, Sixing Wang ‘26 asserts that “everyone is generally very supportive of each other’s personal talents and successes.” Most importantly, students generally relate that while stress is undeniably prevalent, support structures on campus help them through much of the hardship.  Middlesex, with a similar number of course credits as Andover and Choate, requires an additional set of mandatory credits in the Arts and Humanities; however, faculty and advisors alike understand the notoriously demanding nature of these programs. When asked about his outlook on support structures on campus, David Hernandez ‘27 refers to his “advisor Mr. Lobato and wonderful dorm parents” who help him through “even the smallest daily struggles at Middlesex”. Undeniably, there are highly reliable support outlets at Middlesex to combat what seems like daily struggles against stress and pressure.  Ultimately, there is, of course, a recognition that Middlesex is a comparatively stressful school – adopting an academic curriculum and schedule which seem more stressful than the peer schools. However, beyond inherent academic pressures, there is also an appreciation of the positive community culture of the school. What may seem like individual pressures and stresses are shared struggles – struggles which students and faculty alike embrace together as a supportive community. Perhaps that’s part of the Middlesex experience—alongside every Middlesex student pulling an all-nighter is an equally sleep deprived neighbor, and together, we help each other navigate our challenges.   Bryan Dong

A dive into the cultural festival and further our DEI efforts. Have you ever wanted to try different foods from different cultures while learning more about their traditions? Well, on Friday, October 5th, Middlesex hosted its Cultural Festival in the Stufac. The festival attempts to promote diversity within the student body and provide students with the opportunity to share their unique cultural backgrounds with their classmates. At the fair, around ten groups of students shared their culture with the school, setting up tables representative of their culture. All of the booths included yummy foods from their cultures, fostering better awareness of their traditions. The Cultural Festival gives minority groups a voice in the Middlesex community and allows them to be seen, valued, and celebrated. In such a small, tight-knit community, it is important for everyone to celebrate each other’s identities, educate each other about our backgrounds, and promote diversity within our community. Events like the Cultural Festival are crucial for creating a space of inclusivity, allowing students to learn and understand the cultures outside of their own.  Through this festival, Middlesex faculty and students are able to appreciate the unique and special aspects of each other’s cultures while also recognizing the similarities between them. In addition, the festival gives students a chance for individual expression and to proudly display and share their culture with others. This celebration of our diversity also breaks down cultural barriers, creating a more inclusive community through the appreciation of each other’s traditions and customs. But, of course, it is impossible for a school to not face any issues. Within the Middlesex community, even with all of our efforts, such as the Cultural Festival, we still face many challenges related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, even if they are unintentional. For example, many people don’t participate in events like the Cultural Festival because they are scared of being ridiculed and made fun of. Despite attempts at sharing cultures, many people remain uneducated, and microaggressions still occur on campus—a reminder that we still have a lot of work to do. As a community, we should work together to keep everyone educated and aware of respect towards different cultures, such as what things are offensive to say and what is not. We should also celebrate our uniqueness and the significance of a united community. By working together to promote awareness, Middlesex will be able to share the beauty of our cultures. Allison Luo

Investigate what is shaping the gender gap in the 2024 Election and why are men and women so divided. Harris currently holds a 16-point advantage among likely female voters, while former President Trump enjoys an 11-point lead with likely male voters. All signs suggest the current polarizing political beliefs surrounding gender continue as debates between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump escalate. Class and sociocultural status have become the forces uniting each party’s coalition, adding another layer of uncertainty to a contest already on a knife’s edge. The gender debate in the 2024 election is yet another result of polarization of the Culture War, as both sides swing to opposite extremes in political stances. Donald Trump’s recent promise to be the protector of female voters emphasizes his determination to solidify support from voters who hold conservative views on gender roles and traditional family structure. While Trump reinforces the importance of “protection” and “physical security” of women, his choice of language reflects an orthodox and hierarchical conception of gender roles. For example, the former president claims that women will “no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared…women will be healthy, happy, confident and free.” His words paint women as vulnerable beings and men as the ultimate “protector,” tapping into the symbols of traditional masculinity. In doing so, Trump inadvertently reveals his deeply-entrenched opinion that men are patriarchs of the family who hold absolute executive power.  Trump’s stance offers an insight into traditional political dynamics, where the public sphere continues to favor male dominion. This political standpoint, however, risks alienating a broad array of voters who favor social changes, particularly regarding the growing independence of women. Many college-educated and employed female voters will likely resist conventional expectations associating them with vulnerability.  Democrats take an equally polarizing stance on gender, exacerbating existing gender divides and hindering potential compromises. Kamala Harris, a female leader with an immigrant family background, draws on her personal experience to appeal to female voters. She uses topics of contention such as abortion to point out the deficiencies in Donald Trump’s policies that disrespect women in ongoing debates. Indeed, the debate surrounding gender has shifted from a general concern for promoting women’s welfare to a tool for consolidating support and morally criticizing the opponent—both sides leverage gender-related issues as their political stratagem. One crucial aspect of debate centers on reproductive rights, fueled by the Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization  case, is a landmark decision by the supreme court to grant states more power to regulate abortion. Statistics of exit polls show that the gender gap widened dramatically from 7 point in 2004 to 12 points in 2020, substantiated by Trump’s 15-point loss among female voters, which is a drop from 57 percent to 42 percent. Polling ahead of the 2024 election signals even further divides as Trump continues to lose support from women voters. The most recent New York Times polls in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin reveal that 55 percent of registered men support Trump compared to a mere 39 percent of women. With regards to abortion, 23 percent of the women registered in nation-wide polls have listed it as “the most important issue in deciding their vote in November.” Abortion rights are a test of democracy for women, as they fight for their control over their body. Few would be willing to give up this freedom, submitting to patriarchal social expectations.  But what other factors are making men and women so divided? One possible answer is humans’ innate desire for power and autonomy. Surveys have revealed that one of the central fault lines between men and women is whether gender provides an unfair advantage in American society. “Sixty-eight percent of Democrats believe that men have it easier in America today, a view shared by only 32 percent of Republicans.” It is all a matter of perspective. Throughout history men have enjoyed their privilege of ruling, whether it is a patriarch of a tribe or the emperor of a kingdom-they have been so unused to being questioned. Until the late nineteenth century they started to sense their position being challenged by the suffrage movement and felt insecurity and threat. As women gradually gained more power and authority, men thought their power was being challenged, while women asserted their right to fight for their own freedoms.  It’s no coincidence that the tense dispute surrounding gender reveals the unchanging political dynamics where both men and women desire advantages and privileges. Fueled by both parties' flaming rhetoric in the election, polarization of policies and gender divides will continue to escalate, and it’s only a matter of time before this heated debate boils over. Lucy Wu

A majority of Americans prefer a more conservative path forward. To win again, Democrats need to remake their party and platform, not simply fix their messaging. Since Donald Trump stormed back to power in grand fashion, many autopsies of Democratic failures have accurately diagnosed most of the factors that led to such a devastating loss. Kamala Harris and her campaign dodged substantive questions and failed to define her policies, if they ever truly existed at all. She was crowned with the nomination by Biden and other party elites rather than democratically selected and fittingly inherited Biden’s unpopularity. January 6th and abortion were predictably not the winning issues Democrats thought they would be, both because voters were rightfully skeptical about apocalyptic predictions of a national abortion ban or the end of democracy, and because the issues were of lower relative importance to voters. The Democrats’ problems, however, run far deeper than campaign messaging mishaps.  The Democratic party lost the 2024 election because over the last eight years they allowed a deluded progressive minority to capture their party and pull it leftwards. Their platform lacks coherence or sense, and they’ve lost their diverse working-class coalition because of it. The party needs a serious reinvention with a new cast of characters, or they’ll keep losing and continue to fail to address issues like climate change which Republicans threaten to worsen.  First and most importantly, the Democrats need a new economic platform. Joe Biden won the 2020 election because Trump handled the pandemic poorly and people were tired of Trump-related chaos. Liberal partisans mistook–perhaps willfully–a rebuke of Trump as a popular mandate to let their bad ideas loose on the economy.  The defining principle of the new top-down Democratic economic philosophy is heavy government intervention in the market to guide it towards a progressive vision of the nation.  Rather than allow the free market to spark the competition, innovation, efficiency, and growth that have allowed the U.S. economy to continually outshine all others, Biden and his statist progressive allies are, as a praising New Yorker article put it, “the first… in decades to treat government as the designer and ongoing referee of markets, rather than as the corrector of markets’ dislocations and excesses after the fact.” Biden, Harris, and the Democratic party envision a centrally planned economy, in which their progressive government is the “designer” of the economy.  Biden’s early experiments in economic planning to achieve social goals have already proved disastrous. To force a mass conversion to electric vehicles, Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules which mandated that electric vehicles make up 32% of automaker sales by 2027, and that gas-powered cars are no more than 29% of new cars by 2032 (enter the administrative state, the Democrats’ favorite tool for pushing their progressive agenda and circumventing the system of checks and balances on executive authority). The catch: not nearly that many people want EVs. As a result, automakers have been forced to lay off thousands, shut down EV plants, and cut shifts. A 2019 United Auto Workers study predicted the rules would destroy 35,000 jobs and livelihoods at union plants. Biden and his bureaucrats forced automakers to build the cars that Biden wanted people to drive, not the ones people were actually willing to buy. It resulted in thousands of lost jobs and billions in losses for the American auto industry.  Democrats need a major but simple course realignment on economic policy to return to national competitiveness. They must remember or learn that market forces will ultimately reign supreme over any amount of centralized planning as they did with EVs. Their disastrous and unpopular turn to statist economics is visible throughout their platform. They disincentivize economic expansion through anti-growth policies like hikes on capital gains taxes and constant harassment of companies through FTC chair Lina Khan’s blind hostility to business. When all else fails they turn to reckless and inflationary government spending to influence the economy in their preferred direction through unilateral executive spending on student loan forgiveness and healthcare expansions.  The economy has grown over the past four years, but that’s almost entirely because it was due to rebound after the pandemic and the fact that our government is set up to limit the ability of one party to make sweeping reforms. In essence, the economy has grown despite Biden and the Democrats, not because of them.  Though she tried to appease business interests with some vague moderation, Harris did not depart from Biden’s progressive economic plans. Though she never really delineated or justified her plans (perhaps for a reason—they don’t even pass the sniff test), Harris’s main plan to deal with economic problems was brute government force. Grocery prices too high? Why tackle inflation when you can just ban alleged ‘price gouging,’ a step towards government price controls. Rent too steep? Rent control. Too expensive to buy a house? She skips incentivizing an increase in housing stock to grow supply in favor of cutting checks to support people in buying homes that their finances ultimately can’t afford.  Over the past four years Democrats have showcased and implemented many of their economic ideas. Americans have seen first hand that voting blue will stagnate the economy, cost American jobs, and depress their purchasing power. On the other hand, Trump’s economic policy successes, which drew on economic liberalism and traditional conservatism (which Trump does not embody by any means), grew the economy without major inflation. The economic dichotomy in voters’ minds between Trump’s first term and Biden’s was the singular most important factor in this election. Trump and the conservative ideals which he brought to the White House delivered. Americans made more money and could buy more. To value this above any other issue is not ‘stupid or immoral’, as many coastal liberal elites with secure jobs in the knowledge economy sneer. In their relative security, it’s easy for a good portion of Democrats, especially the many which inhabit the proverbial bubble of Middlesex, to forget that the price of gas and groceries determines if working class families can get by.  Though Donald Trump proves that a strong economic platform can make voters look past the worst of personal flaws or cultural issues, it’s worth noting that Democrats have also hurt their election chances by angering a large portion of the nation through contempt of ordinary Americans, a development which has served the Republicans well by driving usually unlikely voters to the polls in order get their revenge for perceived cultural oppression. Democrats brag about being the party of inclusion and tolerance but have long since abandoned that value gin practice. While the Democrats have laudably championed civil rights especially for LGBTQ+ Americans in past decades, they increasingly condemn those who disagree with them politically. They’ve grown to be a party tolerant of all identities and no ideology but their own.  A 2021 Axios poll found that among college Democrats 71% wouldn’t date a supporter of the other party to only 31% of Republicans when asked about Democrats. 37% of Democrats wouldn’t be friends with a supporter of the other party to 5% of Republicans. They demand that you think what they think and exert great societal pressure to elicit conformity. This is the driving force behind young male desertion of the left and broader resentment of liberal elites. You can observe the contempt that liberal pressure breeds for the ideas of political correctness and progressivism here at Middlesex, as some students, especially male ones, feel (rightly or wrongly) that the school administration uses their power to dictate what students should think and do. They take these feelings and apply them to national politics, releasing their frustration with Trumpian anger. In 2024, campaign strategy mattered on the margins, but the broad shifts in public sentiment that allowed Trump to sweep the swing states and win the popular vote ran far deeper than messaging. In the end, Trump won not because of his enormous personal appeal to his supporters, but because Americans cared about policy in this election and Trump and the Republicans down ballot offered a better (if flawed and inconsistent) path forward. The results of the 2024 election indicate that the majority of Americans culturally and economically prefer a more conservative future.  If Democrats heed this warning, they’ll move back towards the center, dump the statist economics and progressive cultural views, and figure out how to merge popular economic policy with worthy social fights like climate change action. More likely, they’ll move leftwards again based on the deluded notion that they lost because they weren’t progressive enough. When Trump rose to power, he kickstarted the remaking of the Republican party and re-energized the party to electoral success. An equally consequential reinvention may be that of the Democrats’ over the next few cycles, so long as they want to start winning again. Jack Elworth

Hours before election day, the Middlesex community weighs in. At the time of writing, the 2024 presidential election between vice president Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump is essentially tied, with most swing state polls within the margin of error. Middlesex was glad to have Matthew Dickinson, a professor of political science at Middlebury, come to campus the Saturday before Election Day for the quadrennial election symposium. Yet his choice not to offer an official election prediction is a testament to the unusual fifty-fifty split. Swing states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are likely to determine the winner. Here at Middlesex, the heads of the Politics Club and erudite faculty members weigh in on their presidential predictions. Politics Club Heads remarks: Caio Bernardini ‘25: “Trump has the odds to win, given that the polls are in favor of him in swing states, and that Trump has been historically underrepresented in the past two elections. At the same time, the Scranton Joe  image in President Biden’s 2020 campaign—drawing working class voters—has been less effective in Kamala Harris’ campaign, despite her attempts to spotlight her middle-class upbringing. Nevertheless, the Democratic ticket still possesses an edge in the Midwest, having their representation in running mate Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota.” Davis Hale ‘25: “It is still a toss-up, but I am leaning towards a second Trump term. Polls are one thing, but the Democratic Party may have vulnerabilities that lose voters on election day, who may vote for the Republican ticket due to their firm stances on critical policies such as on the economy.” Will Cohen ‘25: “I have been on the fence, back and forth every single day about it. I ultimately think Harris will win the election. Vice President Harris’ slight lead will be female voters, especially women in the Midwest, because abortion rights have become a key issue in this election .” Peter Beys ‘25: “Harris will win this election. The Midwestern states are likely to be in favor of Harris, whereas the Sun Belt battleground states are likely to go red. My eyes are on Pennsylvania.” Sofia Senunas ‘25: “I think Kamala Harris will win this election. I do. Pollsters are underrepresenting younger voters, especially Gen Z, who have lower inputs in polls. The fundamental policies that each candidate stands for are central to voters in this election, but at the same time, there are also plenty of voters out there that are more concerned with each candidate’s character than their stances on key issues .” The   Anvil  Editor-In-Chief, Jack Elworth ‘25: Trump is highly likely to win the electoral college, given a probable underestimation of Trump’s support in polls which show them in a dead heat. Pollsters entirely failed to capture an accurate picture of support for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and there’s no reason to think 2024 will be any different.” Faculty remarks: Mr. Hoar, political science and history teacher: “Using my own election model—taking account of the economy, the approval rating of the current president, and the length of the incumbent party in office—there is a higher likelihood that Donald Trump wins the popular vote. Pollyvote, on the other hand, a program that considers all leading models, predicts a Harris victory for the popular vote (by a 0.4% margin as of November 3, 2024). These models are, nonetheless, ultimately flawed, and what really makes the difference and determines the toss up is voter turnout. At the same time, it is likely that, no matter a second Trump term or a Harris victory, the other party may not accept the election results. Democracy is one of the most fragile systems imaginable, and the reason for its lasting duration in the United States is because, for centuries, the American people have prioritized democracy over other concerns and selfish interests. For that reason, the American people must realize that there are more that unites us than separates us, and that both parties agree on many fundamental policies. Let’s find the middle ground.” Mr. Hitzrot, history teacher: The answer is no one knows . It will be a very, very tight race, and there may also be attempts to deny election results that threaten the democracy of the United States. For this moment until election day, voter turnout will be pivotal in determining the next President of the United States , and I have a strong suspicion that Pennsylvania’s electoral votes will help either candidate reach 270 votes. At the same time, while it is important and necessary that we stay in conversation, I worry about civil unrest and denials of the election. Here at Middlesex, the community needs to acknowledge and understand the differences in viewpoints and perspectives, as best as we can. To learn how to disagree productively and progress forward are fundamental values of American democracy and at Middlesex School. The divisiveness of this election presents an opportunity for our School to find unity in our shared values. Enshrined in our Mission Statement, Middlesex is committed to developing “intellectual vitality and discipline” in the student and faculty body. Regardless of outcome or the potential ensuing challenges to vote counts, our School ought to both welcome informed opinions on current events and seek to educate the uninformed. Sixing Wang