University of Michigan Unveils Admissions Policy

The University of Michigan unveiled a new undergraduate admissions policy Thursday that gives the highest priority to academic achievement, but also retains race as a factor, in an effort to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The new undergraduate policy was modeled on the university's law school policy, which sought a "critical mass'' of minorities, and those at some other universities. An optional question about race and ethnicity is on the new application. [Mmm, lovely, like the question about heritage on the Rice application?]

With different questions, new short-answer questions and an optional essay, the university says the application allows students to tell more about themselves, their priorities, intellectual interests and expected contributions to campus.

And will the critical mass admitted now be a different percentage of the ugrad class from the formulated mass admitted in previous years? Wait and see.

The NYTimes reports, in its South briefing,

LOUISIANA: DEATH SENTENCE FOR RAPE A Jefferson Parish jury sentenced to death Patrick O. Kennedy, 38, for the aggravated rape of an 8-year-old relative. The United States Supreme Court outlawed the death sentence for rape of an adult in 1977, but the decision did not address child rape. Under a state law, aggravated rape may be punished with death if the victim is under 12. Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the last execution for rape was in 1964. Ariel Hart (NYT)

As you have probably noticed, our lovely co-blogger Amy Lamboley (who does most of the template stuff that I can't figure out) has put up permalinks for our 20 Questions feature on the sidebar on the right. Do stay tuned for next Sunday's installlment, which will be our first interview with a very prominent left-wing blogger.

Amusingly enough, what Ed Cohn reports about the Moscow subway is also true of the Washington D.C. subway-- the doors don't automatically repoen if they close on somebody. Is this a cost-efficient policy? I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations last weekend (must to the horror of the non-economist bystanders) weighing the cost of injury and possible lost-limbs against the benefit of time saved for daily commuters and decided that it probably is. Anybody with real numbers, please email them to me. I just sort of made mine up, but since the difference was so big, I don't feel that bad about it.

Remember, I'm blogging at Overlawyered this week. Click here for my post on whether babies should vote.

UPDATE: Here's a further intriguing idea from Ed. Despite the fact that he insists his idea isn't based in economic costs and benefits, I think it satisfies such an analysis anyway.