Mail Call

News from the realm of law school applications:

Thank you for your application to the University of Michigan Law School. While you are without question a strong candidate, we are unable to offer you admission at this time. We have instead placed you on our waiting list for further consideration should space become available.

Ding! Ok, 3/4 ding. I got about the same thing from GULC, but GULC made sure to tell me they've got a priority waiting list as well as just a regular waiting list, and I was on the latter. The wouldn't tell me my rank on the list, but I asked how many people were on their priority list and the answer was a curt, "hundreds." So GULC was effectively a ding. (I've got to remember to send them my thanks but no thanks card.)

Michigan's a little different though. I've heard they really use their list, maybe, and they offer the option to start in May, which supposedly increases your chances of moving from wait list to in list. So, even though L. and I are about to sign a lease for a place in Silver Spring, MD, I've decided to stay on Michigan's list to see what happens. If they offer admission sometime in the next few months, we'll see where things are. Meanwhile, I'll assume I'm going to GW and make plans accordingly.

That means I need to send that thanks but no thanks letter to GM, as well, and I guess BC. BC came through over the weekend with a pretty nice aid package, and I also applied for a 2/3 tuition public interest scholarship that I haven't heard a decision on, so I'm reluctant to tell them no thanks already. Still, I just can't see going there, so I probably should tell them that, but....

And you know, I'm fully aware I'm very lucky to have these choices and decisions to make. A year ago, I'd always dismissed thoughts of law school because I honestly assumed I wouldn't be able to get into any school worth attending. (There were other reasons, too, of course.) Who woulda thunk it would turn out like this?

Posted 07:38 AM | law school

Kids These Days II

Last week The Volokh Conspiracy noted that today's students might be more likely to oppose war because they're being taught to avoid violence in general. Unlike my post the other day, this Washington Post story argues that a lot of young people today are critical of the Bush Administration's policies because the administration seems to be acting like little more than a schoolyard bully writ large. This certainly makes sense, and it's something I've been thinking about since all this talk of war began. (What was it, just nine months ago?) Why do we teach our children one thing about how to deal with problems (talk them out, be reasonable, respect differences and seek compromise, avoid violence, etc), yet stand by complacently while our government engages in all the behaviors we counsel our children against? Is interpersonal conflict resolution so different from international conflict resolution? Apparently so:

Zach Clayton, student chairman of the National Association of Student Councils, wonders whether the interpersonal skills taught in school should even be applied to international relations. "We're quick in third grade to teach nonviolent resolution strategies," he says, "but by our junior or senior years in college we know that countries can't always play paper-rock-scissors."

Isn't that great? By the time we're "adults," we've learned to accept that violence is actually a good—or at least necessary—thing. Silly rabbits, non-violent conflict resolution is just for kids!

Posted 07:31 AM | general politics

Big Big Big Media

So is there anything wrong with one company or corporation owning a large number of media outlets? Yes, Houston, I think we have a problem:

In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies.

The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among major media companies, which have confined their activities in the war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Regardless of your feelings about the U.S. attack on Iraq, it's not hard to see how the increased concentration of media outlets into ever fewer hands threatens freedom and democracy—in the U.S. and elsewhere. And right now is the time to be concerned: The FCC is currently deciding whether to further reduce regulations that limit media ownership. For more, follow Jeffery Chester's ongoing coverage here, here, and here. Luckily, not all the news is bad. As Robert McChesney and John Nichols report, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps has taken a stand against further media concentration:

Copps has taken the law establishing the FCC literally. "That phrase, 'serving the public interest, convenience, and necessity,' appears 112 times in the statute. So I think Congress was serious about us serving the public interest," the commissioner says. "When you're talking about something like the airwaves, it's not just something of interest between different companies, between the wealthy and the very wealthy, because those airwaves, in fact, belong not to those companies but to the people of the United States of America."

See that? We own the airwaves, and they're worth billions! (insert evil cackle and Austin Powers' patented pinkie salute here) But seriously, take a minute to tell the FCC that you value a diversity of voices in American news and entertainment (click "Broadcast Ownership" button). Ask them to vote to maintain current restrictions on media ownership in order to protect the public interest in a free press.

(You might also note the FCC's feedback page gives you many options to comment on other contentious issues, including how TVs are built, whether phone solicitations should be further regulated (please, please!), digital rights management for TV broadcasts, and more. Just FYI, if you care about any of these issues.)

Posted 07:16 AM | general politics