“With the decline in the value of our endowment, coupled with leveling of research support, constraint on the rate of tuition growth, uncertain prospects for philanthropic support, pressures on healthcare costs, and the prospect of increased needs for financial aid, we must take some actions to assure that our University remains strong into the future, Wrighton wrote. “Whatever the origins and whatever the length of the economic decline, it is important to respond to this new environment. We will constrain the growth of administrative expenses, compensation expenses, and commitments to new building projects.”

Most notably, the Chancellor announced the intention to decrease wages going into the next fiscal year and to “scale back, eliminate, or delay capital projects.”

The e-mail specifically proposed a reduction in the Chancellor’s salary by 10 percent over the next year-a 5 percent cut as of January 1, 2009, and another 5 percent cut effective July 1, 2009-but also stated that school deans and Vice Chancellors have volunteered to have no increase in their compensation in the year ahead.

Though administrators planned to use the wait list for that purpose, its role was compounded by the fact that the most selective colleges and universities also admitted significant numbers of students from their waiting lists.

At Harvard, for example, the Harvard Crimson reported that more than 200 students were admitted from the wait list; according to The New York Times, both Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania expect to take approximately 90 students off the wait list.

The wait list admissions at the most competitive schools like Harvard and Princeton have trickled down to other institutions as students have backed away from acceptances at those other schools late in the admissions season.

Furthermore, the University and its peer institutions “made fewer offers of admission up-front, and used the wait list to balance their enrollment to the right size,” wrote Nanette Tarbouni, director of admissions at Washington University, in an e-mail.

Tarbouni added that by relying more on the wait list, schools have much finer control over the number of students that will make up the incoming class.

“Since our freshman enrollment can vary a bit, and because it’s impossible to have a freshman class be exactly a certain size-we employ the use of the wait list,” Tarbouni wrote.

Even though many students were prepared for the prospect of being placed on the wait list, the experience challenged them.

“Our college counselors had already told us to expect being put on the wait list,” Linda Donaldson, an incoming freshman from Glendale, Calif. who was admitted to the University from the wait list, said. “It’s a little difficult because you don’t know whether to start getting excited for one school or whether to wait to hear back,” she said.

Though being placed on a wait list draws out the stress of applying to colleges, it is a tool that-when it works out-is beneficial for students.

“I enrolled at the University of Michigan and I wasn’t completely happy about going there,” incoming freshman James Ross said. “It was definitely worth the wait.”

Tarbouni also sees the wait list’s positive side.

“We love using the wait list-it allows us to make a few more students happy and we love to admit students,” Tarbouni wrote.

The increased prominence of the wait list comes as the University looks to contain the class size around an estimate of approximately 1,350 students. In 2007, the Chancellor announced plans to reduce the student body to a target of 5,800 undergraduates over five years.

Three years ago the University admitted 1470 students who accepted admission to the class of 2010-more than 100 students larger than expected-causing a housing crunch and a situation that the University has since hoped to avoid.

The final size for the class of 2012 is not yet known, though it is expected to be between 1380 and 1400 students; the exact number of students admitted from the wait list is also unknown.

According to Special Assistant to the Chancellor Rob Wild the University is still working to meet the goal of reducing the overall student body, though each individual class will vary.

“Washington University does not have plans to grow significantly the size of its undergraduate class, but each year there will be fluctuations in the number of first year students who choose to come to Washington University,” Wild wrote in an e-mail to Student Life. “As with most universities, it is hard to predict the exact final number.”

Despite trying to stealthily write an essay for my Spanish class in the back corner of the meeting, my notebook was just as blank as when I had started. When I got back to my dorm and collapsed in the hallway with a circle of my friends, I could not bring myself to finish-or, really, start-any of my work; it was just too easy to sit and relax, talking with my friends about everything and nothing at the same time.

I don’t remember when I went to sleep that night or how I managed to finish my Spanish essay scribbling furiously in the hour before class, but I do remember the feeling of coming back to a place and being comfortable there. The feeling of knowing that, despite homework, exhaustion and stress, I had found a group of friends with whom I could relax.

The first week of school will be overwhelming and tiring as you meet new people, get used to new places and try to understand everything that you will need to do for the next four years. By the hundredth person you meet in the first hour of your first day on campus, it will seem impossible to remember all the names, majors and hometowns of your new acquaintances. And, realistically, it probably is; with nearly 1,300 fellow students in your class you will be hard pressed to meet all of them.

Despite all that, take comfort in the fact that you will find your niche on campus.

Whether it is on your freshman floor or in a club that you join, in class, or with a group of people you meet randomly on the basketball court, you will find a group of friends that is right for you, a group of friends that makes you feel comfortable.

One of the most daunting moments of your freshman year will be realizing that there is no formula for making friends; one of the best moments will be, like it was for me, realizing that you don’t need a formula. Go out, do what you love, and the rest will follow.

In your dorm, keep your door open (a doorstop should be one of your first purchases) and don’t hesitate to go to that meeting for the club you’ve always wanted to join but never had the chance to. Though the process will not be effortless, you will meet people who will define and shape your college experience-the people for whom you came to Washington University whether you know it yet or not.

So, for a while, don’t feel bad about forgetting a few people’s names or meeting someone for the third time. Go out and find something that speaks to you-whether that means doing community service, working with one of the University’s many cultural groups, studying for school, or writing for an amazing and award winning campus paper.

In the long run, it’s worth it.

Sam Guzik is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences and the Editor in Chief of Student Life. He can be reached at editor@studlife.com.

More than 30 students representing Washington University’s graduate and undergraduate schools met on Monday to begin planning a protest of the University’s decision to award Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree.

Many of those in attendance were members of the Class of 2008, but several professors, community members and underclassmen took part in the discussion as well.

The announcement that Schlafly, a leader of the national conservative movement since the 1960s, would receive an honorary doctorate has galvanized students who take offense with her stances on marital rape, abortion and the role of women in society to speak out.

“She is not representative of the community we want to build here. She has made statements that go against the basic tenets of the University,” said Dan Tilden, a graduating senior and the leader of the protest. “I couldn’t sit in commencement as a senior and do something that is recognizing her not as a politician but as a person.”

According to Tilden, the students involved with the effort are looking to find a way to reverse the University’s decision to award Schlafly a degree or, if that proves impossible, to make a statement of protest during the commencement exercises.

A Facebook group, entitled “No honorary doctorate for anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly,” has gained more than 1,000 members since being formed a week ago. In comparison, a group supporting Schlafly, entitled “In Support of Phyllis Schlafly’s Honorary Degree from Wash U,” has approximately 25 members.

“Outside of how anyone feels about her political views, its important that the University be willing to give degrees to conservatives as well as liberals,” Rachel Wisdom, a freshman and the creator of the pro-Schlafly group, said. “In addition, I think she’s actually a strong defender of women’s rights.”

According to Wisdom, Schlafly’s stances protect women’s exemption from the draft and the right of women to choose to serve in the role of homemaker.

Schafly is best known for her role in leading efforts to block the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and for leading a critique against feminism.

According to The Sun Journal, a Maine newspaper, at a speech at Bates college in 2007 Schalfly belittled the feminist movement as “teaching women to be victims,” argued that feminism “is incompatible with marriage and motherhood” and asserted that “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”

Students who support awarding Schlafly with a degree took issue with the way that her statements in Maine were portrayed, arguing that Schlafly saw other ways to protect women from spousal abuse.

“I spoke with Mrs. Schlafly about that [statement] yesterday and the issue is that she was trying to create a legal distinction,” Wisdom said. “Women who are being abused by their husbands are protected by existing assault and battery laws and it would be trouble to argue that something is rape when you have already consented to sex by getting married.”

At the meeting, participants discussed options for protesting the decision during the commencement ceremony, including wearing pink armbands, holding signs to protest Schalfly’s presence and facing away from the lectern when Schlafly was awarded her degree.

“Don’t think that the very possibility of a disruption to the University’s most solemn event would not sway the University,” Michael Murphy, a lecturer in the Women and Gender studies department, said during the discussion.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on Monday that Mary Ann Dzuback, the director of the women and gender studies department, would not take part in commencement exercises, along with several other members of the department.

Though Wisdom agreed that students and faculty had a right to protest the decision to award Schlafly a degree, she felt that boycotting commencement exercises-especially on the part of faculty-was extreme.

“Graduation to me is not about Phyllis or Chris Matthews or any of the other honorary degree recipients, its about the students,” Wisdom said. “The professors should be there to support their students regardless of their political beliefs.”

At the meeting, one student suggested using the slogan “There is only one woman at this ceremony that should not be getting a degree,” in response to Schlafly’s positions about women’s gender roles.

The meeting also looked to answer questions about how to inform the student body about Schlafly’s views and how to alert the University community-and the outside media-about the dissatisfaction over Schalfly’s selection.

In response to protest over the announcement made last Monday, the University issued a statement over the weekend affirming its decision to award the degree.

“In any community with a large number of people and a diversity of viewpoints, it would be impossible to make a selection with which everyone would agree. That is the very nature of a university,” the statement read. “Alumna Phyllis Schlafly’s articulation of her perspectives has been a significant part of American life during the last half of the 20th century and now the 21st century, serving as a lightning rod for vigorous debate on difficult issues where differences of opinion are profound and passionate.”

The statement brought to light the University’s decision-making process for honorary degrees, which requires a unanimous vote of the Board of Trustees based on recommendations from the Honorary Degree Committee. The committee is chaired by a member of the Board of Trustees and includes about 20 Washington University students, faculty, staff and other members of the Board of Trustees.

Schlafly is set to receive a doctorate of humane letters and is an alumna of both the College of Arts & Sciences and the Law School. As an honorary degree recipient, Schlafly will not address graduates, she will only be awarded the degree.

The move to rescind Schlafly’s degree comes less than a week after Northwestern University announced that it would not award the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright an honorary doctorate at commencement proceedings there. In recent months, Rev. Wright has drawn attention for his statements on race relations, America, 9/11 and his now severed connection with presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

In a statement explaining its decision, Northwestern wrote, “Commencement at Northwestern is a time of celebration of the accomplishments of Northwestern’s graduating students and their families. In light of the controversy around Dr. Wright and to ensure that the celebratory character of Commencement not be affected, the University has withdrawn its invitation to Dr. Wright.”

Schlafly is one of six scheduled to receive an honorary doctorate at commencement on May 16.

Check back throughout the week for more coverage of Commencement including updates on the protest and an interview with Phyllis Schlafly.

As students and faculty flock to a group calling on the University to reverse its decision to offer prominent conservative Phyllis Schlafly an honorary degree, Schlafly is standing by controversial statements she has made in the past that have made her famous within the conservative community and infamous among liberals.

“The feminists teach women that they are the victims of an oppressive patriarchal society, which is completely ridiculous,” Schlafly said in an interview conducted earlier this week. “American women are the most privileged, fortunate class of people who have ever lived.”

Schlafly gained national prominence in the 1960s as the author of “A Choice, Not an Echo,” a book that outlines her opposition to feminism and which looked to refocus the Republican Party toward its voting base in the Midwest as opposed to the Northeast-and New York in particular-where it had previously been based.

Since then Schlafly has received attention largely for her stance on women’s rights issues, where she aligns herself with traditional values, opposing the feminist movement and its achievements.

In recent years, she has spoken out against marital rape laws, gay rights and the effort to increase the number of females in math and science programs-a movement that she says will compromise teaching standards.

“The feminists [and] the whole women’s studies movement is very disdainful of the full-time homemaker. One of the goals of the feminist movement was to drive all the homemakers out of the home,”Schlafly said. “I think one of the main reasons they hate me is that I stood up for the value and the rank of the full time homemaker.”

Many of Schlafly’s opinions have been informed by the chronology of her personal achievements, which she says contradicts the feminist telling of history.

“The idea that opportunities just opened up for women when [feminists] came along is just nonsense. I got my bachelors degree in ’44 and I got my masters degree in ’45, my mother graduated from Washington U. in 1920,” Schlafly said. “It’s a fine school, opportunities have been there, and any of my classmates could have done what I did.”

Since the 1970s when Schlafly took a leadership role in the campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment and against the societal changes caused by the feminist movement, she has drawn criticism and disdain from those who disagree with her.

“These are basic civil rights that she doesn’t agree with. Why would we offer her a degree? It makes no sense and it’s insulting,” Mary Ann Dzuback, director of the Women and Gender Studies program, said. “She wouldn’t have the voice that she has now if the world was constructed according to Phyllis Schlafly’s design.”

Most recently, in 2007, Schlafly came under fire for her comments about marital rape-specifically that it was not possible because marriage is a consent to sex.

“It is completely ludicrous that because I have said ‘I want to marry you’ that means ‘I want to have sex with you whenever you want,’” Lauren Weiss, a Women and Gender Studies major, said. “No one gives up their autonomy when they get married. Why would feminism say, ‘We want you to have autonomy, but only until you get married.’”

Schlafly has stood by the statements which she made and the way in which they were portrayed in the media at the time, continuing to argue that marital rape is a construction by feminists.

Despite being a magnet for debate on all women’s rights issues, Schlafly pays no mind to the protests that have surrounded her in the last 40 years nationwide and in the last week at the University.

“When I went to Washington U. I worked my way through college firing and testing 30- and 50-caliber ammunition and all I’ve got to say about students today is that I think they have too much extra time,” Schlafly said. “I don’t know what college students do with all your extra time, but I guess one of them is go out and protest, while somebody else is paying their fee.”

One of the points on which Schlafly clashes with her opponents regards the role of women in society as it relates to the choice of pursuing a career or working exclusively within the home to raise children and care for a family.

“It’s her choice and she’s welcome to it, but she shouldn’t put other people into that position. That was the purpose of the feminist movement, to provide women with options beyond domesticity.” Dzuback said. “To suggest that women give up any kind of public or private work life is no longer a fair expectation [because of economic constraints].”

While both sides argue that women should be able to make individual choices to determine their path, Schlafly and her supporters see strength in the traditional family structure.

“I want to devote all of my time to children once I have kids, but there are plenty of women who would disagree with that,” Charis Fisher, president of College Republicans, said. “It’s best if you choose one role, but I wouldn’t think its bad for others to make a different choice [from me].”

Schlafly chose to spend nearly 25 years raising six children after receiving degrees from both Washington University and Harvard, respectively, and briefly working in politics.

Calling herself a “sequential woman,” Schlafly argues that by entering the public sphere after raising a family she was able to devote her full attention and achieve satisfaction from both causes.

“I spent 25 years raising my six children and now I have time to run around and debate these feminists on college campuses,” Schlafly said. “I went back to Washington U. law school after I was 50 [in 1970], but I’m glad I didn’t have my six children after I was 50. [Feminists] think one of the oppressions of life is the biological clock-well, you need to deal with life the way it is. I’m very happy with all of my choices.”

In a larger sense, one of Schlafly’s lasting achievements was shaping the direction of political invective for the last thirty years. Schlafly’s positions and argument style have served a basis for that used by many other prominent political commentators until today; many point to conservative columnist Ann Coulter’s writings as an example of this trend.

According to Dzuback, the content of Schlafly’s statements is based largely on the political message she is looking to convey, and not on an accurate portrayal of the situation.

“[Her argument] is not based in research. It’s polemical. It’s largely designed to illicit knee-jerk reactions rather than spur debate,” she said. “I don’t understand why we would honor someone like that.”

-With additional reporting by Ben Sales.

Correction Appended Below

The University’s announcement that alumna and leader of the national conservative movement Phyllis Schlafly will receive an honorary degree has spurred students to protest and led several professors to announce their intention to boycott commencement exercises. Student Life spoke with Schlafly earlier this week about reasons for protest, her ideological issues with feminists and her political history.

To start off with, how would you respond to the students that have been protesting you?

When I went to Washington U. I worked my way through college firing and testing 30- and 50-caliber ammunition and all I’ve got to say about students today is that I think they have too much extra time. I don’t know what college students do with all your extra time, but I guess one of them is go out and protest, while somebody else is paying their fee.

How did you first become involved with politics?

After I graduated from Harvard I worked for a year at the American Enterprise Institute and then I came back to St. Louis and I ran the campaign of a Republican candidate for congress in 1946 and we won. That was very exciting, that took me into politics. Things were simple then-I was the campaign manager, the speechwriter, the scheduler-and he won.

In a larger sense, when did you know that you identify with the Republican Party?

My father used to say that we left the Democratic Party in the depression of Grover Cleveland. So we have a long history-my family was not a political family, but they were all Republicans. That was just normal, I just voted the Republican ticket all through the depression, all through Franklin Roosevelt.

What do you mean when you say, “Feminists want women to think that they can’t succeed”?

Everything that they are teaching in Women’s Studies and in those courses is that women are victims and that marriage is unfair to women and that it makes them second-class, that men are naturally batterers and that if you get married you’ll probably get beaten up. It’s a dreary picture that they paint for women of the life of a married women or a mother.

So you see the feminist position as saying that there is one acceptable path for women in the world, the path of the career woman?

That’s right. Because they think that if you give them the choice, too many will pick getting married. They don’t even look up to women like Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice, Elizabeth Dole, Jeane Kirkpatrick. You don’t hear them identifying with really achieving women, it’s only ones that are whining around.

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

What was the greatest political victory of your career?

Our victory over the Equal Rights Amendment is a tremendous story of grassroots action that can overcome the powers that be in both parties. We had Nixon, Ford and Carter all against us, we had anybody who was anybody against us and we beat them all. And they just can’t get over that.

Do you think they’re still bitter about that?

Yes, they’re still bitter about it. It was a dumb idea in the first place.

INTERVIEW CONDUCTED, CONDENSED AND EDITED BY SAM GUZIK

Check back for further coverage of student plans to protest and for an in-depth article about Schlafly’s politics.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled the first name of former US ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick; the correct spelling is Jeanne, not Gene.

Quatrano will take the position currently held by Dean Edward Macias; Macias is vacating his deanship to become the University’s Provost.

“Ralph has been an important leader in Arts & Sciences since joining Washington University nearly a decade ago,” Wrighton said in his e-mail to students in the College of Arts & Sciences. “Throughout his professional career, he has demonstrated a strong ability to connect people and ideas and guide them towards a common goal. Ralph will benefit from the strong foundation that Ed Macias has built in Arts & Sciences, and he will be a key leader in implementing plans for the future that have been developed.”

Quatrano jointed the University faculty in 1998 as the chair of the department of biology.

In his professional life, Quatrano’s research focuses on understanding the mechanisms behind molecular and cellular mechanisms controlling seed development.

Quatrano earned his bachelor’s in botany with honors from Colgate University in 1962; his master’s in botany from Ohio University, Athens, in 1964; and his doctorate in biology from Yale University in 1968.

Before he spoke to the College Democrats, political commentator and consultant Paul Begala spoke with Student Life about the climate of political debate, his debate with Jon Stewart and the importance of Iraq.

Student Life: You’ve worked as the host of Crossfire and as a political commentator in several other venues. What do you think is the role of political punditry in the current political landscape?

Paul Begala: I think both to inform and entertain. On TV, I want to engage people. Some people will, no matter what, watch-they follow politics very closely-those are people who watch C-SPAN. I want to engage them in politics, rather than on the latest body part that Paris Hilton shaved. I want to keep them on my stuff because its more important. Jim Fallow says this. He says the job of journalists-which I’m not, I’m a commentator-Fallows says the job of journalists is to make the important interesting. Too often, certainly in cable news, we do the opposite.

SL: What do you bring to that conversation?

PB: I’m like in a football game the ex-jock because I’ve actually been there. It’s good for commentators to have a varied background. It’s good for some of them to have been in journalism all their lives, but it’s good for others of us to have actually be on the field. To know what its like to write a State of the Union address, to know what it feels like to lose a primary.

SL: Most people in the college demographic know you from the time you spent hosting Crossfire, specifically the appearance that Jon Stewart made on the show. During that show you didn’t say too much; do you agree with the points he was making?

PB: The notion that a 30-minute debate show could hurt America is preposterous. My own view is that we helped America enormously. America should have listened to me. In the three years that I did Crossfire, more than fifty percent of the shows were about the war in Iraq. Every other thing else combined was less than that one thing, and every single day I on there and said the war was wrong and we shouldn’t have it. I didn’t care if Hillary was for it, my friend, or John Kerry or any of the people I love. And Carville did the same thing. Stewart was put off, justifiably, by my style or Tucker’s or something, but I wish I had yelled more.

SL: We’ve had a very vitriolic political debate over the last eight years. What do we do about that?

PB: We have more of it. I want more of it. It doesn’t have to be bitter, but if you believe as I do that the president of the United States lied to us to get us into a war then you should say so. I actually do think that civility matters, but I think that dissent matters more. I refuse to allow my deep patriotism-I wear the flag pin-or my own sense of good manners to get in the way of speaking out, particularly the,n when we were on a massive march to war.

SL: What do you do if the tone of the message is interfering with the content of the message?

PB: This should be rough, tough, fun, interesting, funny. We always did Crossfire in front of a live audience, which was a really good governor. People would say “Oooo” if you went too far. You would know right away-if they were saying that in the audience, so were folks at home. If you go to far it’s self-defeating. Ann Coulter is an example. I love seeing Ann Coulter on TV, because every time she’s on TV she brings converts to my side.

SL: You’ve spoken about your opinions about the war very passionately. Should Iraq be the defining issue of the next election?

PB: You know I think the economy is likely to surpass it. It’s terribly important to me-at Georgetown, half of my students are soldiers so I know a whole lot, including my cousin. One of my friends who I worked with at the White House is a Lt. Colonel who just got back, so I know a lot of people fighting this war, but again, that makes me really unusual in the media. Most people are much more affected by the economy, but they sort of meet.

Interview conducted, condensed and edited by Sam Guzik.

Despite national trends to the contrary, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois remains popular among the Washington University undergraduate body and would win the majority of student support if the election were held today, according to a poll conducted by Student Life.

If Obama were the Democratic nominee, he would win 78 percent of the undergraduate vote, defeating Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who would receive only 19 percent of the vote; all other candidates received negligible support.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York would also win a majority of the undergraduate vote as the Democratic nominee; however, McCain would fare better in that race, winning 29 percent of the vote compared to Clinton’s 61 percent.

The trends among student voters break with recent national data showing McCain defeating both Obama and Clinton by six and eight percent, respectively, in the most recent Reuters/Zogby poll, released on March 20.

Since the last Student Life poll in February, students have grown more concerned about the economy, with almost 26 percent identifying “the economy and globalization” as the most important issue this election season, reflecting the recent turbulence on Wall Street.

“The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” was the second most frequently cited important issue, identified by almost 21 percent of undergraduates, and “the environment, global climate change, and energy policy” was the third most frequently cited issue, identified by 12 percent of students.

In January, “the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” was identified as the most pressing issue facing the nation, beating out the economy by almost seven percentage points.

Across the board, Obama was seen as the best choice to handle the issues facing the country; he performed better, however, on traditionally liberal issues like improving education and improving healthcare quality and access.

Obama performed weaker regarding economy, with a margin of 38 percent of students identifying the Illinois senator as the best choice to address that issue, compared with 26 percent for McCain and 17 percent for Clinton.

A plurality of students also believes that the Democratic presidential nomination race has not gone on for too long. Thirty-five percent felt that whichever candidate has the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season should be the nominee, while 33 percent felt that the race should continue until a clear winner emerged-even if that occurred on the convention floor.

Among independents and those who do not affiliate with a party, Obama still enjoys a considerable-though smaller-lead over McCain. Clinton and McCain divide the often sought bloc of independent voters nearly equally.

In a Clinton-McCain race, independent candidate Ralph Nader would register four percent of the vote. Almost 80 percent of those voting for Nader over Clinton would have chosen Obama if he had been the nominee.

Nader’s impact on undergraduate voting was negligible in a head-to-head contest between Obama and McCain.

Clinton held considerably more sway among female voters, winning 73 percent of the female vote in a race with McCain; among male voters in the same race, Senator Clinton won just under 49 percent of the vote.

Of those students registered and eligible to vote and living in states that have already held primaries or caucuses, 58 percent participated in the nominating contests.

The most recent Student Life poll data were collected through an e-mail sent to the undergraduate student population between March 22 and March 24. There were 975 responses to the poll, allowing for a theoretical margin of error of 2.88 percent.

Substantially exceeding its fundraising total from last year, the male pageant contest Mr. Wash. U. raised $30,000 for the charity City Faces. Senior Kris Kelley won the pageant and sophomore Iboro Umana placed second.

The event took place on Thursday, March 20 in Edison Theatre.

According to its Web site, the annual event evaluates sixteen contestants on the basis of personality, character, integrity, extracurricular involvement and contributions to the Washington University and St. Louis community.

A panel of five judges selects the winner of the competition.

City Faces is a program founded by architecture professor Bob Hansman that works within the St. Louis community to empower troubled youth through art.

Last year, the pageant raised $23,000 dollars for the same charity.