...prospectives have the option of staying a half or whole day - which might work well with this whole idea.

Also, pairing the prospies with upperclassmen might not work so well. Yeah, it would be great for someone who wants to be involved in theater to come to play practices, but unless a subbie was in the play, it probably wouldn't be best for the prospie during the rest of the day. It would be better for them to see what a subbie day is like - because that is the grade they would be going into. Then if later they wanted to see what a play practice is like, by all means, put them with upperclassmen if needed. There, at least, there wouldn't be classes that confuzzled them.

But that's just a thought. :D

I like your ideas to reach out to prospective students to create diversity without fooling around with admissions to get better percentages but I think that Uni should reach out to all students regardless of race and ethnicity. The goal should be to get the brightest students in the area period.

Responding to Sarah's comment:

I'm not sure that different kinds of intelligence implies different demographics, races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. It's sad to me that Diversity (with a capital D) has become such a buzzword that it's beginning to be seen as a necessity. I agree with "April 28, 2008 - 8:04pm — Anonymous (not verified)" when he/she says that Uni should reach out to all races/ethnicities equally, and I'm going to take that a step further by saying that race/ethnicity should be thrown out of the application process all together. Uni should be searching for different kinds of intellects, not taking in a diverse group students and assuming them to have differing intellects. Once we start to favor (or even make assumptions about) a given race in any way, we are being as racist as those who would deny opportunity based on race.

I don't know if Sarah meant that ethnicity affects intelligence in the way that you seem to think of intelligence. It affects one's perspective on the world. The way that a few of the earlier commenters talked about leaving race off the application completely makes it seem like they would be comfortable going to a school that was all white, if that were how race-blind applications happened to work out. But Uni's goal is supposed to be better EDUCATION, not simply gathering the best students in one place. I think going to school with a bunch of people from the same background you have will give you a terrible education. It's easy for non-minority students to feel like there is no problem with diversity at Uni, it is a little harder to recognize how homogeneous our education is and how much is being left out when the school's population is so out of proportion with the racial dynamics of our town.

To say that paying attention to race in the application process is racist is so, so misinformed. What seems to be missing from this conversation is an acknowledgment of the racism that is already ingrained in our society. Let's not pretend we live in an equal society and that reaching out to minorities is making it unequal. Not only do I think it is in all students' interests to have a diverse student body at our school, but I think that as an institution Uni has a responsibility to work to counteract the racist conditions we are all living with daily. I am talking about institutionalized racism- let's look at the proportion of minority people in leading positions in our society- very few, right? What about the inproportionate amount of African Americans in poverty? That's not coincidence, that is a system. I think we all are familiar with the segregated neighborhoods of our very own Champaign Urbana and with the racial profiling that is rampant in police operations in our own town. Are you aware of the recent Brian Chesley case (check out "Three Cops versus an Entire Community in April, 2008 public i http://publici.ucimc.org/)? This is the norm across the country. Housing and the justice system are just two aspects of the ways in which our country is oppressive to people of color. Recognizing that is key because Uni and other such institutions' taking an active role in increasing minority access to them is a necessary, although still tiny in the big picture, step to take to try to correct the inequalities we are dealing with.

Don't get me wrong: I agree that Uni should be trying to get as many differing intellects and perspectives as it can, because I agree that it is important to a good education. What I disagree with is that race is viewed as synonymous with culture and ethnicity. Like I posted yesterday, I'm not sure that different kinds of intelligence implies different demographics, races, ethnicities, and backgrounds, and I'm also not sure that different races and ethnicities implies different kinds of intelligence. For example: If you took a colored person my age and had him live like my twin since he was born, I can pretty much guarantee he'll see life the way I do, yet he will be more desirable to Uni simply because he's black. I suggest to everyone that this is the same as racism, because all else being the same, his race is given preferential treatment. From this, we should see that Uni should not be looking for different races, exactly, but that Uni should be looking for different cultures.

I took a look at the 2008-09 Application for Admission, and it has a box in the middle of the page with these words:

"The following information is for Affirmative Action use only (Optional).
Race/Ethnic Designation:______________________"

The request for Race/Ethnicity is, as you'll notice, only for use for Affirmative Action. I'm going to be using this definition of affirmative action:

"The term affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all races) intended to promote access to education or employment."

While I am glad to see that Wikipedia says that affirmative action can help minority men or women of all races, I think that when we're talking about expanding the number of minorities at Uni we are not talking about all races. We are talking about men and women of all races except the group we call Whites (and perhaps certain sub-groups of Asians to a lesser extent). This means that when we are using Race or Ethnicity for affirmative action, we're being racist, because we're profiling AGAINST Whites and Asians. How can we do that while were doing what we can to end racism?
On a related note, I am also glad to see that it's optional to fill out, but it'll take some convincing to persuade me that a blank answer is given the same treatment as if someone had put Native American.

We should be profiling against White and Asian culture, and I repeat, this is not synonomous with White or Asian race. Remove the small box about Race/Ethnic Designation and replace it with a full page in which questions are asked that can provide insights into the culture of the applicant. I know reading one or two words is easier, but hey, we want the best education possible, don't we? Isn't that the whole idea? And if we're truly to be a "a catalyst for educational innovation," perhaps we should go ahead and innovate a unique Admissions Form rather than taking a college admission form and dumbing it down to Middle School level. This might allow us to get the cultural balance we want. Colleges and Universities are obviously having a similar problem to ours, so does it really make sense to continue to do things they way they do? We might even "...influence positively the larger educational community." (The quotes above are taken directly from the Mission Statement posted on the Uni High Website.)

How can it be said that paying attention to race in any way is not racist? The only reason I can think of that anyone ever pays attention to someone's race these days is so that they can either a) take something from them that they would otherwise be able to have, or b) give them a chance to get something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get. I'd be surprised if anyone challenged the racist status of reason 'a,' but since we can all see that that's Bad with a capital B, the real question becomes whether or not favoring a race for any reason is racism.

I suggest that favoring, indeed, even recognizing a race as different from any other is a terrible mistake that has unfortunately gone on for too long. For our education, differing cultures are what we desire, and that's definitely an important aspect. Lumping cultures into races, however, now I suggest that that's racial stereotyping. Isn't that recognized as a form of racism? I thought that was Bad, as opposed to being acceptable practice.

I would also like to point out that the color of skin does almost necessarily mean a different experience, regardless of economic and cultural background.

An African American who was raised in the exact same environment as a white person, exactly like their twin, would still live a very different life from the white person. The black child would have to deal with different responses from teachers, peers, adults, basically everyone, because no matter how we try to combat it, we all make assumptions based on race. The black child would without a doubt be treated differently, because as Shara said so many times, we live in a racist society. Perhaps it's a comment from a fellow student, perhaps its a girl that he likes who won't date him because he isn't white. There are manifold hypotheticals that one could think of. Plus, a black child raised with a white child would probably face very significant identity issues, which would make his experience even more unique.

Because society can't ignore the color of people's skin, how can we expect, even desire, the admissions processes to remove race from the equation? Affirmative action is an attempt to put a very small band-aid over a huge, gaping wound. It is the only way for us to maintain a semblance of equality in access to education, and even it fails miserably.

I know I keep saying it, but I agree with Jacob and Carl on all points.

My siblings both go to Countryside, and many of the kids there spent all year preparing to apply. Based on what I've heard from them, the idea among a lot of prospective Uni students is that if you're not "white" or "Asian," you are basically guaranteed to get in, regardless of how you do on the SSAT or the application. And vice versa. If you are "white" or "Asian," your chances for admission become extremely slim.

In my opinion, this is not at all the message we want to be sending to possible applicants, no matter what color they are.

I would write more, but I'll be late for class. So I will continue this later.

I agree with Sarah in her statement that affirmative action is akin to putting a small bandage over a gaping wound. However, I do not share her sentiments that it is the only thing we can do about an issue that affects all of us in one way or another. To me, maintaining diversity by artificially forcing a percentage of students to look one way or be part of any specific race is analogous to sweeping the real issue under the rug by making sure that everything at least looks decent on the surface. While diversifying through programs like affirmative action may take away a fraction of the sting of a hurtful predicament, I would argue that it gets us, as a society, no closer to solving said issue, and often leads to animosity between applicants and students as well. While many Americans feel that granting Richard Nixon a presidential pardon from the Watergate repercussions was a good decision, many others see it as an act that dodged the real issue. While this pardon may have eased the pain of a drawn out investigation, who can make the argument that we are any closer to solving the issue of subversion and secrecy in politics that still plagues us today?

It is the same case with the issue of diversity as it currently presents itself to us. As a society, we put the real issue aside to make sure that everything appears satisfactory. It would seem to me that creating diversity merely for the sake of appearing diverse is merely a cover-up, while as a society we should be working towards a future where there would be no need for programs such as affirmative action. This may be a lofty goal, and not one that can be solved in any easy way, but by making sure that the proportions of the different races in our schools are "right", are we even approaching it at all?

That sounds good — until you realize that Hispanics made up only 5 percent of the applicant pool, African Americans 7 percent, and Native Americans 0.5 percent.

And that's a problem – until you realize that Champaign County is 2.90% Hispanic or Latino, 11.16% Black or African American, and 0.24% Native American. The applicant pool for Uni outperforms two of the three aforementioned minority groups. If you include another minority group, Asians, the applicant pool outperforms three of four minority groups as Asians make up 26% of the Uni student population yet only account for 6.45% of the population of Champaign County.

Ignoring demographics, let's consider the merits of affirmative action. According to the Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Ed.), affirmative action is defined as:

an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, esp. in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.

Positive discrimination. Can you really make a distinction between negative and positive discrimination? How positive is it that a Native American male is admitted to a college over an Asian female solely on the basis of race and gender?