In terms of higher education, the University of California system is certainly well known, and is home to several prestigious schools.  The colleges carrying the UC moniker include campuses in Berkeley, Los Angeles, Davis, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Irvine, Merced, and Riverside, of which the first three are considered to be most prominent.   Acceptance to a UC school is highly sought after, and an esteemed achievement.  Overall, the UC admissions department receives nearly 100,000 applications a year, from both in and out of state students.  All nine schools use the same application, unique from the Common Application and the Universal Application, submitted online during the month of November.

This formidable state school system is uniquely dominated by a non-white minority ethnicity.  The UC system has a 40% Asian student body, a statistic atypical of American universities today.  This uncommon feature of the system appears to be on the cusp of dramatic change.  The University of California has recently come under media fire for admissions policy changes some argue are intended to decrease the ubiquitous Asian presence on campuses across the state.

In recent years, requirements for admission have included the SAT or ACT, two SAT subject tests, a high GPA and a myriad of impressive extracurricular activities.  However, the University of California has decided that beginning with the freshman class of 2012, they will drop the SAT II requirement, increase the eligible applicant pool, and lower the number of students accepted on the basis of scores alone.   Their stated intent is entirely unrelated to ethnicity; UC President Mark Yudof said, “The primary goal is fairness and eliminating barriers that seem unnecessary.”

The intended result, according to the UC system, is not to lower the number of Asian students who admitted, students who (stereo)typically perform exceptionally on standardized tests.  The media outcry seems unwarranted if this is truly the case.  However, the purpose of the shift is not to increase the number of underrepresented minorities, specifically Hispanics, on campus either.  It is claimed by the opponents to new requirements that the change will largely benefit white students over all others by lessening competition from their Asian counterparts.

For students already on campus, the whisperings of change have resulted in shouts of protest.  Yet for many students, race is less of a concern than the press may make it out to be.  Eric L., a rising sophomore at UC Davis, comments he believes that, while a change in policy is needed, it should have a nonracial focus.  For him, the UC system would benefit from an attempt to “support underrepresented minorities more on a level of social class,” accepting a greater number of students from lower income levels as opposed to remaining transfixed by the issue of ethnicity.

Whether or not the change in UC admissions policy will impact future percentages of Asian matriculates remains to be seen, but the American media has shown no hesitation in its hasty upheaval over the admissions policy modification.  Three years remain before the adjustment takes effect, students still may rise up against socioeconomic and/or racial homogeny.  Three years remain and the UC system or state may decide to embrace a decidedly overrepresented Asian student body.  Three years remain, and applicants may just have to wait in suspense to see who makes the cut come 2012.

For students, fall of senior year means creating a list – the list – of schools to which applications will be sent in hopes of many happy returns.   There are some who make the list more consistently than others, Ivy leaguers, big state schools.  Some students’ lists have a catalog of small, private liberal arts colleges, and others read as rosters of the brightest in undergrad business.  The lists are not just compromised of heavy hitters; an entire class of less commonly mentioned colleges is drawing in a steady stream of desirable applicants: minority schools.

These colleges actively choose a population comprised of at least one third of students belonging to a specific ethnic or racial minority group.  Minority universities aim to mainstream students who may be marginalized elsewhere.  These schools are organized with a focus on the categories of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU).  In the eyes of some they are evidence of a commonly accepted behavioral norm – minorities in America choosing to spend time primarily with people of the same race or ethnicity.

Some believe minority colleges contribute to an ongoing marginalization of minority students in higher education, creating pull for non-white students to decide against integrating into a majority Caucasian school.  Active, willful segregation of students based on race is still by definition segregation, even though it has received the stamp of approval from its minority community.  In a certain light, the minority college harkens back to a time where separate but equal was the only way, not a chosen way.

When interviewed, a Howard student stated that although she was aware of the potential downsides, she felt positive and confident in her college selection.  Howard is one of the most prominent and well-known historically black universities in the United States.  She cited tradition, her parents were alums, as well as a sense of belonging as being among her reasons for attending Howard. She expressed no major qualms about the education she has received there.  For her, racial lines define the community she wants to be a part of.

While the significance of racial and ethnic solidarity among minority groups should not be overlooked, diversity is an important goal to strive for in American colleges.  A valuable element of higher education is interaction between students with a variety of backgrounds and upbringings. Students potentially sacrifice this facet of the college experience by choosing to attend a minority school; they narrow, but do not necessarily close, their window of exposure to people from entirely different cultures. The choice to attend a nearly all-white college poses the same major problem. An equivalent issue may be seen among religiously affiliated schools.  Even if it does guarantee some form of solidarity among matriculates, limiting who may enroll means concurrently limiting the depth and breadth of the student body.  It could easily be argued that a student has the most to gain from crossing racial or religious lines and choosing to attend a school with a more mixed community.