The University of Florida Board of Regents voted unanimously Thursday to take steps to eliminate affirmative action admissions policies.

The Board passed the One Florida Initiative, introduced by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), which calls for the elimination of race-based and gender-based admissions.

Despite strong opposition and a protest, which took place in Gainsville, Fla. Thursday, the plan still was favored among Florida Regents.

“We certainly took opinions into account,” said Florida Regent C. B. Daniel.

With approval from the Board of Regents, the plan now will move to the Florida Board of Education to await final approval.

According to Daniel, the One Florida Plan “wipes out affirmative action in the sense that it eliminates race and gender in admission policies.”

But he said there are measures in effect designed to retain a diverse student body despite the end of formal affirmative action policies.

“Most of us felt that the affirmative action lawsuits around the country were having an adverse effect, and that we were eliminating that” by passing the One Florida Initiative, Daniel said.

“We felt diversity was too important an issue” to risk possible litigation, he said.

The Florida plan is not the first to ban affirmative action practices in higher education.

The Florida action follows California’s 1996 Proposition 209 legislation, which went into effect in Aug. 1997.

Proposition 209 prohibits public institutions and establishments from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment on the basis of race or gender.

But University officials said they did not feel Florida’s actions would have a large effect on University policies.

“The University’s situation is different from that in Florida,” University Rector John P. Ackerly III said. “In Florida Gov. Bush had already taken action to end racial and gender preferences in admissions. Gov. Gilmore has taken no such action in the Commonwealth.”

The plan comes at a heated time of the affirmative action debate at the University and beyond.

The University has held to its admissions policies, but there is always the possibility that people who oppose current policies could push to eliminate race and gender as factors in admissions, Equal Opportunity Programs Director Karen E. Holt said.

The University’s current policies take race into account, among other factors that also receive special consideration.

The time is right to be enrolled in the Engineering School.

Virginia is now experiencing the “biggest explosion in the information technology industry,” Engineering School Dean Richard W. Miksad said, and this boom has created an excellent job market for engineering students.

Miksad said Engineering School graduates will have access to many jobs in Virginia. He described Northern Virginia as the “Internet capital of the world,” and said approximately half of all Internet communication goes through that area.

He listed microelectronics and semi-conductors, bioengineering, advanced materials science – which includes the development of new materials – and computer and systems engineering as some of the areas experiencing the most rapid growth within the engineering field.

He added that Charlottesville and the University are ripe to become a leading center of biotechnology.

Charlottesville is a good location because of the proximity of the Engineering School, the Medical School and the hospital. Conception, creation and testing of new technology all could occur within a “10-block area,” Miksad said.

He said Charlottesville is a good location for the many small, specialized companies like the ones which have come to characterize the recent evolution of the communications technology industry.

He added that the University has a strong base in information technology including hardware, software and systems analysis.

According to William J. Thurneck, associate dean for administrative and academic affairs, the core of the University’s information technology resources comes from the computer science, systems engineering and computer engineering departments.

Thurneck said computer science and systems engineering are the two most popular majors.

This year the Engineering School was forced to limit the number of computer science majors because of the department’s growing popularity. There has been a cap on the number of systems engineering majors for the last five years.

The computer engineering major was created this year partly as a response to a demand from the engineering industry.

When the acceptance letter came in last November, fourth-year College student Luis Maes was finished with his job search. The employer offered zero wage in the Dominican Republic, the second poorest country in the Caribbean, where woodfuel remains the largest source of domestic energy and the annual per capita income hovers around $1,320. An Economics major, Maes naturally accepted.

“I have the opportunity to work for two years on the most beautiful island in the world,” said Maes, who is one of the exceptionally large number of University students who has enlisted in the Peace Corps.

Maes said he will work in the Dominican Republic to strengthen local banks and technical assistance to small businesses. Through Peace Corps, he will use his University background in economics to promote basic business practices among Dominican youth through educational workshops and programs.

Last week, while the U.S. Labor Department indicated that the job market had reached a 30-year high of 96 percent, as well as a stronger-than-expected rise in average hourly earnings by 4 percent, the Peace Corps reported that it had made sizable gains in college recruitment.

The University – which traditionally has produced the highest number of volunteers in the southeastern region – is among the top centers for recruitment nationwide this year.According to the Peace Corps’ 2000 list of “Top Peace Corps Universities,” Virginia leapt from the 20th position to land sixth in number of recruits this year, beating out historical top performers such as the University of Washington and the University of Illinois.

With 70 graduates going overseas to volunteer, the University boasts an unusually large number for its total size, said Regional Peace Corps Recruiter Eileen Conoboy.

Conoboy, who has been recruiting at the University since 1998, said students here show themselves to be of “uniquely high commitment, adaptability, spirit of adventure and the willingness to serve others.” She said that it is through strong University programs like Madison House and fraternal service organizations such as Alpha Phi Omega that U.Va. students have developed their taste for civic volunteerism.

“A lot of our recruits have been involved at some time in one or more of the service organizations at the University,” she added. “Once people get bit by the bug, and find how rewarding it is, oftentimes they want to parlay it into being part of their careers.”

Jordan Hamory, a fourth-year College student who will receive her Peace Corps assignment within the next two weeks, said the chance to challenge and improve her communications skills abroad motivated her to join the Peace Corps.

Along with providing civic benefits, conventional employers look favorably on the Peace Corps experience.

Marc McCauley, a real estate advisor for Robert Charles & Company, said someone coming out of the Peace Corps program would have “definite advantages” over the traditional applicant.

“Even graduates of U.Va. don’t always yet have the credentials of someone who has demonstrated that they are capable of being dedicated, and being open-minded,” said McCauley, “And I would say that, by and large, it makes sense to hire someone if he has the voucher of the most respected service organization in the world.”

Conoboy said a volunteer coming out of the program has demonstrated that “he is trainable, that he’s got a great attitude, and that he is able to work with people despite huge barriers.”

But Conoboy cautioned that “service in the Peace Corps is incredibly gratifying, but it’s not easy. A lot of people have trouble with the prospect of two years in a poorer, foreign country – still more don’t understand how hard this can really be.”

For this reason applicants must go through a multi-stage interview process, which attempts to evaluate not only commitment, but overall health as well.

David Mead, senior economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, said among the many benefits of beginning one’s career in the Peace Corps are foreign language training, opportunities for graduate school scholarships and fellowships, and easier access to Federal jobs through non-competitive eligibility.

The increase in Peace Corps recruitment may therefore reflect cosmopolitan civic-mindedness developing concurrently with post-service employers’ recognition of the program’s benefits to potential hires.

Howard Smith, a technical marketing representative for Manpower Technical, said when he was in school, “the Peace Corps was something that the best hippies did – now, the Peace Corps is a lot more mainstream, and now a lot of your best people in general apply for the program.”

The Peace Corps, established by former President John F. Kennedy, currently has 6,700 volunteers working overseas on fighting hunger, bringing clean water to communities, teaching children, helping start small businesses and controlling the spread of AIDS. Nationwide, more than 150,000 volunteers have joined since the program’s inception in 1961.

COLUMBIA, SC – Election day began with bustling activity at the campaign headquarters of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Cars honked incessantly in response to the “Honk for McCain” signs. The frenetic activity, excited volunteers and hopeful organizers revealed just how much this campaign has changed over the last three weeks.

Until recently, the Republican establishment had seemed prepared to have a coronation ceremony, honoring Texas Gov. George W. Bush with the presidential nomination. Not only had Bush locked up the support of most Republican leaders across the nation, but he had tens of millions of dollars more than his closest competitors, and a daunting lead over all opponents in the polls. Meanwhile McCain was leading a seemingly quixotic campaign with little support in the polls and little money in the coffers.

Yet this all changed after Bush’s disastrous defeat in New Hampshire. Bush had hoped that South Carolina would act as a “firewall”, ending McCain’s quest for the nomination. In his victory speech Bush said, “We come roaring out of South Carolina with a new energy out of this campaign.” Bush pulled off an impressive victory here on Saturday, yet it is important to remember what context it came in.

Bush needed this win more than McCain. His campaign had to completely redefine itself after New Hampshire. After this unpredicted defeat, Bush was left floundering while his supporters waivered in allegiance. Meanwhile McCain’s campaign surged with volunteers signing up, money flowing in, and even the Republican establishment warming up to him. Columbia’s newspaper, The State, showed just how important this win was with its headline, “S.C. Saves Bush.”

Because of its importance, Bush was prepared to do anything to win here, including spending millions of dollars and sinking to dirty tactics. But perhaps most importantly was Bush’s noticeable shift to the right.

South Carolina is a very conservative state and a stronghold of the religious right. In fact, one-third of voters Saturday identified themselves as religious conservatives. On election night, Bush credited his supporters from Greenville, the state’s center of the religious right, for playing a major role in his victory.

Bush has been using the slogan “compassionate conservative” to describe himself. He speaks about a broad and inclusive party, yet in South Carolina he was forced to retreat from those ideas. He depended on the support of right-wing constituents. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in Greenville, an institution that enforces an interracial dating ban and vehemently opposes Judaism and Catholicism, but did not criticize those prejudiced practices.

Gaining the favor of the far right helped Bush in South Carolina, but after embracing this position, it will be hard for him to move to the center in future primaries. On Tuesday he must battle McCain in Arizona and Michigan, states more moderate and representative of the nation than South Carolina.

On Saturday night, Bush described the defeat in New Hampshire with a smirk, thanking supporters for standing by him “when times were tough.” The expectation that the nomination will be handed to him is no longer true. Bush already has fallen off the height of his support. McCain has led a surging campaign from which he has emerged a contender – although last year he only garnered single digit support, and, as recently as January, Bush commanded a 45-point lead in a nationwide CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

McCain has cut into Bush’s lead, and there is no longer any sense of inevitability to the governor’s campaign. A December poll by KPC Research showed Bush up by 33 points in South Carolina, and McCain managed to narrow that to a 12-point loss in a state that is not home to his local constituency.

Bush has gained back some momentum, but there are no certainties for him. Arizona and Michigan represent the most important primaries yet, not only because they have the most delegate totals on a single date so far, but because they are representative of the nation’s demographics. Winning in these states will show more than a victory in a small New England state or in a conservative southern state.

McCain has surged from single digit support, to a dominating victory in New Hampshire, to a tight race in South Carolina. The future looks good for him. Bush’s support is falling off in Arizona and Michigan, and McCain now is leading in polls in both states. Until all the primaries are over though, this Republican nomination is anybody’s bet.

(Peter Brownfeld’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)

KUDOS TO the new Managing Board and staff for a successful transition during the past two weeks. Already I’ve noticed subtle changes in certain departments and look forward to your future innovations. To take an example that many will have undoubtedly overlooked, the “Inside” lead boxes found on the front page of The Cavalier Daily have been especially strong with an interesting variety of photo leads as well as helpful summaries. While these boxes are certainly only a small part of the paper, I mention them to draw attention to the fact that a quality publication consistently does both large and minor tasks well.

The Managing Board’s stated commitment (“111,” Feb. 7) to expand the sense of community expressed in the paper already can be seen in some of the broad news and features pieces covered. Three different club teams — the men’s and women’s ice hockey and the equestrian team — were featured on the Life page. Interest in alumni affairs was represented in coverage of Matt Phillips’ stint on “Who Want’s to be a Millionaire?” The paper covered a vocalist from the engineering school, a sorority beauty pageant and the presentation of awards to deserving faculty. The University community is not — no matter what some detractors say — homogenous and the paper never should represent it as such.

Within the past two weeks, the staff has made progress toward improving diversity in its news and feature reporting. The personal spin presented in recent student profiles has been an especially welcome addition that helps draw attention to the lives University students lead beyond stereotypes. Too much exposure still is being given, however, to particular student groups at the detriment of the rest of the community. Look at the front page for Feb. 17. Three of The Cavalier Daily’s lead news articles relate either Greek fraternity or sorority news. I am not discounting the newsworthiness of the articles presented, but I do wonder at the judgment to publish them all on the same day on the front page. (Perhaps a column could be published twice a month to cover all but the most important news relating to the Greek community.) There seems to be a general tendency to assume that any Greek community news is University news, and I fear this assumption leads writers and editors to overlook activities sponsored by other segments of the population that may be of interest to an equal — or greater — percentage of the student body and University community.

For example, take another look at last Friday’s first lead editorial — “Rush to the Polls.” Why is the timing of fraternity rush once again the subject of a lead editorial? The Cavalier Daily‘s stand on the issue was well-expressed last fall. Yet, here, in oddly linked paragraphs, we have the Board giving us a mixed opinion. First, we are informed that little headway has been made regarding the Rush policy, following then-Dean of Students Robert Canevari’s schedule change in April 1998. This statement is not, in fact, true. Little headway has been made by those who want fraternity rush moved back to the fall, but the position of the University’s administrators has become increasingly clear. If the Board wants to support moving rush, then say so straightforwardly.

Second, focusing once more on the hackneyed topic of fraternity rush only disguises the two real aims of the editorial: (1) to insist that University administrators take into account the opinions of the students as expressed in the Spring elections although they are not compelled to do so and (2) to encourage students to support the self-governance of the student body by participating in the electoral process. These two issue are important University issues in a way that fraternity rush simply is not. Let’s be honest, the possibility that “the formal rush issue will disappear into a morass of apathy” is no great loss when compared to the potential “curtailment of student self-governance … for yet another year.”

I particularly am interested in the changes that are in the works for feature pages this semester. An advice columnist will be an excellent addition to the Life page and I hope to continue to see preview as well as review pieces in Arts and Entertainment. Already the Nation/World section has benefited from additional room and planning. Without a doubt, a genuine commitment to this section by the paper along with good editing will result in a much stronger selection of news articles.

One thing to note, however: Since the space allotted to national and international news changes on a daily basis, its editors need to keep a careful eye on the section’s layout to ensure the best possible use of space. On Friday, for instance, the full page and a half given to the section allowed for expanded coverage, but the quality of the page was limited due to its policy of placing only continuations of stories on the second page. As a result, the lead stories were cramped and underexposed (see the small boxes allotted the articles covering the presidential campaigns). A better strategy would have been to move the non-lead story on the European Union’s fishing industry to the second page to make room for the full stories on Gore, Bush and McCain. Since the pages faced each other, this would have presented all of the stories in a better light. Plus, fewer stories would have been needlessly cut up and none would have received reduced exposure.

What have you noticed in the paper? Do have suggestions on how to improve diversity in reporting? Send your comments to me at Ombudsman@CavalierDaily.com.

The thing about the First Amendment is that it doesn’t always work in our favor. We trumpet freedom of speech when it allows us to voice our views and lends credence to our causes. When it works against those views and causes, however, some of us are willing to compromise the First Amendment until it serves our purposes again.

Colorado’s “bubble law” is a prime example of what goes wrong when politics and free speech are mixed. The law, which is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, is effective in a 100-foot radius surrounding an abortion clinic. It prohibits protesters from coming within eight feet of patients without their consent. It also bars protesters from counseling, distributing flyers or displaying signs within this eight-foot “bubble” surrounding any person. The law restricts protesters’ First Amendment rights and should be struck down.

The bubble law was a response to clinic patients’ complaints that protesters harassed them. The law’s sponsor, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), argued in a Denver Rocky Mountain News opinion piece that “the outrageous conduct of anti-abortion protesters created the need of the bubble bill” (“Free speech vs. ‘the bubble,’” Nov. 26, 1995). She referred to protesters’ attempts to obstruct clinic entrances and intimidate patients psychologically.

DeGette’s first point of contention with protest behavior is moot, because it is already illegal. The 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act prohibits protesters from obstructing clinic entrances. The Act, which was passed following incidences of violence at abortion clinics, prohibits the use of force, threats and obstruction of access to clinics. The bubble is not necessary to ensure free clinic access. Redundant legislation will not keep people from breaking the law.

The only new effect of the bubble law is to keep protesters from getting close enough to patients to distribute flyers or engage in peaceful, non-threatening conversation – both actions that are protected by the First Amendment. The law so clearly is unconstitutional that one wonders how it ever was passed in the first place.

The answer is politics. Although the bubble law has little to do with the act of abortion, the respective camps of abortion supporters and abortion opponents drew support and opposition for the law. Restriction of the First Amendment rights of abortion protesters is a clear victory for abortion supporters.

A Supreme Court ruling upholding the law would be construed as a victory for abortion supporters, and the law’s defeat would be taken as a victory for the pro-life movement. But although the stakes are high for both sides, all must realize that the issue up for debate – and the issue before the Supreme Court – is free speech.

In her opinion piece, DeGette argued that “eight feet is ample room to convey a message while allowing free entry to clinics.” But free speech does not end with the conveyance of a message. Freedom of speech also allows citizens the opportunity to persuade the listener to agree with the message. That same liberty gives Americans the freedom to debate contentious issues. It allows us to question authority and to come to popular consensus. It provides the opportunity for change. It is essential to democracy.

In theory, freedom of speech is an elegant ideal, but in practice, it sometimes becomes ugly. When opposing sides meet and emotions start to boil, heated exchanges erupt. The controversial nature of the abortion debate means that the exercise of free speech on either side tends toward the unsightly. Standard etiquette does not support posters of bloody fetuses. But Emily Post did not write the Constitution.

The government cannot legislate good manners. But it can legislate against violence. It can prosecute abortion protesters who step over the line of the law, but it cannot compromise the First Amendment, no matter how distasteful the speech may be. Fortunately, the future is looking good for the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has struck down bubble laws in two previous rulings while upholding the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Let’s make it three for three.

(Masha Herbst’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)

Any number of impulses stimulate us every second. Some of our decisions are coldly calculated. Others are capricious. What we decide to do at one moment may be infinitely different from what we might decide to do, under the same conditions, in the very next moment.

Education School Honor Rep. Jim Haley has proposed an amendment to the Honor Committee constitution to eliminate the seriousness clause in cases of intentional academic cheating. This proposal overlooks human nature. It is too formulaic and will impair the honor system by limiting the student jury’s autonomy.

There are currently three criteria for determining an honor offense. The jury votes on whether the act occurred and if the violator intentionally committed it. But that’s not the whole story: To impose the single sanction — removing someone from the University — the jury must vote on seriousness.

In a personal interview, Haley reasoned that all intentional acts of academic cheating are serious. Thus, it’s not a matter for the jury to deal with. He’s wrong. The jury will be stripped of its power to consider mitigating circumstances. Suppose an emergency comes up and I have to dash off some answers for a problem set. If I can’t get in touch with my professor to ask for an extension, I might just opt to copy answers out of the back of the book. It’s cheating, but given the duress of the moment, it hardly seems worthy of expulsion. Without seriousness to save me, I am as susceptible to getting kicked out as that guy who downloaded his term paper off the Internet.

Determining act and intent is an exercise in fact-finding, while determining seriousness is normative. Without seriousness, juries can’t empathize with those they are judging. Instead, they examine circumstances without even the chance to be compassionate. Students deserve second chances in marginal cases. When someone — genuinely repentant — commits a marginally serious act, there is good reason to believe that he will reform his ways. Without the compassion and second chance seriousness offers, the Committee eliminates the possibility for character growth.

Justice should be proportional. This means both that a punishment should be suited to the crime and that people who commit similar acts should be punished similarly. Seriousness allows juries to explore proportionality issues rather than forcing them to use the single sanction in all cases.

Kicking someone out of the University is a pretentious act. It’s saying: “I, who am good enough to be here, deem you unworthy of being here.” A jury of peers, combined with the seriousness clause, is the perfect way to counteract the pretension of expelling someone for an honor offense.

But stripped of its power to decide on seriousness, this vehicle of democracy — a student jury — can’t work its magic. If the jury only needed to determine a person’s act, this could be left to investigators. That wouldn’t be justice. The seriousness clause puts the issue in the hands of the jury, allowing jurors to ask: “Can we tolerate this in our community?” If the jury can’t ask this question, it has no authority.

Provided that the proposal passes the Committee, it will go before the student body in a referendum. Haley noted in the interview that “when the jury panel votes on seriousness, they are deciding the community’s standard.” So, he reasoned, why not just appeal to the students to create its standard? That’s where this proposal fails to recognize human complexity. We can’t foresee all the curveballs that future juries will encounter. Each case ought to be decided individually, not by a sweeping referendum.

While all cheating is wrong, not all cheaters should be expelled from the University. Most justice systems have gradations of punishment to compensate for this, but at the University we have only the single sanction. Since we can’t rank the gravity of the offense, we must at the very least cherish our one standard for punishment: seriousness. Seriousness is necessary to counterbalance the severity of the single sanction.

Without seriousness, we have a system that is too rigid. Instead of the positive community we strive for, we are left paranoid, because the smallest slip up can cost you your education and your career.

Eliminating seriousness could create a community of distrust – one without second chances, one that creates paranoia, and one that hinders student self-governance in the form of the student jury.

Act and intent, plus seriousness, is a recipe for integrity in the honor process. Barring any of those, the honor jury loses a powerful tool. On one hand, it determines if the respondent is guilty; on the other, the jury decides if that offense is even important. There’s no reason to amputate one of honor’s limbs.

(Jeffrey Eisenberg’s column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)

Students and administrators convened in Old Cabell Hall auditorium Friday to discuss diversity in an attempt to bring new perspectives to an issue that has created much debate at the University over the last year.

The objective of “Charting Diversity: Commitment, Honor, Challenge” was to identify problems with current University policies regarding diversity and – with guidance from other universities – formulate a plan to foster increased diversity and interaction between cultural groups.

The conference kicked off a year-long series of roundtable discussions of current University practices and ways to encourage diversity at the University.

University President John T. Casteen III urged conference participants to consider new perspectives on such issues such as race as a factor in admissions.

Participants from outside the University community dominated the majority of Friday discussion.

“A greater investment of time and thinking and creativity” is needed for the University to maintain a diverse environment in the face of heightened opposition to race-based admissions policies, said Angela E. Oh, attorney and member of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission.

“Our media is not particularly bright on issues of education,” Oh said, criticizing the way admissions policies are portrayed in mainstream media.

She also said that economic disparities along racial lines indicate the need for the use of race as a factor in admissions.

“Is it fair to expect students who don’t have access to [Advanced Placement classes] to compete in the admissions process? Of course not,” she added.

“Test scores are not going to give you any information about leadership capabilities,” Oh said.

Michael T. Nettles, professor of education at the University of Michigan, also argued for race-based admissions policies.

He said 80 percent of black students score below 1000 on the SAT, and almost 50 percent of teachers in predominantly minority high schools did not major or minor in the subject they are teaching.

Nettles also said a strong correlation exists between family income and performance on the SAT, another factor that may hinder the test scores of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Gene Lowe, assistant to the president of Northwestern University, stressed the need to involve all factions of the University community in fostering diversity – including faculty members as well as administrators and students.

Early Saturday morning, a student allegedly set fire to a bulletin board in Echols House, a first-year dormitory in the McCormick Road Residence Area, leading to his arrest on the charge of arson.

At 2 a.m. Saturday, “there was a fire alarm” on the first floor of Echols, University Police Sgt. Mike Gibson said.

Investigation into the incident led to a suspect, Garrett A. McAuliffe, a first-year student and Echols resident.

McAuliffe was arrested and charged with felony arson, Gibson said.

McAuliffe allegedly set fire to a bulletin board, leaving “some burn marks on the floor,” he said.

“The carpet was scorched across room 104,” he added.

First-year College student and Echols resident Lauren Milburn said most students in the building “didn’t feel any danger at the time [of the fire alarm] since this is the fourth time we have had a fire alarm” since January.

Earlier in the semester, the students have had to evacuate three times in two days, leading some students to believe that Saturday morning’s fire alarm was most likely another false alarm, Milburn said.

She said that the incident was “handled pretty well,” by police and firemen who responded.

McAuliffe “is being held in the [University Police] complex,” awaiting his bond hearing on Tuesday, Gibson said.

Lately, it seems to be the norm to have a mixed market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been closing on the down side, while the NASDAQ steadily rises.

The Dow is an index of 30 “blue chip” stocks. “Blue chip” stocks belong to widely known companies with a large volume of shares such as Home Depot or Microsoft.

The NASDAQ is a larger index of stocks comprised of companies with less shares outstanding, involved in sectors such as the Internet and biotechnology. The NASDAQ includes stocks such as Cisco, a networking company, and Amazon, an online retailer.

“The biggest problem with the Dow is that there is little representation in some of the industries that are most important to us today: Internet, computer hardware, wireless communications, biotechnology, etc.,” Andy Schoonover, president of the McIntire Investment Institute and third-year Commerce student said.

“A fundamental transformation in the economy is going on,” Patrick Dennis, McIntire professor of Finance said.

Despite Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s warning that interest rate hikes will continue, the NASDAQ hit yet another record high Thursday, closing at 4548.92. The Dow was off 46.84 points that day. In the past, investors were wary of the NASDAQ’s volatility, but now they are rushing to buy its components.

“I believe that the stocks in the NASDAQ are overvalued. People keep buying stocks in the NASDAQ knowing they are overvalued, but also knowing that other people will buy the stocks in the future. People are in love with” the NASDAQ, Dennis said.

The market has continued to see increases in the NASDAQ for a couple of weeks.

Since the beginning of the year, the NASDAQ already has had eight of its 10 biggest point gains in history.

“The rate of growth is high for stocks in the NASDAQ,” Dennis said.

“People are in love with dot-coms and biotechs. These sectors tend to have higher rates of growth, given that prices are not justified,” he said.

Prospective growth seems to be the main factor in deciding which stocks to pick.

“Today’s investors look for growth above all else. If the company doesn’t have huge prospects for growth, they will under-perform,” Schoonover said.

Investing today seems to be driven forward by younger generations.

“Investors in the NASDAQ tend to be younger, riskier, and more aggressive while investors in the Dow are more risk-averse and demographically, a little older,” Dennis said.

There was a time when the Dow was known as the foremost indicator of the stock market, but this is changing.

“The Dow is no longer the gauge for market performance. The index generally consists of firms that are in mature industries and have meager growth prospects,” Schoonover said.

Recently, the Dow changed some of its components to better represent the economy.

“The Dow has made great strides by adding the likes of Microsoft and Intel but they have a long way to go before the index becomes representative of today’s economy,” Schoonover said.

While some analysts think the NASDAQ represents the total market performance, it still has shortcomings.

I don’t think the NASDAQ is a good indicator of the market because it is biased against biotech companies, Dennis said.

Investors need to look at many indicators to get a good idea of how the market is doing.

“Look at all stocks, and don’t forget international stocks. I look at the market as being partly the NASDAQ, partly the Dow, partly Asia, partly Europe, etc.,” Dennis said.

“You have to take a global perspective of the market,” he said.

Wall Street analysts say that, based on past performance, if the Dow is down in the first month of the year, it is likely to be down for the whole year.

“To predict what’s going to happen in the future, you have to look forward, not back to the past,” Dennis said.

“Wireless communications is the next big thing. I also believe in biotech. Once we map the human genome, there will be tremendous growth in that sector,” he said.

“I hesitate to speculate on the future market performance but I see the NASDAQ and the S&P 500 continuing their fantastic returns through 2000,” said Schoonover.