How is this fair????

<p>The key word is ethnicity. </p>

<p>That might be a “professional” (for lack of a better word) definition.</p>

<p>But geography/ethnicity and the other things in that definition 99.9% of the time go hand in hand. America is the only nation with such a large mixture of people. </p>

<p>Race/ethnicity in simplistic terms refer to biological make up. For example, if scientists found a skeleton, they would be able to tell it’s race/ethnicity (African, African American (they would usually say “of African descent”), Hispanic, Asian, and white, there are a few others though.)</p>

<p>Would they be able to biologically/physically (traits of the bones) say “oh, this is a white south African.”</p>

<p>They wouldn’t.</p>

<p>If that is indeed the case, I would agree 100%, but I’m led to believe that race/ethnicity is more than merely biological. From what I can tell, whether or not race is genetic is a controversial issue that has no “legal” answer, but more evidence seems to point to “race” being determined by culture rather than genetics.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well what you said is that URM’s tend to come from disadvantaged socioeconomic classes. So that goes against the colleges too right?</p>

<p>It goes against colleges financially, yes, but not nearly to the same degree as socioeconomic division would. Plus, ethical/social/political issues outweigh the economic loss from increasing URM representation. Plus, many URMs aren’t low-income or disadvantaged at all, so colleges still get profit from them.</p>

<p>With the current system, the high-income population is DRASTICALLY overrepresented in elite colleges. This would not be the case if socioeconomic groups were given proportional representation, and tons of money would be lost.</p>

<p>I was taught that race and ethnicity were inherited through genetics. </p>

<p>I’ll use myself. </p>

<p>My ethnicity is African.
My race is African American. </p>

<p>(I hope people realize that the two are totally different cultures)</p>

<p>Pancaked- it’s okay to agree 99%
:)</p>

<p>I see your point Pancaked because in the end really, colleges are just businesses.</p>

<p>Elite colleges would also fail to be elite if the high-income population was not overrepresented. Elite colleges are primarily elite because of their students. High socioeconomic status is both casual of and correlated with academic, financial, and career success.</p>

<p>If Harvard used socioeconomic status in admissions to completely level the playing field with that respect, it would cease to be an elite school. Leveling the playing field does not bring everyone up to the quality of the top, but instead lowers the quality of the top and raises the quality of the bottom.</p>

<p>As to the above, colleges are not just businesses. All of the reputable colleges are non-profit and use their money to provide education (rather than for massive salaries like the supposedly non-profit College Board does). The few that are for-profit have a horrible reputation.</p>

<p>I was wrong then, sorry.</p>