<p>My name is on the list... did I actually do anything for this? =P lol</p>
<p>newmassdad - My explanation of the selection process WAS my attempt to answer your question about the purpose of such an awards program. Sorry it was inadequate. When you say "what's the purpose....Seems to me is that all it does is recognize those that by a statistical fluke aced a standardized test!" then I don't think I'm out of line to interpret that as an intent to bash the program and demean what the candidates have achieved. Reasonable minds can differ, but I see extraordinary success on the standardized tests as more than a "statistical fluke." In my opinion, it's either the result of really hard work and effective studying, which makes it a lot like a perfect GPA achieved in a more compressed time period, or it's what happens to kids who are innately intelligent and also do lots of reading and thinking throughout their education. I doubt it's worth going into that whole debate. I'm just curious, though - what would be a better screening process for a national program like this? GPA just isn't gonna work unless all the eligible kids go to the same school. There's no perfect system, but I'm not convinced this is any worse than other selection methods.</p>
<p>For those of you who were surprised by your candidacy - sorry to spoil the surprise by posting the link:) . You'll get a letter soon, explaining the whole thing. Congrats!</p>
<p>Just curious, for the ones that only took the SAT, what scores did you get to qualify?</p>
<p>how does this nomination thing work?
because there are a bunch of people on that list from my school,
and i happen to know i got higher SAT scores than at least one of them.
is that how it's decided?</p>
<p>i almost qualified for the nfaa arts nomination too....this is frustrating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just curious, for the ones that only took the SAT, what scores did you get to qualify?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I had a 2300 (1500/1600), in Vermont.</p>
<p>So, an annoying question: My parents very strongly want me to apply. They say that it would be opportunity to honor my teacher and my school, and that if later I were to apply for things like the Goldwater Scholarship, it would help to have this on my record.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the recognition isn't terribly meaningful to me, and I'd feel guilty about taking the honor from someone who would value it a lot more. I also really don't want to go to recognition week, for a variety of reasons.</p>
<p>My parents' proposed "compromise" is that I apply for the award, but not attend recognition week if I'm accepted. Does this seem valid and reasonable, or would I be better off not applying at all?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Reasonable minds can differ, but I see extraordinary success on the standardized tests as more than a "statistical fluke." In my opinion, it's either the result of really hard work and effective studying, which makes it a lot like a perfect GPA achieved in a more compressed time period, or it's what happens to kids who are innately intelligent and also do lots of reading and thinking throughout their education. I doubt it's worth going into that whole debate.
[/quote]
Actually, a top score on the SAT does NOT reflect what you claim. No one questions that top scorers may show the qualities you mention. But that does not mean that the SAT is a proxy for what you mention - that is to say can one use the SAT score to measure "really hard work and effective studying, which makes it a lot like a perfect GPA achieved in a more compressed time period"? No. This is just not true, though I doubt you would take anyone's word for it, so I'll not bother to drag up references.
[quote]
I'm just curious, though - what would be a better screening process for a national program like this? GPA just isn't gonna work unless all the eligible kids go to the same school. There's no perfect system, but I'm not convinced this is any worse than other selection methods.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, there are actually better approaches than what is done here, especially if, as you say, they use the best score out of as many sittings as the student wants to suffer through. The official website discusses the initial selection criterion and follow on process:
[quote]
Students who notified ACT or ETS in writing that they did not want their scores released to outside agencies are excluded. Also excluded are students who did not indicate their year of graduation to be between January and August of the current program year.</p>
<p>The U.S. Department of Education then looks at test records for the top 30 males and top 30 females in each of the states/jurisdictions. For each examinee, the SAT score is converted to the ACT Sum of Scores, according to a concordance table. Each individual examinee's highest test score (in a single test administration ) is identified, and duplicates and/or lower scores are dropped.</p>
<p>The combined file of scores from the top male examinees and top female examinees are then ranked from high to low in each state. The scores associated with the top 20 male examinees and top 20 female examinees are used to identify the candidates in each state. When ties occur in the cut off score, more than 20 persons of that gender are selected in that state.</p>
<p>To be considered further, candidates must submit candidacy materials, including essays, self-assessments, secondary school reports, and transcripts. Candidates are evaluated on their academic achievement, personal characteristics, leadership and service activities, and an analysis of their essay.
[/quote]
So the initial cut is based entirely on SAT score.</p>
<p>How could this be improved? In many ways. The key would be to broaden the selection criteria. One could, for example, use SAT bands, do it on a school by school basis, use a combination of GPA and test score. There are many other approaches. Of course there is no one magic way. Grades, as you mention, have limitations. So do SAT scores.</p>
<p>The NM program has the same limitation. While I am sure your kid's success means a lot to you now, as well it should, you will discover in a few years that such PSAT/SAT based honors become meaningless very quickly. In fact, they loose all relevance once one's undergraduate admissions cycle is over. Once a kid enters college, a different set of honors takes over. And none of them are test based - no national honor uses GRE scores as a screen, for example. And prestigious national honors don't look at test scores at all, no doubt for good reason.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think I'm out of line to interpret that as an intent to bash the program and demean what the candidates have achieved.
[/quote]
I DO think you are out of line to impugn intent or motive on another poster you do not know. Reasonable adults have reasonable discussions without attacking another person's integrity or motives. Perhaps you are not in this category? FWIW, it is posts like yours that have led a lot of old timers on these boards to quit. We get tired of having our motives and integrity questioned.</p>
<p>I detect no incivility at all in rainmama’s posts -- just a thoughtful effort to explain her position that the screening tool used by Presidential Scholars is not, as you have suggested, meaningless. Although the SAT/ACT is an arbitrary screening tool for selecting Presidential Scholars candidates, it is by no means a worthless tool.</p>
<p>Quare: listen to your parents; apply and then see what happens.</p>
<p>I should start by saying that my kid is on the list.</p>
<p>The screening criteria for ANY award is going to be potentially unfair to someone. I don't agree that the "improvements" suggested by Newmassdad are in fact improvements: they all, as he points out himself, have flaws. I agree with rainmama that high performance on the SATs is not simply a "statistical fluke": it is the result either of intelligence reinforced by years of reading, or of intelligence augmented by concentrated study (in the case of those who choose to prep). When a kid wins a race at a track meet, do we declare it invalid because s/he has innate athletic ability and/or trained well, and complain that other kids do better in other races or sports?</p>
<p>Most of the awards and honors that kids can get in high school depend totally on the willingness of teachers, coaches, or school administrators to bestow them. I think that SAT/ACT scores are one valid data point among many. As an initial screener for a national award, they have the advantage that everyone takes the same test. They also have the advantage that they are something that the kid can go out and earn <em>anonymously</em>. They are not the result of years of dedicated brown-nosing and hand-waving or having a naturally charming personality or a good sob story. Those factors will come into play now that the initial screening is over. </p>
<p>Newmassdad, it isn't news to anyone that test-based honors aren't going to assure anyone's future; however, I don't think that the selection preocesses for Fulbrights and the like are going to be free of politics, favoritism, and just plain luck either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When a kid wins a race at a track meet, do we declare it invalid because s/he has innate athletic ability and/or trained well, and complain that other kids do better in other races or sports?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Consolation, surely you are joking making such a comparison? If not, then I fear you have no idea what I am talking about when I mention the weaknesses in using the SAT as a screen for a national level honor.</p>
<p>You may not understand, and I guess in the broader scope of things, it is not important that the parents of candidates or winners understand. I do think it is important for those that are not candidates to understand that, in spite of what they may hear at their schools, the candidates are not necessarily the "best". They could be. But we just don't know.</p>
<p>My son got a perfect score on the ACT but he is not a Presidential Scholars candidate. Neither of us is scarred for life. I understand perfectly well that Presidential Scholars candidates are not an exclusive group of "the best." The Presidential Scholars program has decided to use the results of standardized tests as its screening tool. That means that the program is going to rake in some fabulous kids and leave others out. But the test is still a valid tool for identifying a subset of high-achieveing kids, and earning a superlative score on ACT/SAT is still an achievement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That means that the program is going to rake in some fabulous kids and leave others out. But the test is still a valid tool, and eaning a superlative score on ACT/SAT is still an achievement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's about where I come out on this. The students named in Minnesota seem like the real deal to me. I know others not named who are also very fine students.</p>
<p>wjb lives in an extremely competitive state! In our Midwestern state, the ACT sum-of-scores cut-off last year was 141 (for females); however, 1590 SAT V+M single sitting was, for some reason, equated to a 140 ACT sum, and so did not qualify (in the absence of an ACT score--since QMP was pretty tired of standardized tests). </p>
<p>I have to admit, this surprised me somewhat, because our state's PSAT cut-off for NMSF's is comparatively low. This information might be useful for anyone whose child appears to be close to the qualification cut-off.</p>
<p>The odds of selection, once qualified, are long, since only two students per state are selected (except for those in the arts). Beyond the SAT/ACT scores and ability to write outstanding essays, accomplishments do seem to play a significant role in the final selection--I think some of the essay questions might inquire about a student's contributions or achievements?</p>
<p>newmassdad - I am sorry if it seemed like I was impugning your integrity, as that was not what I meant to do. Really! I know nothing about your integrity or motives, so I'm waving the white flag now. I admit that I was reading intent into your comment about high test scores being a statistical fluke; isn't a conversation all about interpreting why the other person said a particular thing? So, I inferred that you don't believe high test scores are a good proxy for merit in this situation. I was trying to respond to that. I hope that's not so offensive on my part that it would drive away the oldtimers on this board. If I offended others in addition to newmassdad, please accept my apology.</p>
<p>rainma,</p>
<p>OK. Truce! Just be nice to those poor folks who aren't so lucky. :)</p>
<p>And, for the record, being a Presidential Scholar is indeed an accomplishment, just look at the number of eligibles versus the number of winners. So best of luck to those who apply and congrats to any past winners. Personally, I've never known any. None of my own D's peers were even considered. </p>
<p>(and if anyone happens to be curious about my comments regarding SAT limitations, feel free to PM</p>
<p>"You may not understand, and I guess in the broader scope of things, it is not important that the parents of candidates or winners understand. I do think it is important for those that are not candidates to understand that, in spite of what they may hear at their schools, the candidates are not necessarily the "best". They could be. But we just don't know."</p>
<p>I understood you perfectly. I just don't agree with you. What I don't understand is where you get the idea from anything I said I think that the candidates chosen by this OR ANY OTHER METHOD are "necessarily the 'best.'"</p>
<p>Frankly, I think that the idea that "the best" in most things can be selected is a warped notion in the first place. </p>
<p>I can assure you that virtually all of the kids selected by this method will have experienced NOT being selected for a shot at some kind of award by some other method. There will be kids who didn't get into the NHS when their classmates did, kids who didn't get selected for "leadership" programs like Boys/Girls State, kids who were rejected after auditioning for various artistic endeavors, kids whose PSATs weren't high enough for NMSF, kids who were cut from teams, kids who were not selected to be team captains by the coaches, kids who didn't get a junior book award, kids who didn't win or get to enter essay contests, kids who were deferred or rejected by their early action school, and so forth and so on. I really don't think you have to worry about anyone having delusions of grandeur.</p>
<p>Nor do I think you have to worry that the egos of those not selected are going to be crushed. I don't think that the news that a selection process can be somewhat arbitrary will be news to them. (And frankly, most kids and parents haven't even heard of Presidential Scholars.)</p>
<p>Wow, I'm on the list. I didn't even know this list existed. I think someone mentioned to me on this forum that I would qualify, but I thought this was a scholarship program at a college I was applying to.</p>
<p>Though the initial filter is somewhat arbitrary (how do you define "top scholar"?), it's safe to say that the Presidential Scholars are a very impressive group. Even though there is no monetary award attached, it's a thrill to attend the Presidential Scholar events in Washington. For those who aren't impressed by meeting President Bush (our son included), it's still great to be honored at the White House and Kennedy Center, and to see your "most inspirational" teacher given special recognition. It's also a wonderful honor to include on applications such as the Goldwater and the Rhodes. So, even though I know the last thing you want to do right now is complete another application, I encourage you to do so. If you are chosen, you will be very glad you made the effort! Congratulations and good luck to all the candidates.</p>
<p>I know three of the people from OH. One is a good friend of mine who always one-ups me on just about everything. He didn't get a very good SAT, but a 36 on ACT. I did decently on the ACT but didn't bother to retake since I had a 1550 M/V SAT, which is not good enough. boo.</p>
<p>I have two questions:
1. What are the percentages of students scoring 1600 (CR/M) in one setting compared to those scoring a combined 144, 143, or 142 on the ACT? This would justify why students with a SAT 1600 are nominated but NOT students with a combined ACT of 143. (That's assuming that nationwide ACT takers are just as "smart" as the SAT takers).
2. How does one justify that of two students who attend the same school student A is nominated with a substantially lower SAT score than student B because they live in different states?</p>