2008 Presidential Scholars candidates list is up

<p>rower, I'll take a shot at question #2.</p>

<p>First, I doubt that the difference in scores between the higher scoring student who didn't make it and the lower scoring student from another state who did make it is really that "significant". I don't know how low they go in some states (maybe 1540?), but a 1540 is really not lower by a statistically significant amount than, say, a 1590 (the first student didn't score a 1600 or he'd automatically be in). The error bars overlap.</p>

<p>Some recognition of this type is based on the desire to have all states represented equally, whether you agree that it's fair or not. The Presidential Scholars program is one case where it clearly makes sense, since they need to end up with 2 finalists from each state (plus 15 "floaters" usually from more populous states as well as the Arts Scholars).</p>

<p>This is not unlike the National Merit Semifinalist cutoffs, where the desired number of Semifinalists is a fixed percentage of the total number of students in each state who took the PSAT. This is an attempt to recognize that variation in the quality of public schooling from state to state is not the fault of the students who reside there.</p>

<p>In either case, it's not truly "fair" but it's the best they could come up with. Yes, there are individual cases that might seem unfair (bright kid at private school from backward state) but in general it's not bad.</p>

<p>Pres. Scholar considers state of residence while National Merit looks at state where student attends school.</p>

<p>There is soemthing seriously wrong with how SAT scores are converted to ACT scores (and vice versa), leading to ACT test takers seriously underrepresented. Here's what I found out:</p>

<p>According to a supervisor at ACT, which incidentally administers the Presidential Scholar Awards under contract to the US Dept of Ed, ACT scores of 141 and higher is considered equivalent to an SAT of 1600.</p>

<p>However, for this year's Presidential Scholar program, ALL SAT 1600s are converted to a perfect 144 score! </p>

<p>This means that most of the candidate spots are taken by SAT takers as it is WAY more difficult to attain a perfect 144 than a 1600, assuming a Gaussian distribution. </p>

<p>Check out last year's data:</p>

<p>In 2007, 1206 test takers nationwide had a 1600 nationwide on the SAT; Total test takers: 1.494 mio
Page</a> Not Found</p>

<p>In 2007, 314 ACT test takers nationawide achieved a composite score of 36 (that's a total score of 142, 143, or 144); total 1.3 mio test takers
<a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/National2007.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/National2007.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Thus, anybody with a 36 combined should count as a 1600 SAT.</p>

<p>That's true, but if it affected 50 kids, I would be surprised.</p>

<p>I assume that at least some of the ACT 36s are also SAT 1600s.</p>

<p>With the SAT, the number of 1600 scorers is generally 2-3x the number of 1590-1580 scorers (because 1600 is aggregating a group that would be distributed thinly across a wider range of high scores if they were available). I assume that's probably true with ACT 144 vs. 143-142 scorers. So there are probably something around 100, maybe a little less, 143-142 scorers who are not also 1600 scorers.</p>

<p>There are over 2,000 Presidential Scholar semifinalists. In most states, 143-142 ACT scorers will qualify easily. The only places where they won't will be California, New York, and maybe a couple of other states, which have more than 40 1600 or 144 scorers.</p>

<p>I'm sorry if that included your child, but this isn't a social issue of great moment as far as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>No, it's not an issue of great social importance, just an importance of personal importance for quite a few kids. And actually, you're wrong: In most states, the 20+ slots per gender are taken by the 1600 scorers. There are plenty of kids who only take the ACT and they are being at a disadvantage. BTW, my kid doesn't care...
Here's the link to SATs:
<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_dow...positeCR_M.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_dow...positeCR_M.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I agree that it's not an issue of great moment: Colleges are well aware of students' standardized test scores, so the Presidential Scholarship candidacy really adds nothing to a student's application. The desire to shake Bush's hand? Well, that's another matter, beyond the scope of this discussion. But you're right, tryingtorelax, that SAT takers have an advantage over ACT takers for PS purposes. </p>

<p>JHS, re your position that many 36s are also 1600s: There are plenty of kids in ACT territory who do not take the SAT I at all. SAT is simply not part of the gestalt in some states. In particular, a kid who earns a top score on the ACT -- certainly one who scores a 35 or a 36 -- will likely not sit for the SAT I (except if he/she wants to confirm PSAT for National Merit purposes).</p>

<p>I didn't suggest that "many" 36s are also 1600s, but I know some are (and they all seem to post on CC). And since the SATs are more popular in the East, and required by the UC system (I think), that pretty much guarantees that the ACT-only takers are not likely to be residents of the handful of states where 143 vs. 144 on the ACT would make a difference.</p>

<p>I don't know what the cutoff was this year, but last year in Pennsylvania, which I think is among the top 6 states in population, you could be a Presidential Scholar semi-finalist with under-1600 SATs. So a 142-scoring ACT-taker would likely have qualified here, too.</p>

<p>A fellow CC'er reports that the qualifying ACT score in Pennsylvania this year is a 144 (for males, at least). Same for Illinois: 68 of the 314 kids who scored 36s worldwide were from Illinois. I don't know about other states.</p>

<p>SAT I and ACT are two different tests, and it is more difficult to get a 36 in ACT.
DOEd should should have more transparent process for selecting presidential scholar candidates. Selecting 20 kids may have been suitable from tests results back then (not may kids with 1600 or 36). In this century, appropriate number for presidential Scholar CANDIDIDATES should be 200, 300 or even more.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, Ijmom, that there is no monetary award associated with being chosen as a Presidential Scholar (except if you're a PS in the Arts). And for the most important purpose, college admissions, a 36 (whether a 142 or a 144) is still a 36.</p>

<p>Even though there is no money attached to it. It has its prestige.
This is very valuable for people who are applying for merit scholarships.
It is icing on the cake.</p>

<p>In any case if you add up all the 1600s + all the 36s, that's only around 1500 kids (assuming no overlap). The other 1200 have to come from lower scores. And as somebody else posted elsewhere, they were told by the administrators of the program that only about 2000 end up applying. Good luck everybody.</p>

<p>The real leveler today is the 3 part SAT: only just over 200 get 2400. Eventually they will also include the writing part in the selection process.</p>

<p>Assuming your score qualifies you as a candidate, the decision to apply is a matter of personal choice. Need to make an informed decision, weighing the pros and cons.</p>

<p>Factors to consider: What are your chances? Do you have a hook? Everyone has perfect or near-perfect SATs, so academics alone probably aren’t enough. Realistically, the competition is greatest in states with the largest populations. Are there other students at your school who are better qualified than you?</p>

<p>Cons:
1. Doesn’t affect college admissions one iota since they already know your SAT scores. (Although you could conceivably report that you were selected as a semifinalist when you write your letter of interest after being waitlisted by Harvard.)
2. No direct scholarship money (if that’s all you care about, this isn’t for you).
3. Doesn’t cover trip costs to Washington in June for the family and teacher, only the student.
4. The application is full of essay questions to be answered by both the student and a school official, and is a bit “onerous”. Student may already be weary of writing essays for college admissions.</p>

<p>Pros:
1. It’s a huge honor, for both the student and the school. Although Exeter has had 22 PS’s, the prestigious Groton School has had only one PS since the program began in 1964. S’s school has also had one since the program began—him.
2. It is one of those rare opportunities to honor special teachers. IMHO, this is the best reason to apply.
3. All-expenses paid trip for the student to Washington for several days in June, with many events at important places such as the White House. (Although its current resident is not inspiring, the office he represents is still very impressive).
4. It can influence selection for outside scholarships with later decision dates. S received a $12,000 merit scholarship from the corporation I work for after the PS selection was announced.
5. They put the yearbooks and names of scholars on-line at the Dept. of Education web site, as well as presidentialscholars.org. This is a lasting, not a transient honor.</p>

<p>Students, don’t do it for your parents or money. Do it for yourselves (or don’t, as you wish).</p>

<p>Thanks for the information yayverily</p>

<p>Yay, me... for not being an American citizen by like a few months. Oh, the perks of being Chinese with a Canadian citizenship. I think it's more fair to look at permanent residency and status of citizen application. But that's just a miffed and jealous voice talking. Hah.</p>

<p>Honestly, I think that considering only students who score a 1600 on M+V is idiotic. While I understand the need to pre-screen applicants, I personally know of many 1500's who are still extremely qualified.</p>

<p>The fact is that scoring a 1600 versus a 1590 or a 1580 is just pure luck. While you can study hard so that you can consistenly score very high, there is just no way to guarantee or even expect a 1600 on the SAT.</p>

<p>In addition selecting only 40 students from each state is idiotic as well since it does not take population into account. I also agree with the above poster who stated that the # of scholars should be expanded because, well, the population of the US has greatly explanded!</p>

<p>FYI - I scored a 1600 and am awed that some of the top students in my class who were accepted to the most elite colleges with scores just below 1600 won't be considered. I personally was deferred from The Charton School; clearly I myself am not one of these "extraordinary few".</p>

<p>Lucaskhan: Your excellent score qualifies you to compete. Right now you are one of many candidates from your state. Only two will become scholars. Many try out for the 100m dash at the Olympics, some make it, but only one wins the gold on that particular day.</p>

<p>Also, doesn't the candidacy depend on when you took the SAT? I got a 2310 on the March SAT (the only one I took) and got it, but my friend who took it in October and got a 2320 or something didn't. Neither did someone else who took it in June for a 2320. Very weird. Also, does anyone know what the application entails? Like the specific essay etc. I know you have to send in a photo...</p>

<p>Nicely said newmassdad. That's what standardized testing is; trying to assess someone's education and academic ability through one measly test. And we recognize that. My friends and I are fully aware of the limitations of these sorts of recognitions, just as we are aware of the fact that just because we didn't get into a certain school doesn't mean that we're truly so much worse than the people who did get in.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Hah! Not if you marry somebody who got a lower SAT than you! It will stay meaningful forever.</p>

<p>Re post #79: And hopefully the meaning will be that you will be wise enough to never mention that fact.</p>