<p>That's essentially what I'm saying (and it's not just Ivies that draw them - the top LACs attract more per capita than most of the Ivies, and places like Caltech, MIT, Rice, Duke, Stanford and Hopkins all do pretty well too)</p>
<p>thank you johnwesley. posterx's analysis is absurd and i realize now that a lot of the stuff that he presents has the most unusual spins. I have a friend who scored higher than I did in the PSAT, was a Finalist like me and I got the $2500 and he did not. We both have exactly the same Certificate. I am what posterx refers to as a NMSC "sponsored scholar" and my friend is not. If he scored higher than I did, we are both valedictorians.....am I "the best of the best", 'cream of the cream of the top"? Of course not. Probably they liked my essay better or i got a more personal rec, or just got lucky..</p>
<p>The National Merit Scholarship Corporation is very careful in not making that distinction. Again, the GOAL of the program is tp reach FINALIST status. That 's all. NMSC does not issue the distinction that posterx is trying to portray. I believe, that should clarify it. </p>
<p>Harvard has the highest number of National Merit Scholars, followed by the University of Florida. I believe the number is over 200 for each per year....</p>
<p>That argument was pretty fun to read. Lol</p>
<p>The NMSC sponsored finalists are more meritorious because they are given the award regardless of whether they choose to attend the University of Florida or not. As part of such a small elite group, they are generally much more accomplished than the other Merit Scholars. That's why the only way to compare who gets the best students is to use the %NMSC.</p>
<p>The 15, 000 Finalists represent the final goal of the NMSC competition. The small fortunate group of 8 200 that receive the corporate, college sponsored awards or the one time $2500 award from NMSC are not more meritorious than the rest of the winners. The Merit Corporation does not make that distinction.</p>
<p>The NMSC competition takes into account different PSAT scores based on the state the student is from. There are students from New York who score higher than students from Georgia, who do not make it to Semifinalist and hence Finalist status because the cut off score for New York was higher than the one for Georgia. Because of that, you may find someone from Georgia with a lower score, who gets awarded Finalist status and even a "sponsored" $2500 award from the NMSC because of the state's quota.</p>
<p>It is erroneous to claim that someone who received the $2500 award from the NMSC ( out of the 8200 who may also receive corporate or college sponsored awards ) is much more accomplished than the other Merit Scholars nationwide.</p>
<p>That's is why no one compares who gets the best students using %NMSC. Well, no one except posterx.</p>
<p>The quota on New Yorkers sounds shady and would affect its legitimacy as a measure of pure "merit", IMO.</p>
<p>Why? New Yorkers are generally privileged, relative to students from other sections of the country. I would actually argue the opposite, even if it penalizes schools in the Northeast and gives a slight bonus to places like Stanford, WUSTL or Rice in the numbers.</p>
<p>MovieBuff: There are many who use %NMSC as a measure. Not just me. The NMSC numbers (as opposed to general run of the mill "Merit Scholar" numbers) are provided as a comparison in the Chronicle of Higher Education, among other sources. Trust me, they are among the best and only true measures out there of where the best of the best go to college.</p>
<p>posterx: Trust me. You are wrong. It is alright to be wrong sometimes. You have been unable to substantiate your argument and the readers have already seen that. However, I am more than flattered that you think of me as among the best. Thank you. I really do not deserve it, but thanks again.</p>
<p>It's not just my argument. You'll notice in these sources, and many others, that Scholars are broken down between school-sponsored and NMSC- or corporate-sponsored. That's simply because you need to remove the school-sponsored winners in order to get any accurate picture of where the best students choose to go.</p>
<p>--</p>
<p>"NEWS YOU CAN USE: Where the National Merit Scholars Go. The National Merit Scholarship Corporation released its annual report of freshman Merit Scholars for fall 2003. The top ten colleges with the most scholars awarded National Merit Scholarship Corporation scholarships: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Duke, U. of Pennsylvania, U. of California Berkeley, U. of Michigan Ann Arbor."</p>
<hr>
<p>Chronicle of Higher Education-2005</p>
<p>For the fall of 2005, the table shows the total number of Merit Scholarship winners at each institution and the number whose scholarships were paid for by the institution, not by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation or other corporate sponsors. The rankings were determined by The Chronicle from an alphabetical listing appearing in the 2004-5 annual report of the National Merit Scholarship Corporation.</p>
<p>Institution
2005 scholars
Total Sponsored by college</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard U. 287 0 = 287 who were qualified to get an award regardless of where they decided to attend college.</li>
<li>U. of Texas at Austin 262 202 = 60 who were qualified to get an award regardless of where they decided to attend college.</li>
<li>Yale U. 232 0 = 232 who were qualified to get an award regardless of where they decided to attend college.</li>
<li>U. of Florida 230 188 = 42 who were qualified ... etc etc</li>
<li>Stanford U. 194 0 </li>
<li>U. of Southern California 190 159 </li>
<li>U. of Chicago 187 139 </li>
<li>Princeton U. 180 0 </li>
<li>Vanderbilt U. 175 133 </li>
<li>Northwestern U. 174 133 </li>
</ol>
<p>Chronicle.com</p>
<p>Your data is meaningless. You are quoting some organization's "interpretation" of the numbers, which just like your interpretation, is far from accurate and it does not make correct.</p>
<p>In those 287 students who chose Harvard and who were "qualified" to get an award regardless of where they decided to attend college, you have students with PSATs of 216 from Florida, 220 from New York and 221 from Massachussetts. However, someone with 218 from Massachussetts ( higher than the one from Florida ) did not make it to Finalist and was not even considered for an award.</p>
<p>Your assertion that "these represent the best students" is flat wrong, especially since you have already acknowledged that the award is given on the basis of almost "perfect scores, valedictorians, etc" ( i can prove you wrong on this fact as well but one thing at a time... to help you stay focused )</p>
<p>Are you saying that someone from NY with a 221 PSAT is a worse student than someone from Florida with a 215 PSAT??</p>
<p>It's not just about PSATs. Besides no measure is ever perfect. But there is no better measure than NMSC-sponsored scholars, who get awards regardless of what schools they choose, for determining where the cream of the cream of the crop students in this country choose to go to college.</p>
<p>I've been following this thread, and it's getting a little ridiculous. Using National Merit to qualify the assertion that "the best and brightest are attending X, Y, and Z schools and thus these schools are the best" is simply narrow-minded. If you are stats-obsessed, I can see how you might make such an assertion, but if you really think that NM is the best way to determine who the "cream of the crop" are and are defining yourself as such based on this, you might be surprised when you drop applications to the most selective schools in the country and get decisions back - admissions decisions are based on far more than just stats. </p>
<p>NM Finalists and Scholars are determined by performance on the PSAT as well as subsequent performance on the SAT and high school transcripts, as well as a recommendation from a school official and a resume of school activities. However, to even get to the finalist stage, you have to be one of the top performers in your state on the PSAT. Sadly, this test - like many standardized tests - has problems. posterX - look at the major research done on these exams. You will find that many folks in higher education have been critical of the validity of the SAT, as well as the NM program, because it does not take into account the educational inequalities that exist in this country. To use a single test to make high stakes decisions can be dangerous, and many have pointed this out and actually singled out the NM program, questioning how it can actually be a "merit" program in the face of so many inequalities in our education system. In fact, the University of California faculty admissions committee has recommended the system do away with its ties to the program as it has interpreted the program as promoting inequality rather than equality. The following article provides some excellent points of view on the matter: </p>
<p>posterX is correct in asserting that "no measure is ever perfect." However, to assert that "there is no better measure than NMSC-sponsored scholars...for determining where the cream of the cream of the crop in this country choose to go to college" is really a slippery slope, among other things. Standardized testing provides admissions committees with one detail about a particular student - to base a "merit" program on such testing when WE KNOW that educational inequalities in this country affect standardized testing scores is simply suspect, to put it mildly. The intent of the NM program is good, but the reality is we do not live in a meritocracy - not everyone is this country has the same opportunities to achieve, especially academically. We've got to remember this when making important decisions, like who to admit to colleges!</p>
<p>I completely agree with your general point about inequalities and test scores, AdOfficer. Tests are not the best way to determine anything. In its defense, however, NMSC uses other measures such as high school rank in class to determine who gets the top scholarships. Also, they distribute awards geographically, which helps adjust for some (but of course not all) of the disparities. I would still, however, maintain that being an NMSC sponsored scholar is a distinguishing award and would not be surprised if NMSC award winners end up doing very well in terms of grad admissions, salaries, top positions in their fields, etc. - better than non-award winners - after they graduate from college. And success is sort of the point of why you would go to college. That's why they are one of the best measures out there of where the top students are going.</p>
<p>^^^^^^
I'm not totally in disagreement with you, posterX...students who are NM Finalists and Scholars are very accomplished and go on to do great things in college, usually. HOWEVER, who are the majority of NM Finalists and Scholars? Did you read the article I suggested? You probably won't be surprised to read that, at Berkeley (when they had ties to NM), for example, they were all white and usually without financial need. At my institution this year, as in past years, all of those NM Finalists and Scholars matriculating (and there are a lot!) fit this bill. These students are typically getting the lion's share of "merit" money at most schools who offer it. But they are also the students who usually have access to the best educational opportunities in this country. Surely, they should be lauded for their accomplishments. Nevertheless, the playing field is not level enough for all students TO EVEN ATTEMPT to accomplish the same things academically or otherwise in this country. Thus, what does "merit" really mean? And, to get back to the OP, what do these SAT ranges mean, really? Why are they important? And FOR WHO?</p>
<p>^ I agree :)</p>
<p>Thank you, AdOfficer. And posterx, thank you for admitting that you were wrong in your specific statement. </p>
<p>AdOfficer, as far as what these SAT ranges mean, why are they important, and FOR WHO?...well I never suggested that they meant anything, nor that they were important, nor that they were FOR ANYBODY....but just look at posterx distorted conclusions...Just ask him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In those 287 students who chose Harvard and who were "qualified" to get an award regardless of where they decided to attend college, you have students with PSATs of 216 from Florida, 220 from New York and 221 from Massachussetts. However, someone with 218 from Massachussetts ( higher than the one from Florida ) did not make it to Finalist and was not even considered for an award
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As an expat in the international category, I was not a finalist, even with a 229.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT Range 25/75 percentile
verbal; math and respective national rank</p>
<p>Harvard University 700-790;700-790 2
Yale University 700-780;700-780 4
Princeton University 680-770;690-790 6
Dartmouth College 670-770;690-780 8
Columbia University 670-760;670-780 11
University of Pennsylvania 650-740;680-760 19
Brown University 650-760;660-760 19
Cornell University 630-730;660-760 24
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Curious, which university is no 1?</p>
<p>Caltech.........</p>
<p>Oh yeah, they have the 780-800 Math, haha.</p>