<p>not sure if this has already been posted...</p>
<p>2006 Freshman Merit Scholars
This table shows the 97 colleges enrolling 20 or more freshman Merit Scholars named in 2006, and the number of freshman Merit Scholars enrolled in those institutions in 2005.</p>
<p>For the fall of 2006, 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 list appearing in the 2005-6 annual report of the National Merit Scholarship Corporation.</p>
<p>Over all, 8,319 freshman Merit Scholars were enrolled in the fall of 2006: 4,893 at 237 private colleges and 3,426 at 150 public institutions.</p>
<p>school * 2006 scholars * Total Sponsored by college 2006 * 2005 total
1. Harvard U. 294 0 287
2. U. of Florida 257 212 230
3. U. of Texas at Austin 250 192 262
4. Washington U. in St. Louis 241 175 169
5. U. of Southern California 206 174 190
6. Northwestern U. 198 148 174
7. U. of Chicago 196 159 187
8. Arizona State U. 189 159 156
9. Yale U. 186 0 232
10. Princeton U. 153 0 180
10. Stanford U. 153 0 194
12. New York U. 145 123 113
13. U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 144 113 138
14. Rice U. 140 90 163
14. U. of Oklahoma 140 116 146
16. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 135 0 131
17. Texas A&M U. at College Station 134 103 136
17. Vanderbilt U. 134 108 175
19. Duke U. 118 0 117
20. Ohio State U. 115 94 97
21. Georgia Institute of Technology 106 82 100
22. U. of Pennsylvania 100 0 101
23. Carleton College 99 79 89
24. Brown U. 94 0 62
25. U. of Arizona 93 76 103
26. Brigham Young U. 88 65 110
27. Purdue U. 84 65 86
28. Baylor U. 82 68 66
28. U. of Alabama at Tuscaloosa 82 59 68
30. U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 76 57 23
31. U. of Minnesota-Twin Cities 75 58 59
32. U. of California at Berkeley 70 0 50
33. Dartmouth College 69 0 64
34. Cornell U. 64 0 35
35. U. of Tulsa 63 55 83
36. Columbia U. 62 0 71
37. U. of Georgia 58 38 49
37. U. of Michigan at Ann Arbor 58 0 59
39. Indiana U. at Bloomington 57 46 19
39. U. of Maryland at College Park 57 40 44
41. Boston U. 56 43 66
41. U. of Notre Dame 56 0 49
43. Oberlin College 53 48 53
44. U. of Kansas 52 40 71
45. Emory U. 51 39 56
45. Tufts U. 51 45 53
47. Case Western Reserve U. 50 37 63
47. Georgetown U. 50 0 42
47. Michigan State U. 50 37 50
50. Iowa State U. 48 36 53
51. U. of Nebraska at Lincoln 46 39 60
52. Clemson U. 45 32 31
53. Harvey Mudd College 44 30 57
54. U. of Washington 43 26 38
55. U. of Arkansas at Fayetteville 41 29 50
56. Bowdoin College 40 30 24
56. Macalester College 40 33 51
58. Louisiana State U. at Baton Rouge 39 36 41
59. U. of Mississippi 38 29 36
60. Grinnell College 36 27 45
60. St. Olaf College 36 27 41
60. Wheaton College (Ill.) 36 30 29
63. North Carolina State U. 34 25 37
64. Brandeis U. 33 27 18
64. U. of Cincinnati 33 27 18
66. Johns Hopkins U. 31 8 50
66. U. of Kentucky 31 23 39
66. U. of Virginia 31 0 36
69. Auburn U. 29 24 29
69. California Institute of Technology 29 0 44
69. Calvin College 29 26 22
69. Denison U. 29 25 10
73. Miami U. (Ohio) 28 25 13
73. U. of Central Florida 28 21 19
73. Washington and Lee U. 28 24 26
76. U. of Iowa 27 22 30
77. U. of California at Los Angeles 25 0 113
77. U. of Miami 25 17 32
77. U. of Missouri at Columbia 25 23 19
77. U. of South Carolina at Columbia 25 21 40
81. Mississippi State U. 24 23 32
81. U. of Rochester 24 19 32
83. Boston College 23 6 14
83. Pennsylvania State U. at University Park 23 5 22
85. Amherst College 22 0 23
85. Pomona College 22 4 21
85. Southern Methodist U. 22 14 10
85. Tulane U. 22 14 46
85. Whitman College 22 17 19
90. Carnegie Mellon U. 21 0 22
90. Oklahoma State U. 21 14 16
90. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 21 15 14
90. U. of Tennessee at Knoxville 21 15 21
94. Furman U. 20 15 32
94. Rhodes College 20 17 8
94. Truman State U. 20 18 15
94. U. of Wisconsin at Madison 20 4 29
SOURCE: National Merit Scholarship Corporation</p>
<p>Even schools that do not 'sponsor' merit scholars, will take into account that status when they give out "merit aid". Remove sponsored, and schools which give merit aid and then you will really see where most of these top students are going, at least in absolute numbers. </p>
<p>Very strong academic schools like Duke and Chicago use merit aid to atract top students that otherwise would choose to go to the ivies or MIT and Stanford. Public universities, like Florida, have used sponsored and merit aid to be able to brag about the number of Merit Finalists or Scholars they have and improve their reputations and programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Public universities... have used sponsored and merit aid to be able to brag about the number of Merit Finalists or Scholars they have and improve their reputations and programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And in so doing, have made college affordable to a larger number of excellent students. Good for them.</p>
<p>They have also said that, among their many priorities, enrolling a substantial number of top students is important enough to invest in. Again, good for them.</p>
<p>"Sponsored" means very different things at different schools. Some of these schools give only the basic $1000/year National Merit scholarship, which is a drop in the bucket since most private schools on this list are over the $40,000/year mark. Some of them are offering a full ride or close to it.
That said, I agree with afan. Good for them for making college affordable to more students.<br>
If this is wrong somehow, is it different from Stanford giving a big scholarship to someone in a tiny niche sport so that they can brag about winning the Sears Cup yet again?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If this is wrong somehow, is it different from Stanford giving a big scholarship to someone in a tiny niche sport so that they can brag about winning the Sears Cup yet again?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow...what a way to take a cheap shot at a great school! Since when tennis, swimming, cross country, golf, volleyball, track & field, and gymnastics have been classified as "tiny niche" sports?</p>
<p>Duke attracts a significantly higher number of National Merit Scholars than Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell and even more than Penn. This might be surprising for people who don't understand that Duke (as well as other schools) attract just as strong students as the Ivies.</p>
<p>Also Duke has 50 merit scholarships a year, even if all of these were NMS, Duke would still have as many or more NMS than Cornell, Columbia, and Dartmouth. However, of these 50 scholarships, some are aimed towards minorities, students in North Carolina, or students with financial need anyways - students that aren't the highest achieving in absolute terms and aren't that likely to be NMS. In reality, only 25-30 Merit Scholars are purely based on academic merit (give or take) - and I'm not sure why these won't count even if they are merit related.</p>
<p>Either way, Duke attracts as many or more NMS students than every school except 5-6.</p>
<p>Also note that Chicago has significantly more merit scholarships than Duke yet still attracts many less non-sponsored NMS.</p>
<p>You are missing the main point, Sam... elite institutions that award scholarships for athletics but not academic merit are being hypocritical. It elevates the pursuit of revenue (football & basketball) and publicity (success in "olympic" and similar sports) over the primary function of the institution (education and research). </p>
<p>At least the Ivy league is consistent with their approach, refusing to award scholarships across the board. Similarly, I have no qualms with schools that hand out awards for both academics and athletics.</p>
<p>It's ridiculous to exclude sponsored. Indeed, public universities SHOULD sponsor NMS. Their missions are primarily to educate the citizens of their respective states, so why should they not reward their best and brightest? They already give other academic scholarships, as well as athletic scholarships. Why should NMS in any way be different? The argument that they're somehow "buying" NMS prestige is laughable, when in fact it's consistent with their educational mission. This MAY perhaps apply to private universities that don't have such a public mandate and are indeed trying to improve their overall student body, but even then, if they are at least consistent with academic/athletic scholarships then they still shouldn't be excluded.</p>
<p>JWT, the problem with sponsored scholarships, as I've explained before, comes when people use number of National Merit Scholars as a proxy for number of strong students. The problem here is that schools like Florida and Texas award National Merit Scholarships to every single National Merit Finalist who attends the school (or at least, to almost all of them). At Yale or Harvard, in contrast, only students who are part of the group of about 2500 National Merit Finalists who made it through an additional level of competition receive National Merit Scholarships (those sponsored by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation). As an example, I was a National Merit Finalist, but not a National Merit Scholar. Since I go to Yale, I would not count in the numbers. If I had gone to Texas or Florida, I would have received a National Merit Scholarship (by virtue of being a National Merit Finalist) and thus would count in the numbers. Yet, I'm the same student at either school, so why should I count to the numbers of exceptionally strong students at Florida, but not at Yale? If you want to use National Merit information as a proxy for number of strong students, you either should only use number of scholarships sponsored by the NMSC (that is, those who made it through a review that is as competitive as applying to almost any college), or use total numbers of National Merit Finalists. Those are the only ways to compare apples to apples.
I have no problem with schools using scholarships to attract NMS (in fact, I would love it if Yale did so since it would reduce my costs). But, to imply that college sponsored National Merit Scholars are equivalent to NMSC-sponsored scholars is deceptive.</p>
<p>I didn't miss the point and I am not gonna take a position here on athletic scholarships. She could have brought up that point without saying Stanford giving "a big scholarship to someone in a tiny niche sport so that they can brag about winning the Sears Cup yet again". Just exactly how did she know Stanford was doing it "so they can brag about winning the Sears Cup"? Before Sears Cup started, Stanford was already doing well in many different sports. The accusation that they were doing it just to win the Sears Cup is baseless. If she has qualms with schools that hand out athletics awards, just bring relevant arguments. Calling those sports "tiny niche sports" seems to imply that those sports aren't competitive and that to me is an insult to student-athletes in those sports.</p>
<p>Edit: I'd like to bring up two things about Stanford athletics just FYI and maybe people can judge Stanford in a slightly different context:
1. Stanford athletics are self-funded, mostly by alumni if I am not mistaken.
2. Probably about 5 years ago or so, Stanford stopped having Nike's logo on their uniform as a way to curb over-commercialization of college sports.</p>
<p>Any school that has merit aid (good for them) will atract some students because of that. Being a National Scholar is a merit, therefore it is taking into account as part of the students overall credentials when they are offered aid.</p>
<p>Duke and Chicago are both examples of that. For instance, of the 118 students that ended up going to Duke, none was "sponsored". This means that the college did not give them the $2000 amount corresponding to the National Merit Corporation. </p>
<p>On the other hand, some of those students, with their top credentials, where likely offered and considered for other forms of merit aid, therefore having another incentive to attend......just like the sponsored students.</p>
<p>You take out these "incentives" and you see where most top students want to go. Ivies plus MIT and Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The argument that they're somehow "buying" NMS prestige is laughable, when in fact it's consistent with their educational mission.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The University of Florida is a clear example of this. After stinging criticism, they are certainly not laughing now and decided to give up that practice this year. Its mission of "primarily educating the citizens" of Florida was suffering because of the excessive amounts of perks and money they were offering to students who were not necessarily from the state.</p>
<p>I believe that it is actually "laughable" not to think that there is an issue of "buying prestige". The number of Merit Scholars is always mentioned by universities to demonstrate the quality of the student body and attract top students. This improves dubious rankings and so forth.</p>
<p>Even the general public gets caught up on that. After all, look back at the posts in this thread. I do not know how many times I have heard in the news...for years......"UF second to Harvard in National Merits". It sounds very impressive when you can compare a school to any of the ivies.</p>
<p>Even if you subtracted the entire number of merit scholars at Duke from the NMS total, it would still have more than several Ivies.</p>
<p>Schools that have the most NMS (non-sponsored):</p>
<p>HYPSM
Then Duke, Penn
Then Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, Cornell</p>
<p>If you (for some reason) took out all the merit scholars at Duke from their total NMS number, it would still have 70 - more than Columbia or Dartmouth. However, many of these merit scholarships at Duke are targeted towards URMs, NC residents, and people with financial need...So in reality, even when taking into account the purely Merit scholars at Duke, it still attracts significantly more NMS than Columbia Dartmouth Brown or Cornell.</p>
<p>This isn't surprising - considering Duke is virtually equal or better than non-HYP Ivies in pretty much every way.</p>
<p>Of course, since Movie Buff attend a mid-tier Ivy (not Harvard, no better than Duke) he'd be hard pressed to admit any of this...</p>
<p>Like it or not, but WashU is ahead of Cornell and Columbia on nonsponsored merit scholars (66), so at least be consistent. Not to mention, UC-Berkeley, which is in the top ten of nonsponsored at 70. </p>
<p>If you're just going to invent a methodology that puts only the colleges you want in whatever list you want, at least be up front and call it criteria-that-puts-only-my-personal-favorite-colleges-in-the-top-regardless-of-facts list. Then we can all do the same and create our own lists that way. </p>
<p>Merit aid scholarships don't always go to NMF level students if the college is trying to attract different students for different reasons. Pretty much for the same reason the Ivy colleges --- the "no merit aid" colleges --- will offer FA packages to families making in excess of $160,000. They want the student and find a way to entice that student to come. They may not be "sponsored" but I'll bet those students receiving those sweet "need"-based packages are likely to be high scoring as well. Let's invent a "correction" for the likelihood of those students and ding those colleges as well.</p>
<p>it is actually amusing to see your endless obsession of comparing Duke to the ivies. “Merit aid” is given on the basis of merit, not financial need.</p>
<p>Duke 70- ( 1 more student than Dartmouth, 6 more than Cornell and 8 more than Columbia ) I am sure, to you that is very statistically significant.</p>
<p>This is not surprising considering Duke significant efforts to become as prestigious as the ivies.</p>
<p>By the way, remember that I had the choice to attend the “best ivy” in your eyes. I do not have an issue with any of them. Duke is a great school, please, at the end you just belittle the institution with your comments.</p>
<p>Merit money works. Going to Harvard and ending up with a debt of 200 k undergrad, versus going to a top 50 University for free, will make anyone think about it a little.</p>
<p>I have friends that turned down Princeton and Yale because of money. One went to Duke because of the merit aid, the other one to Miami.</p>
<p>Take it from someone with no dog in the hunt: Duke does not have to "become" as prestigious as the Ivies. It's there. Full stop. It's been there for awhile (look up the usnwr rankings since they began.) Duke is better known and more respected in many regions of the country than some of the Ivies and it has a much higher international standing than the smaller ones (Brown, Dartmouth). </p>
<p>And FYI, obsessive Ivy worship of the sort that abounds on CC does a lot to belittle those institutions and actually makes them less attractive to a lot of prospective students.</p>