<p>I wouldn't put to much stock into these numbers. Sure other things come into play, but most Harvard admits have the grades, ECs, essay, recommendation, etc needed to become NM scholars. The only thing they lack is high PSAT scores.</p>
<p>But should the results from one morning early in Junior year really matter that much? At least you can retake the SATs. I was sick in October and only got a 204, but then got a 2370 on the real SATs. Would taking me over a NM scholar really lower the quality of Harvard's student body?</p>
<p>Since NM qualification is mainly based on test scores, as long as Harvard's average SAT scores stays the same, why does it matter how many NM scholars it enrolls?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only thing they lack is high PSAT scores.
[/quote]
As Marite mentioned, it also depends on the state. In MA, which I assume is one of the highest scoring states, you need a 222 to qualify. Nobody would call a 221 a low score.</p>
<p>Bemoaning the decline of NMS Scholars or Finalists or whatever seems to be a trite and meaningles activity. As has been made clear from most posts on this thread, scoring well on the PSAT really shows nothing. It is not as if the SAT profile of the incoming classes has been declining at the top six and elsewhere; the opposite is true. That fact should nullify all concerns over NMS, a truly meaningless distinction. </p>
<p>It is easy to view National Merit Scholars as the gleaming star achievers, endemic in public high schools in parts of the country, often corresponding to the decline in prestige of valedictory and salutatory addresses. This seems to be a gross overestimation of what is only a "practice" test.</p>
<p>Assigning any kind of value to it, especially monetary value, would exaggerate its importance from nothing to something. That should end.</p>
<p>"To my knowledge, only six schools have ever had more than 10% of their entering freshman classes comprised of Merit Scholars: Harvard, Caltech, Yale, MIT, Princeton, and Stanford"</p>
<p>I thought that sounded like BS. Harvey Mudd~30%, UChicago~16%, Carleton~18% etc.</p>
<p>Schools that create their own NMS "winners" by giving money to finalists don't count. (ie, so-called "institutionally sponsored" NMS winners.)</p>
<p>In 2004, for example, Chicago claimed 198 NMS scholars - but it created 144 of them itself. Only 54 were "true" winners. The Ivies, MIT, Stanford, Duke etc don't play this game.</p>
<p>Similarly, Carleton claimed 82 "winners", but created 66 of them itself, and Harvey Mudd annointed 31 of the 48 NMS winners it claimed.</p>
<p>Who knows <em>how</em> many winners Harvard or Yale or Stanford would have if they similarly converted all of their finalists!</p>
<p>would it be correct to say that Univ of Florida attracted 188 NM finalists (annual report says 230 but I am not including the institutional ones)? If so, then U of F is a huge player in the draw for NM finalists (less than harvard and Yale but much more than each of the other ivies). I am not taking into account percentages of students (U of F is a huge school). But the Honors College there and the large number of National Merits going there (attractive financial incentives for sure as well as florida prepaid plan if you are a florida resident or bought the prepaid plan before you moved out of florida) make U of F an attractive option for college.</p>
<p>It would not be correct. In 2004, Florida personally manufactured 215 of it's 259 NMS winners. Florida, currently, leads the nation in creating "institutionally sponsored" NMS winners.</p>