<p>chillaxin: That contradicts some earlier posts, but sounds like a pretty solid source, so I'll change CA to "220?" in tonight's update. Very sorry to those sitting at 219, but want to be as accurate as possible.</p>
<p>aer (#398) / kaeso (#376) / Def890 (#347) / BurnThis: Can you comment on if this sounds like a better source than yours?</p>
<p>Re our frustrations with the NMSC, they're probably frustrated too. They're faced with a testing instrument (PSAT) they don't control, demographics they don't control, a test preparation environment they don't control, allegations that the program is gender- and race-biased, limited resources, etc. Given all that, unless they open up the SF program to more people, they have no choice but to take the state minimums up to hold the number of SFs at 16,000. That's their charter, and that's the amount of funding they get. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes this time of year -- every obnoxious parent whose kid missed by one or two points, especially in states that went up, will call anyone they know with any connection to the NMSC trying to get an exception for themselves.</p>
<p>While we can be frustrated that we/our kids "would've made it last year", or "would've made it except for two silly mistakes", or whatever, the NMSC is just trying to maintain standards, which is a good thing. If you could talk to NMSC execs one-on-one I'm sure they'd love to give NM Scholarships not just to some Finalists but to every Commended student if they could. Re the state-by-state SF minimums, those of us in states with higher minimums should probably recognize that we may have a bit of an unfair advantage because of better schools, more educational funding, more focus on testing, more exposure to culture, higher incomes (and thus more travel and other broadening activities, etc.), better local media, etc. We can kid around about wanting to move to AR or WY, but there's at least some argument for the approach they use.</p>
<p>The thing I think we can complain about is how they communicate the results. What they should probably do is just post the darn minimums on the Internet something like 2 days after they mail the packages to principals.</p>
<p>Sorry for the lecture. (Full disclosure: My D would've made SF with her score at last year's minimum, but it looks like the state minimum's going up. Sigh.)</p>
<p>rlvj. You are correct that last year a 222 was the highest in the country, but I didn't want to give anyone false hope with a 222 if Maryland goes up by a point this year. Hopefully MD didn't go up, but two years ago it went up by 2 points I believe. So we can't rule out that it might have gone up to 223 until we know if someone with a 222 (or less) made semifinalist this year. Who knows, maybe it went down a point or two. Wouldn't that be nice!</p>
<p>Thanks for keeping up the chart. I know everyone on this thread appreciates it.</p>
<p>we need more information for Michigan's cutoff....I hope its 209.</p>
<p>rljv: yes, i would agree with chillaxin...no one from my school has actually been notified, and his/her source sounds reliable</p>
<p>My daughter asked her principal if he had heard anything from NMSC and he said yes but that he couldn't tell her until September 13. I know that's the day that NMSC realeases the names, but aren't principals allowed to notify students as soon as they know? Obviously, from this thread, a lot of kids are being told - but apparently we will have to wait until the 13th to hear it officially. No scores have been reported yet on this board for Colorado but my D scored 3 points above last years minimum so I'm thinking there's a fairly good chance that she's in.</p>
<p>Isn't it true that to be a semifinalist you must be ABOVE the cutoff? That would explain Chillaxin's question about those who scored 219 and didn't qualify; 219 might very well be the cutoff for CA.</p>
<p>I am a semifinalist and my score is right at the cutoff of 213 for Kansas...so you don't have to be above the cutoff to make it...so if 219 did not make it in Calif then 220 has to be the cutoff.</p>
<p>rd31: do you know anyone from your school who got semifinalist with 209? 210? thanks....</p>
<p>wait... are these cutoffs for... commended or for semi-finalists??</p>
<p>These are the minimum (2005) PSAT scores needed by state to make 2007 National Merit Semifinalist.</p>
<p>To clarify my earlier post (#398), I did make SF with a score of 219. I know this contradicts chillaxin's post (#419), but oh well.</p>
<p>I missed OH by 3 points :(. I got a 2300 on the SAT - why cant it be based on that???</p>
<p>(does anyone know the commended cutoff then?)
thanks</p>
<p>commended is for the whole country and was 203...however, i am thoroughly confused about california...haha</p>
<p>Not much new tonight except conflicting reports on CA (219 vs. 220). Here's what we've got as of now (please post if you have additional data):
. . . . minimum . . change from
. . .<a href="in%20blue">color=blue</a> is:[/color] . .last year . . . . relevant post(s)
AL . . . . 212 . . . no change . . . posts 231, 263, 286, 336
AZ . . . . 214 . . . +2 . . . . . . . . post 321
AR . . . . 206 . . . no change . . . posts 319, 326
CA . . . 219? . . . +2? . .posts 347,376,380,398,419,421,425,432; thread 231314 posts 54,58,63
FL . . . . 215 . . . no change . . . posts 274, 277, 324
GA . . . 216? . . . -2? . . . . . . . . posts 334, 370
HI . . . . 218 . . . +4 (-2 last yr) .post 271
IL . .212-218 . . . ?? . . . . . . . . .posts 309, 312, 357<br>
KS . . . . 213 . . . -2 . . . . . . . . .posts 368, 369, 372, 428
MD . . <=223 . . . ?? . . . . . . . . .posts 403, 420, 423
MA . . . . 22? . . . ?? . . . . . . . . .post 339
MI . . . . 209 . . . -2 . . . . . . . . . post 411
MS . . . 204? . . . no change? . . .post 375<br>
MO . . . .214 . . . +1 . . . . . . . . .post 234
NV . . <=214 . . . way lower? . . . post 373<br>
NY . . . 221? . . . +3? . . . . . . . . posts 306, 333, 338, 340, 344
OH . . . .215 . . . no change . . . .posts 247, 252
SC . . <=214 . . . 2006 unclear . .posts 272, 416
TN . . . . 217 . . .+1 . . . . . . . . .posts 303, 405
TX . . <=217 . . . no change? . . .posts 227, 386, 387, 399
VA . . . .220 . . . no change . . . .post 335</p>
<p>To all the people who sent supportive Private Messages in response to post #422 on the NMSC and state-by-state minimum SF scores, thanks!</p>
<p>Related item: It's copyrighted so can't be posted here, but The Washington Post ran a 500+ word article on SF minimums on 10/2/02 by Jay Mathews entitled "Merit Scholar Scale Hurts Region". It cites DC researcher Delabian Rice-Thurston, noting that the use of state/region minimums in the 2001 Program cut DC, MD, and VA SFs by half, giving them instead to the states with low minimums. Interestingly, DC's minimum should have been 228 by the book, but the NMSC gave it "special consideration" because of its relatively small size and held its minimum to the max given any other state/region that year, which was MA with 221.</p>
<p>Cutoff for KY is 212.</p>
<p>simranchawa: well, I qualified and so did my friend, but we had scores of 212+.</p>
<p>I think Texas last year was 214.</p>