<p>Say two kids from California go to the same not-so-selective college that has a full-ride national merit scholarship. The first kid has a 2350 SAT and a stellar 4.0 GPA (with all AP classes), but only got a 200 on his PSAT. Meanwhile the other kid has an 1800 SAT and a so-so GPA of 3.5, but a PSAT score of 235. He took the SAT again, but only got a 2100, just barely enough to validate his NMS status. Why should the second kid get the full ride? It doesn't make much sense basing a giant scholarship off of a single test.</p>
<p>First kid should’ve put more effort into his/her PSAT then. Also, I don’t imagine someone with such a high PSAT getting those SAT scores.</p>
<p>You are correct. Basing big merit aid on a single test is stupid. A lot of things in life are stupid.</p>
<p>^Truth .</p>
<p>I agree with nne718. If someone got a 2350 on their SAT, they should have been able to score pretty high on the PSAT. Also, the 2350 person will be alot more competitive when applying to top schools.</p>
<p>Even stupider is the fact that different states have different cut off points for the NMSF. Two kids with the SAME PSAT score, and only one gets the scholarship. Sometimes, even the higher score will not get the scholarship if the student is from one of the higher performing states.</p>
<p>Indeed, the state-by-state cutoff is the most preposterous aspect of the NMSQT process to me.</p>
<p>I can understand why it is necessary to ensure that not all the National Merit Scholarships go to kids in just a handful of states, but it does seem kind of ridiculous that a kid with a 201 can get a full scholarship while a kid with a 220 doesn’t make the cut, depending on state of residency at a particular moment in time.</p>
<p>I think the big deal is made because there’s some kind of reporting that colleges do where they report how many NMFs are at their schools…so, that creates an incentive to offer scholarships.</p>
<p>Greenwich: “Even stupider is the fact that different states have different cut off points for the NMSF.”</p>
<p>I have a friend who says that her son would have been a NMF in 47 states. Bummer, we live in Maryland. I know this is not universally true, but it seems as though the numbers vary so that students in less affluent areas can still be rewarded. </p>
<p>I know that my kids have many more opportunities than my nieces in Iowa had/have. Rural areas don’t have the access to the prep classes and in poorer areas everything is more limited.</p>
<p>My NMS daughter’s scores would have qualified her anywhere in the country. However, in addition to starting out pretty smart, she has had every opportunity. I think the NM program is a good one, but I had a friend sitting in my kitchen today saying how she wished she had known about it earlier. Many people are unaware of the potential rewards of scoring well on one test.</p>
<p>There are a lot of “unfair” things in the college process. A student with lower stats from an unusual state has an easier chance at the ivies. FAFSA-only schools don’t look at the income of NCPs. The list can go on and on.</p>
<p>As for NMF scores in various states… we live in a mod-to-low score state. However, my older son’s score was high enough for any state, yet people assume that his score must have been low because of our state’s cut-off. Annoying.</p>
<p>Yes, the whole NMF thing can be a bit weird. My younger son just missed the PSAT cutoff, but his SAT was higher than my NMF son’s SAT. Both had the same ACT. Fluky things.</p>
<p>MD Mom put it best.</p>
<p>Isn’t the whole college admissions process made up of these kinds of things? In a sense, the arbitrariness of the NMF selection process is good preparation for college application!</p>
<p>D was accepted to a school that offered full tuition for NMF. Her PSAT score was 1 point short for our state, (214) but her SAT score taken 1 month later was 100 pts higher (2240). No full tuition scholarship offer-merit scholarship of 10,000.</p>
<p>I got a 2290/2400 (1550/1600) on the SAT. [800M, 750CR, 740W]
I graduated in the top 1% of Plano Sr High School’s 1400 person class of '09.
I had straight A’s all four years, including in AP classes.
I had a weighted 4.35 GPA, and an unweighted 4.0 GPA.
I got a 5 on eleven AP tests, including both of the Physics C tests and Calc BC.</p>
<p>But I got a 203 on the PSAT.</p>
<p>I got no merit aid at all. Not a dollar.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to brag, just pointing out how it was apparently all based on the PSAT, which I did oddly poor on compared to the rest of my credentials, and even my SAT score. I didn’t “prepare more” for the SAT, I actually studied not all for both. I didn’t improve academically between 11th and 12th grade, I stayed the same, always high achieving. It’s ridiculous IMO.</p>
<p>The NMS system is a contest based primarily on the score of one test. It is privately funded and they set the rules. </p>
<p>If you want to talk about “unfair” – then it is well known that standardized test scores tend to correlate with family income – and students from lower income backgrounds are also far less likely to have savvy parents or the ability to prep for the PSAT. So basically, NM is mostly a system to direct merit money toward rich kids. </p>
<p>I’m not trying to complain – I’m pointing out that it is a private system with its own rules. It is only “unfair” if they violate their own rules – that is, if they were to deny someone NMF status arbitrarily, even though the student had met all their requirements.</p>
<p>I have a son who was NMF and a daughter who wasn’t. Both kids are smart, d. is a much more conscientious and productive student. That’s life. </p>
<p>I’d note that although my d. opted to attend a college that offers no merit aid, I think that in general her merit offers from colleges were as generous or even more generous than those my son got. Yes, there were some colleges offering full rides to NM finalists, but they weren’t schools that either kid wanted to attend. It’s not as if National Merit is the only source of merit money.</p>
<p>^^ Then you should have actually studied for it? I just find it weird that you seem to feel entitled to an award that you put no real effort into getting.</p>
<p>My daughter’s National Merit Corporate Scholarship is through her dad’s company. Guess what? They are paying the rest of the bill too; it just goes through the checking account first.</p>
<p>The number of kids who actually get money from NM-sponsored scholarships is very small.</p>
<p>
I imagine that wealthy kids are more likely to attend a high-quality high school and attain educational fulfillment outside of the classroom. While this disparity is sad, the correlation you cite is not necessarily indicative of a discriminatory test but rather a discriminatory education system.</p>
<p>No system is perfect. I’m inclined to argue that the NM system is actually fairer than most college-related competitions given that a) the requirements are fairly clear and well-publicized and b) the test is offered in a very widespread manner.</p>
<p>I think the most interesting fairness question regarding the NM scholarships is the state-based levels to qualify for Semifinalist. A student from the low scoring states (e.g., Montana, Wyoming, Utah, etc.) can be a semifinalist with scores around 205. From other states (NJ, CA, MA) it takes better than a 220. So what construction of “fair” justifies that? I know that those thresholds are set to equilibrate the percentiles in each state. But even so, it generates some interesting philosophical musing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s an ironic form of affirmative action for the states that are the most against affirmative action.</p>