<p>And if you like the process for National Merit Scholars, some of you will get to see the same geographic considerations go into Presidential Scholars. Of course by the time that process is finished it's way to late to figure into college admissions/scholarships. Just a fun trip a chance to meet whomever is the President at the time and enjoy a boondoggle week in Washington DC. At least Carter added some at-large Scholars to even things out a little.</p>
<p>Congratulations on knowing nothing about me. For starters, affluency is not required to miss out on need-based aid. The cutoff for aid from the state in my state is $33,000 family income. That's a few hundred dollars less than what two minimum wage parents here would make in a year. Not exactly affluency.</p>
<p>I'm not begrudging anyone anything. I'm asking, how is it not going to be fairly easy for someone who is poor and has standardized test scores in the top 1% of the United States to receive significant merit and need based aid, regardless of whether they made their state's NM cut? This is hardly the end-all of scholarships. Most top colleges do not honor it. There's also the fact that for every kid in a more competitive state who misses the cut, there's someone in Alabama or Mississippi who doesn't. If anything, you would permit a disadvantage to students in states with poorer public education systems. In 2000, Mississippi's highest per pupil expenditures were $5,631. Connecticut's lowest per pupil expenditure for the same year was $8,030. I would wager to say that a 220 in Mississippi indicates higher achievement than a 220 in Connecticut. Obviously this hinges on whether you believe school quality is more closely tied to state systems or district systems, but I would wager that breaking the contest down by state gives the most benefit, and that the NMSC has commissioned statistical studies that could trump our anecdotes and bias any day. I agree that some kids in bad parts of more competitive states can lose out. A perfect system is impossible. However, the current system allocates the awards at the most consistent and practical level. The National Merit SC is 'national' because it is conducted on a national level, which is enough in itself to merit (ha ha) the name, and more importantly because of what it tries to do: establish a national bar of achievement where one does not currently exist.</p>
<p>I think the National Merit Scholarship, in itself, is a waste. I won it and got a one-time payment of $2,000 total. TOTAL. Which, while it is nothing when you subtract the value of books, time spent studying for the test (which I could have spent working...opportunity costs!), etc. </p>
<p>BUT the NMS acts as a signalling device to colleges. Colleges can brag about how many NM Scholars they have and YOU parents are supposedly impressed (or at least the colleges think so!). So that is one reason they spread the NMS's around...since state colleges depend so much on saying "we get National Merit Scholars, come to us!" it would supposedly be unfair if public universities in Mississippi did not get to say this, while public universities in other states did.</p>
<p>Try getting kids from Alaska or Wyoming to compete with the rest of the country, isn't going to happen.</p>
<p>Look how unfair it would be if the Northeast took all the National Merit semifinals.</p>
<p>okay, i wrote an entire article for my school paper on this subject. most people agreed with me. my college counselor was not pleased in the slightest.</p>
<p>The Great Debate
National Merit</p>
<p>Every year, 16,000 high school seniors are selected as National Merit Semifinalists based on their numerical PSAT scores alone. In states like New York, California, and Virginia, cutoffs can reach as high as 225 out of 240, whereas states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, and Mississippi have cutoffs that hover around 205. As residents of Mississippi, we are clearly beneficiaries of this system. However, students in states with high cutoffs who do not qualify with scores 15 to 20 points higher than a Mississippi candidate have expressed outrage towards the system. It’s a national test- should there be a national standard?
Cutoffs in individual states are determined by percentages: a state with 4% of the nation’s seniors will have 4% of the semi-finalists for that year. 4% of 16,000 is 640, meaning that State X must have exactly that number of semi-finalists. The cutoff is then set at the number above which 640 students scored. This number fluctuates from year to year based upon the number of seniors in the state and how well they do collectively. Clearly, the NMSC makes an effort to equally represent all geographic areas of the U.S., but disturbing statistics regarding the representation of ethnic minorities and public school students have emerged. In 2005, the National Merit bar in the District of Columbia was set at 222. Not a single student who qualified attended public school. At Amherst College, there were 286 National Merit Scholars in the graduating classes of 1983-1997. Not a single one was African-American. In fact, the NMSC sponsors an entirely different competition, the National Achievement Scholarship Program, for black students only. The National Achievement/ National Merit separation is scarily similar to the Jim Crow laws of the 1960’s: separate, yes, but equal- not so much. The NMSC gives out close to $36 million annually, whereas the NASP doles out a measly $3.1 million in comparison.
If the NMSC lowers and raises cutoffs by state in order to include a fair sampling of the nation’s test takers, should they not also raise and lower cutoffs for test takers who are members of ethnic minorities and/or students at public schools? African-American students represent approximately 10% of seniors competing for National Merit Semi-finalist status in a given year, but there are often as few as 100 black semi-finalists nationwide. Public school students represent over 80% of all school-age children in the U.S. Under the geographical percentage system, it stands to reason that 80% of the 16,000 semi-finalist spots should go to public school students.
Political correctness, however, does not allow for minority races or public-school students to be told that because of their race or school type, they simply do not have to score as well as white, private school students: it would be too insulting. Then we, as residents of Mississippi, should be insulted that the NMSC does not mandate that we score as high as students in New York, California, or Virginia. Even students in South Dakota (population 781,919) have to be smarter than Mississippians.
The NMSC has two options: keep their name and create a national standard that reflects their stated position as an organization that provides opportunities to students based on merit alone, or change their name to “Random Group of People who Administer a Test Annually and Select Students to Win Scholarships Based Kind Of on Merit, But Mostly As Part of a Politically Correct Sample that Accurately Reflects the Diversity of Our Population.”</p>
<p>I agree with BandTenHut. A student whose family is poor who scores one point too low on the PSAT to be named a NM semi-finalist in the most difficult states (e.g. MA, NJ) and who scores comparably on SATs and in GPA will still get into excellent schools that offer 100 percent of need-based aid, mostly (or even completely) with grants.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the last time I checked, the US has not made any laws against moving from Connecticut to Alabama or Mississippi. If living in a state that has low PSAT scores is such a great advantage, the parents can simply take advantage of this and move to that state a year or two before their child is a junior in HS. When I was transfering to work in Philadelphia, I had to choose whether to live in the suburbs east of the city (in New Jersey) or to the west of the city (in Pennsylvania). Based partly on my perception of the strength of the state universities (because my kids were in high school at the time), I chose to live in Pennsylvania. My two oldest kids were both NM finalists in PA, and I am not sure if both of them would have been semi-finalists in NJ (I think their PSAT scores were 220 and 227). Anyway, this is no more of a disadvantage than the fact that some kids are "lucky" enough to live in states that have excellent state universities (e.g. California, Virginia, Michigan). But the same principle holds - no laws keep parents from moving there. You can also complain that it is not "fair" that North Carolina has a very inexpensive in-state medical school - or you could just move there and stop whining.</p>
<p>Great article. Congratulations on helping people to realize that despite being a citizen of the world's only superpower, you have been forced into one of the worst education systems in the industrialized world.</p>
<p>EDIT: I did not fully express my praise, FANTASTIC article.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, the NMSC sponsors an entirely different competition, the National Achievement Scholarship Program, for black students only. The National Achievement/ National Merit separation is scarily similar to the Jim Crow laws of the 1960s: separate, yes, but equal- not so much. The NMSC gives out close to $36 million annually, whereas the NASP doles out a measly $3.1 million in comparison.
[/quote]
If African American students represent "10% of seniors competing for National Merit Semi-finalist status", and the funding for the program in which only they are eligible is approximately 10% of the unrestricted program, why exactly do you consider this "measly? Separate indeed (to the disadvantage of non AA students), and appropriately proportional.</p>
<p>patsmom- Thanks for replying for me in regards to the Moorehead Scholarship, that was exactly what I meant to say.</p>
<p>I'm getting ready to have major surgery and am on some pain meds and find I don't express myself as clearly... hopefully I'll be out of the fog in a few weeks!</p>
<p>I have one who may possibly be NMSF and the other who has better grades (not by much) and typically tests better who probably won't be, despite that they are only a couple points apart- in talking to them it became clear that it was more a "pride" thing than a $$ since they probably won't chose a school that gives the NMF scholarships.</p>
<p>I think it gives some kids some great opportunities, but I also believe that those kids deserve those opportunities and the ones who don't make NMF just have to go find something else- and be glad that it isn't a deciding factor in college admissions- if it was then I would understand the concern.</p>
<p>My d is an NMF candidate this year, and has been accepted at her number one school which gives zero dollars for this distinction. </p>
<p>The main purpose the NMF list has in our state is bragging rights for high schools, who claim to be THE BEST, based on the number of NMFs produced each year. Also, photos of the commendeds and NMFs are prominently displayed in the school entry way. No clear monetary or admissions advantage has materialized due to PSAT score.</p>
<p>Since there have been several comments on this thread that good/best/prestigious etc. schools do not award scholarships to NMF, I thought I would point out that Wash U, U Chicago, Rice Univ., Vanderbilt Univ. are just a few respected private universities that do offer NMF scholarships (1k/yr to 5K/yr).</p>
<p>Only on cc would these schools be dismissed as undesirable in the eyes of NMF candidates.</p>
<p>It's an interesting thread, and I only have one comment, from The Princess Bride: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." No one promised anyone that the world would be fair, friendly, or easy.</p>
<p>WashDad:</p>
<p>In California, the line is: Life's a Beach, and then you die. :)</p>
<p>This business that 'schools failed our child' is so much hooey.<br>
If you want to create a child who has awesome reading comprehension and scores 800 on critical reading on the March 2007 SAT (as I have, although then she got 72 on the PSAT in critical reading 6 months later, go figure), then you have to encourage lots of recreational reading at home.<br>
So parents can have a huge impact on that particular test score, and in fact, I feel the home is responsible for each child's reading comprehension score. What state you live in is immaterial for that particular test on the PSAT. (that is a soap box rant and not really germane, I know).<br>
So for the critical reading part of the PSAT, it is unfair that there is no national cutoff, although I must say that the typical Louisiana student doesn't read as much as probably the typical Massachusetts student due to family background--just a guess on my part. My kid just happens to have a mom who was born in Massachusetts (although never lived there), so I emphasize home reading just as a Massachusetts mom does. So perhaps it is fair that the PSAT critical reading test scores are also subject to state, not national, cutoffs, due to typical home culture in each state, and my child got lucky.</p>
<p>I have to wonder, though, about math and writing. I think those scores are vulnerable to what school you attend, as to whether there are demands placed for lots of math problem solving and creative writing. I know my daughter had few writing assignments all through school, even though she was in gifted classes at her public school. And for writing, practice makes perfect. Which explains her 670 writing score on the March 2007 SAT test. Also, in her case I made her take algebra 1 in 3 weeks in the summertime, which she passed but not by much, and so she had a weak background when she got into algebra 2. Then she had a teacher who raced along and didn't explain well, and she did flounder. She got 700 on the March 2007 SAT test in math. No doubt, a Massachusetts public school teacher would have been better at explaining, and my daughter would have scored higher, because she is gifted in math. My daughter didn't study for any of these tests.</p>
<p>My daughter has been in Louisiana public schools all her life, and got 215 on the PSAT. Of course she made National Merit, and would have missed it in Massachusetts. She is a product of the educational system down here, the occasionally poorer teacher, especially that well-meaning but rushed algebra 2 teacher, and that 8th grade English teacher, who assigned almost no writing at all, the worst of all the uninspired English teachers she had. Thus, although she had gifted classes since 5th grade, her Louisiana education certainly cannot compete with the education found in, say, a Massachusetts public school, I'm quite sure. I call that state, Massachusetts, the land of high achievers. </p>
<p>For that reason, I don't apologize for her making National Merit semifinalist (which she will undoubtedly do, Louisiana's cutoff historically hovers around 209) in Louisiana, when she would not have in Massachusetts. Certainly her math score on the PSAT (which was 68) relates to the education available in the state she lives in.</p>
<p>While on this subject, I have to say something about the effects of writing for pleasure and SAT/PSAT writing scores. My D originally scored 670 on the SAT in March 2007.<br>
She then discovered fanfiction.com in May 2007, a few months after that March 2007 SAT administration, and ever since, she has been writing every spare minute to change endings of her favorite novels. (I lost her in Wal-mart one summer day, she said she had been having 'writer's block' but that inspiration struck in a Walmart aisle, and she had to scribble that latest plotline in her notebook which she brings everywhere).<br>
Interestingly, she went from the 670 on that March SAT to 75 on the PSAT 6 months later.<br>
I had all along been grumbling and actively discouraging the fanfiction writing she has been doing, to no avail, and I suppose it has turned out to be beneficial after all.<br>
That she pushed herself in writing for sheer pleasure is no doubt an offshoot of all the pleasure she discovered in the books I encouraged her to read.<br>
So it would seem that a poorer education in the public schools in the areas of reading, and at least in my daughter's case, in writing, can be offset by recreational reading at home. And, one more time on that soapbox, I just don't see how a school could improve a student's reading comprehension score by much, no matter how good the school, because I have learned it is quantity of hours spent reading, and not necessarily quality of reading material (as in the fantasy novels my D was addicted to) that affects reading comprehension.</p>
<p>to sum up, it would seem that my daughter through private efforts (mine to encourage recreational reading, and hers, to start practicing writing--for pleasure only, as it happens) was able to overcome her state's lower expectations and poorer educational system to score high on the PSAT. </p>
<p>Students in other states with high PSAT cutoffs don't have to rely on private efforts. They are all uniformly required to turn in more writing assignments in the schools, thus becoming better writers in the process, and are assigned more reading material to peruse, and also no doubt have better math teachers. It's no wonder many more students in those states score higher on the PSAT, pushing up the state cutoff.</p>
<p>so I think it is fair for states to have their own cutoff scores based on how well their students were able to cope on the test after being educated in that state's schools.</p>
<p>No question that avid readers have high SAT scores, but I don't know how early you have to start to get those top scores. My older son reads at least 100 books a year (or did in high school - I hope he'll have less free time now that he's in college!) He read technical manuals, sci fi and fantasy. No great literature either. Perfect scores twice. His younger brother doesn't read quite that much, but does read every day. His PSAT reading scores were in the 98%ile for sophomores.</p>
<p>Since you wondered aloud via this thread how early in their lives that high SAT crit read scorers actually start intense reading, let me share that my own child started really getting underway in 2nd grade for sure. About age 4 1/2 to 5,to get her 'out of the way' as I had a baby, I impatiently taught her to read using 300 flashcards flashed on the way to school (and nearly killed her interest, I then had to spread 20 picture books on the floor at night for her to trip over and then become beguiled by--took a month of plopping down and turning pages on her own for her to proclaim, "reading is FUN!"). She then just naturally started reading and I would essentially toss in another book as I passed her bedroom at night or on weekends. She was never around as a child, she could be found upstairs on her bed engaged in reading a book. This kept up until 5th grade and then after my older daughter's warnings (she would sulk when deprived of a book while visiting said older daughter one entire weekend) I tried to break her habit. Very hard to change a child's direction mid-stream, so to speak. She sneaked books at every opportunity. I especially liked the flashlight under the covers trick well known to many parents.
She's a pretty girl (now 11th grade) and reading excessively hasn't totally ruined her social prospects, but I will say that too much reading may breed some spaciness, a lack of clerical skill as in knowing the details around you, such as times of activities, or even that the activities are meeting that day, that sort of thing, in my experience.</p>
<p>Oh, shenandoah your daughter sounds like me as a child. I used to read 8 books a week i.e. Nancy Drew, and my mom starting allowing me to check out only 4 books per library visit. No problem, I just went twice a week. Also my youngest daughter also found fanfiction and loves it. We hope to find out that she is a NMF in a couple of weeks, as she already is a NMSF. She wants to have a publishing company or run one someday.</p>
<p>She's a pretty girl (now 11th grade) and reading excessively hasn't totally ruined her social prospects, but I will say that too much reading may breed some spaciness, a lack of clerical skill as in knowing the details around you, such as times of activities, or even that the activities are meeting that day, that sort of thing, in my experience.</p>
<p>lol- my oldest who taught herself to read at 3 - used to amaze people because she was reading middle school books when she was 6 but she was the size of a 4 year old- she used to bring books to the grocery store and read walking down the aisle.
I see people around here reading while they walk down the sidewalk- haven't they heard of books on tape?</p>
<p>Oh, goody, we're doing "who's a reader?" stories! I was an obsessive reader as a youth. At 7 I had to get an adult library card -- I'd read most of the children's section. I had a book going in every room in the house, and usually in both mom's and dad's cars. It took me two hours to do the dishes because I'd prop a book on the window sill and read while washing (well, sort of anyway). I'd read in the shower. I'd read on the bus. I didn't read during recess or lunch, though. Usually. </p>
<p>I remember in second grade we had "reading groups" named after birds. Shirley, Lauren and I were pulled out and they created another bird just for us. In third grade Mrs. Ekoos put a star on a chart for each book read. Lauren and I filled the chart and our stars marched up the wall. This is a true story, Mrs. Ekoos eventually had to tape a piece of paper on the ceiling for the last of my stars (I aced out Lauren, who didn't quite make the ceiling).</p>
<p>Love of reading and a terrific memory got me through secondary school and college. Lord knows I never studied...</p>