Perhaps dumb questions with obvious answers, but I have always wondered…why aren’t cutoff numbers the same nationwide? Why do some states have a lower bar than others? How can a kid with a lower score be called an NMSF or NMF over a kid with a higher score that lives elsewhere? We are in CA and I know our NMFs are at the top of the scale, but never understood why the differences in cutoffs.
Probably trying to get geographic diversity.
As I understand it, a student will be Commended if the student meets the minimum cut-off for NMSF among all the states. The “National” means that the students are distributed across the “Nation,” rather than that they are equivalent nationally. It is possible that the variance in the cut-off scores is in part an attempt to correct for broad differences in educational quality among the states (which are real). Of course, this is not fair for a student in a weak school system in a strong state; and it confers an advantage on a student in a strong school system in a generally weak state. It is interesting to watch the cut-off scores for a state fluctuate over time, as a broad indicator of what is happening to educational quality near the top.
Isn’t it based on wanting to take the top X percent from each state - and the state averages are different so the number to get into that top X percent has to fluctuate.
What I found odd is that if you take the PSAT abroad - you have to beat the HIGHEST of the cutoffs. Seems like a way to penalize expat kids.
NM semi-finalists are based on the highest X% in each state. NM says: “To ensure that academically talented young people from all parts of the United States are included in this talent pool, Semifinalists are designated on a state-representational basis.”
That means a kid in NJ or Mass has to score much higher than a kid in ND to achieve this honor. The percentage varies from year to year by state, partially because they have to set a score on the test and the number of students reaching that score will vary.
I’ve long felt that calling them National Merit Scholarship was false advertising. They should be called the State Merit Scholarships.
That’s just untrue. They are impressed with achievements that the student can make, but the bar is considerably higher. Win a Math Olympiad and see if they’re impressed. NMSF, while a nice thing, would be earned by a large percentage of their applicants, so it doesn’t help differentiate between the applicants.
NMSF or NMF status is helpful to get scholarships from various state schools and other schools. For example, Univ of Southern CA gives 50% off their tuition if you are NMF and University of Las Vegas will give you full costs scholarship if you are NMF, but really, the only thing that NMF shows is that you can maybe learn a little bit quicker if you try. And moreover, I am not even sure NMF status correlates to high SAT/ACT scores in some cases. I mean generally they do and should but I have seen in some cases students who got very high SAT/ACT scores not get NMSF status, whereas some kids who didn’t get all that high scores ended up with NMF status. For example, my kid got around 2100 SAT as a sophomore but got NMF status in CA. Really top colleges don’t care about NMF status imo.
Also sometimes parent’s companies give scholarship to National Merit students.
DS had PSAT of 233 (1 point below state cutoff, and he didn’t know that it might matter, he though it was “practice SAT”) and SAT of 2360. Not NMSF.
Thankfully, it didn’t matter.
<that’s just="" untrue.="" they="" are="" impressed="" with="" achievements="" that="" the="" student="" can="" make,="" but="" bar="" is="" considerably="" higher.="" win="" a="" math="" olympiad="" and="" see="" if="" they’re="" impressed.="" nmsf,="" while="" nice="" thing,="" would="" be="" earned="" by="" large="" percentage="" of="" their="" applicants,="" so="" it="" doesn’t="" help="" differentiate="" between="" applicants.=""></that’s>
There is only ONE student who got the first place at the math Olympiad in 2016 and he is at MIT. Ivys, are not impressed by Math Olympiad. In one famous lawsuit, an Asian kid, with perfect SAT/GPA/national recognition for music / choir at Obama inauguration was rejected by Harvard / Yale / Princeton / Brown / Columbia / Cornell / Dartmouth etc. Apparently, students are differentiated by the color of their skin and by the color of their parent’s money. I do understand that Ivys are not impressed by academic achievements of students, regardless of the achievement.
@bopper <also sometimes="" parent’s="" companies="" give="" scholarship="" to="" national="" merit="" students.="">
Unfortunately, not for us.
@lxnayBob
Dont agree too many lower stats kids are accepted for no reason other than urm or color.
Accept asian!!
I don’t want this thread to go off the rails, but having visited the Yale campus often, if there is anti-Asian bias in acceptances, it is not obvious. Perhaps there is a bias in favor of parents with money, but half of students receive financial aid, some of it very generous, as is also the case at other Ivies.
Anyway, back of NMF please.
USAMO qualifiers tend to do very well in admission to selective colleges. There are obviously a lot of important factors in their admission decisions besides USAMO, but the correlation is too strong to ignore. For example, one USAMO qualifier wrote,
You mentioned that one Asian kid was rejected by a lot of top schools. There were also plenty of Asian kids who were accepted to a similar list of schools. For example, there was a news story a couple years ago about an Asian kid who was accepted to all Ivies + Stanford + MIT (or similar list). In any case, it isn’t evidence of Ivies not being impressed by Math Olympiad.
A few years ago, I suggested that MIT should admit all of the students who applied there and had qualified for USAMO in their junior years or earlier, and based on the available data, concluded that this would be a rather small fraction of their admits (around 10% or less). This idea was rejected rather vigorously. I still think it would be a good idea.
Agreed that National Merit is still a good source of money. I thought about where I would send my scores for free and was recruited by all with financial offers. I attended a small, private Catholic school with equivalent price to Yale. My four years including room, board and tuition was less than $1000. I received scholarship money and then found and applied for additional scholarships along the way. The money allowed me to attend the school I wanted, find more scholarships along the way and got me a free ride to a doctorate. I was extremely fortunate! However, National Merit opened many doors for me. I think that was its greatest overall benefit.
@CADREAMIN , the public education varies radically by state. This is why the cut-off is different in each state. A kid from a state with bad public schools needs a lower cut-off than one in a state with excellent schools.
@IxnayBob ., there is no cut-off higher than 224, so the 233 thing is false.
@Massmomm, I’m sorry, that was a typo, which I didn’t notice. He got a 223, in NJ, in a year when 224 was the cutoff.