Worried here because of one W on his transcript, but otherwise think everything looks good. I try to keep reminding myself that he has good non-NMF options, but mainly I worry he’ll feel awful if he doesn’t make finalist!
W = withdrawn?
Following. Not really worried but you can’t be positive until it’s over
NMSF 2016 chiming in here. I was rejected and got my letter the day after MLK Day (so a Tuesday). It really didn’t come as a surprise, and I was really devastated for about a year, but in my sophomore year of college I’ve gotten over it and am where I am meant to be. It’s tough walking to the mailbox every day hoping NOT to get a letter, but I’m just here to say, 2 years on, it gets better and life works itself out.
If the methodology NM Corp used in years past to cull the lists of NMSFs down into NMFs still stands, anyone here with a 4.0 UW and overall As and Bs and sent in the application should have nothing to worry about.
@lcgusa why were you expecting it?
I had a string of bad grades from my earlier years of HS. So I had a hunch all that fall that I would be rejected during the finalist round. And sure enough, my doubts of becoming a NMF were confirmed.
So probably the rejection letters will be dropped in the mail tomorrow. Here’s hoping nobody on this thread gets a letter from NMSC until mid-February!
For those who are worried, if you are an A and B student you will most likely be fine, just as @lcgusa is saying. Remember - 15,000 out of 16,000 move on to Finalist!
If you have a semester C on your transcript, you may get by if your other semester is a higher grade. Last year I learned on this forum that counselors actually report yearly average, not semester or trimester, grades to NMSC. Keep in mind this is not first-hand information! @3scoutsmom has been kicking around the NM threads longer and might be able to verify or clarify.
My general impression from living through this last year is that those who are dinged are not exactly surprised to find that out. That means it’s not a matter of one C here or there but a string of bad grades. They will ding you for that - we know someone in this category.
@JBStillFlying2 the C thing varies from state to state and year to year. I’ve never heard of someone not making it because of B’s but I have heard of someone not making it because of one C and some people with more than one C making it. It depends on the numbers, the National Merit Corp is looking to get to their target number for each state. First they try to get a general number based on the PSAT score and then they clear out the kids that don’t quailify (did not apply, turned in a snarky essay, not high enough SAT score or did not send score…) after that they start looking at grades - thankfully they do not consider classes before 8th grade even if those classes are used for high scchool credit.
@scoutsmom That is how I interpret it as well. The overage of NMSFs for your state determines the culling process. My guess is that those from states with larger numbers like CA/TX/NY are at the most risk, but I don’t know if anyone has ever looked at the rejection rates by state?
This target number per state explanation for culling the SF list to Finalist status has come up in the past, but this is still just educated speculation, correct? NMSC is pretty clear when state quotas apply (SF, $2500 scholarship, etc.) but they don’t list anything about using the state numbers to cull the 1,000 or so to arrive at Finalist. As an extreme thought experiment, what do they do if 100% of the remaining contestants in a state, after clearing out the non-appliers or snarks, etc., have transcripts with A’s and B’s? At worst it has to be a very loose goal and it would enlightening to know whether someone has heard of this particular methodology actually being employed by NMSC. Could be very wrong here but had the impression that the standards for meeting Finalist, in large part, apply to all states. Obviously some “on the edge” academically might have variable outcomes across states and across years, but that could well be due to the unique and variable circumstances of those students as much as a state quota. For example, a C one semester and an A the next is very different - and will be reported very differently - from a C and a Withdraw.
In the past, the numbers of SF’s and Finalists have always been a few hundred over their targets so there’s no evidence of severe culling in general. We haven’t seen the numbers from 2017 yet (SF or NMF) and that, of course, was the first year of the new PSAT and it’s weird, ratchety distribution. Continuing the thought experiment: if any harsh culling was to be done, that would be the year we’d see it! However, CC posts last year this time didn’t suggest anything like that occurred.
If last year didn’t produce any solid evidence of brutal culling, it’d be hard to imagine how this year could. After all, NMSC is one year smarter in selecting SF using scores from the new test.
Good points @JBStillFlying. Also good to note that NMSF isn’t exactly 16k and NMF isn’t exactly 15k; the only hard-and-fast number in the process seems to be that NMSC awards precisely 2500 scholarships. I’m sure NMSC does try to keep the NMF distribution similar to the NMSF distribution but I doubt that they force an exact match.
Nevertheless there is some anecdotal evidence that the NMF criteria differs across states, although perhaps even that has a method that is just not transparent to us. Anecdotal history does suggest that students with no grades lower than B are safe everywhere but it’s not clear what happens with Cs.
^^ Agreed. More fun than reading tea leaves!
I’ll just be sitting in the corner, making no noise and pretending I don’t exist. 
Intellectually, we’re sure S is in. It’s not proof against worrying, though.
Only (2,500) $2500 awards are given? 
Oh that’s way worse than I thought. For some reason I thought about 7,500 are given but I guess I had confused the corporate and school awards. Oh well!
I’ll be sitting quietly in the corner with Dia.
@JBStillFlying Whatever the process, it should be objective and transparent, and it seems to be neither at this stage. If kids are going to be eliminated based on a single grade they should provide a clear policy and just disqualify those NMSF from submitting the finalist application. Why waste kids time and get their hopes up?
I’m quietly waiting, too. D should be a shoo-in, but like everyone else, we will let out a huge sigh of relief when it is official. D has three favorite schools. One is USC, two are international. She’s been admitted to McGill, waiting on USC and UBC. I’m having a hard time strategizing the “listing the top choice school” thing. :-?
@planner03. It’s definitely not transparent at this stage. The standard is something vague like “consistently very high academic performance”. Well, that doesn’t necessarily mean B’s either for some schools! However, the probability of being named a finalist is something like 93% at this stage so the large majority will find that everything turns out ok and that the application and extra SAT were worth the effort. As mentioned up-thread, those who don’t make it tend not to be surprised.
BTW, they don’t eliminate based on a single grade - they eliminate if the aforementioned standard hasn’t been met, in their view. That might coincide with a single poor grade, or it may not. Again, for those on the edge, it’s most likely a facts and circumstances sort of thing.
NMSC isn’t the only scholarship organization out there that introduces a bit of subjectivity and judgement into the process.
@ShrimpBurrito - USC has some $ for NMF so why wouldn’t they be the first choice school your D lists for NM? The international schools won’t be relevant (or at least the same as non-participating US schools).