<p>Interesting article in the NYT today about criticism by a faculty committee of the way NM Corp picks NM Scholars.</p>
<p>Articles includes some numbers I hadn't seen before, e.g., last year there were "more than 8200" students receiving NM scholarships, of which 2,252 were from NM itself, 1,057 from corporations, and the rest from colleges.</p>
<p>So not that many kids get money from the 1 million+ that take the PSAT every year.</p>
<p>The way I read that article is that the UC faculty committee faulted the use of funds to attract NM scholars who did not need financial aid. This seems to me a variation on the old issue of how to allocate scarce funds: to students who need aid most, or to those the colleges want the most to attract in order to raise their standards? Should it be about need or merit? </p>
<p>Each year, there are about 16,000 NM Semi-finalists; of those, about 15,000 become finalists. So a little over half of the finalists receive some scholarship. This may range from $2,500 (from the NMSC) to a full ride at some colleges. .</p>
<p>Marite: You're right about the merit/need issue. But the NMSC's reliance on the PSAT was also criticized: "But the California faculty committee said the College Board, the PSAT's sponsor, had never scientifically demonstrated that the test was a valid indicator of student merit." Is a broader attack on the PSAT on the way? Who knows.</p>
<p>Note too that the corporate-sponsored scholarships can be awarded to commended students as "special scholarships" if the corporation doesn't have any finalists among employee children (the most common group eligible for corporate scholarships) that year. I have no idea how many of the 1000+ corporate scholarship winners last year fell into this category, but the 2 at my company were both commended. (So we can't say for sure that "a little over half of the finalists" receive some scholarship, since at least some of the 8200 were not finalists.)</p>
<p>The UC's complaint seems to be about the requirement that colleges that sponsor NM Scholars must give them money. I guess they don't just want to withdraw from being sponsoring colleges without explaining their action. Hard to have your cake and eat it. NM Scholars are attracted to particular sponsoring schools because they appreciate the money. </p>
<p>As for the statement that the test is biased, that does seem to be the case, which is why the NM also sponsors the National Achievement Scholars. Is there anything similar for Latino students? </p>
<p>I am not sure how any broad-based program would avoid reflecting cultural differences, and at least every kid, regardless of high school, gets to take the test. Every aspect of the college admissions process reflects cultural differences and inequities.</p>
<p>I agree in general that "merit" needs to be defined more rigorously, though whether it can be done is a different issue. I have a concern about the use of PSAT since it can only gauge how well a student might do on the SAT (again, with the usual caveat about the use of SAT as a predictor of performance in college). But since students are known to improve their scores in one year, and some radically so, it is conceivable that students who did very well on the SAT but not so well on the PSAT the previous year may lose out on scholarships that are targeted exclusively at high PSAT performers.</p>
<p>aparent - there is a Hispanic Scholars designation, as well, with slightly lower cutoffs.
I say if the UCs don't want to foot the bill for the scholarships, they don't have to. Many schools don't - but they shouldn't be setting the rules for the schools who want to use the incentives for kids to consider their schools. Sometmes I think the UCs are a bit too big for their britches. We all know how well their last little SAT issue went. Instead of our kids having less testing to worry about, they now have a 3 3/4 hour test that counts every bit as much as the old SAT.</p>
<p>You know, I just don't see the SATs as that big a deal. In some countries, a kid's entire future depends on a one-or-two-or-more-day test that can only be taken once and is taken on a fixed date by the entire cohort. (In Tanzania, for example, only the best students on a one-week test at age 14 go on to secondary school.) Here in the US, the SAT is only one consideration that applies to college admissions, and kids can take the test multiple times and choose their test date.</p>
<p>As someone who took the 11+ then the BEPC (pre-1968) two parts of the Baccalaureat, each lasting a whole week and testing everything from Latin to PE, American-style testing holds no terror for me. But the issue raised in the article has to do with scholarships. I think deciding the issue on the basis of an exam taken very early in the junior year is strange, to say the least.</p>
<p>asap:</p>
<p>I don't think the UC was attempting to dictate a change in the test, just in the use of tax dollars for merit scholarships in this program. In a college system whose tuition has gone up dramatically in the last 3 years, forcing kids to quit school or take a job and go PT, that is not necessarily a bad question to be asked. </p>
<p>IMO, better questions, which the article did not discuss (and I could not find the report online to check), is what proportion of that $1mm went to to non-needy kids? 2) how many $500 awards were there...(likely most of them). 3) What proportion went to kids who also received a Chancellor's or Regent's scholarship, thus offsetting the costs of those programs.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I do think it strange that so many private schools throw money (full ride, half-ride?) and NMF's which is based almost solely one test and one test day. I know its great for marketing purposes, but a 217 PSAT score at a 3.5 gpa in Calif earns a 50% deal at USC, and a 216 gets absolutely nothin'.....quite illogical, in my view.</p>
<p>Quite illogical. Its like the Olympics finish fourth by 1/100th of a second and you get squat.</p>
<p>BTW they say the guy/gal who gets the silver is always the unhappy one. The Gold Medal winner is happy because he won. The Bronze medalist is happy because he medaled and probably came close to coming away empty handed and the silver medalist always wonders if he trained just a little harder would he have gotten the Gold.</p>
<p>Note to everybody. Life is not fair and they tried that from each according to his ability to each according to his need cr*p and it didn't work. They had to build a wall to keep everyone in.</p>
<p>We say may the best man win but we always give the prize and the laurel to the one who crosses the finish line first.</p>
<p>I do wish that the NM program were run a little differently. My D, a kid who tends to think outside the box, did no test prep before taking the PSAT. She scored pretty well, but missed the cutoff score for semifinalist status by a couple of points. Because of her demanding and costly extracurricular schedule there was no time or money for PSAT prep. My H and I could have insisted that she do the test prep, but we thought she might do well enough without a prep course. Besides, she'd been focused on going to college for musical theatre for years and would not consider taking time away from classes and rehearsals to do test prep for a scholarship she might or might not win. So, why I am wishing for a change? When D took the SAT, again with no prep, she scored in the mid-1400's. Had NM looked at her SAT scores, rather than her PSAT scores, she probably would have been a finalist. NM places more import on a score achieved by a H.S. sophomore, than a score achieved the summer before senior year. In the life is inherently unfair category, it seems to me that NM is also biased against non-minority students who cannot afford to do pricey test preparation. Minority students have a NM scholarship program just for them. It takes into account the inequities in the system for some of those students - their scores don't have to be as high as non-minority students in order to win scholarships. However, even in the case of the minority students, socio-economic factors are not taken into account. Wealthy minority students who can afford prep courses attain higher scores and have a better chance at getting the scholarships.</p>
<p>I have another example of the inherent inequity of the NM program in my own family. When I was in H.S. I was one of 7 NM finalists from my H.S. Being curious kids, we compared scores. I had the highest score at my H.S. I was told by counselors at the school that I had one of the highest scores in the state. (My score was very close to perfect as I recall.) Out of the 7 finalists at my school, one person actually received a scholarship. It was the kid who had the lowest score. The kid who had the worst GPA of the bunch and was not known for his intelligence. Everyone at the school had been very surprised that he was named a semi-finalist. Turns out that he won a corporate sponsored scholarship because his mom worked for a company that sponsored one. I knew that my chances of getting a scholarship were almost nill. I attended my state's flagship university as a music major. The school offered only one NM scholarship at that time. They now offer over 20. I was offered, among others, a scholarship from the honors program. That scholarship was awarded on the basis of ACT scores, H.S. GPA, an essay, and an interview. It was the one and only honors program scholarship awarded that year. I found out after school started in the fall that I lost the NM scholarship because I had been awarded the scholarship by the honors program. A professor in the honors program told me that I had been a top contender, but when I was chosen to get the honors program scholarship I was eliminated from consideration. She hinted that because of my chosen major I was given the less prestigious and less lucrative scholarship. The NM scholarship went to a male engineering student. I wonder if anything has really changed in the last 30 years.</p>
<p>I have a slightly different issue with respect to the NM Scholarship. We got caught in a double bind, in that my h's employer (a big corporation) doesn't sponsor NM because it has its own scholarship awards based on community service, but this scholarship is <em>not</em> available to children of employees. So, even though my s. might have had a reasonable chance at one of these corporate scholarships, he couldn't apply. Then, on the other hand, he wasn't likely to get a corporate-based NM scholarship, as first priority of those corporations that sponsor NM is to children of employees. Hrmmmph. So, my s. got a school-based NM scholarship, the amount of which is need-based. I am not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but his NM scholarship basically pays for books. We get the minimum, spread over 4 years.</p>
<p>OK, there are lots of questions as to how well the Collegeboard exams measure abilities, but right now its what weve got. And if it is the National MERIT scholarship, I don't see why it then becomes need- based, as opposed to merit-based. We don't seem to complain when other merit based monies (big bucks) are offered to students. I think there is a tendency to come down hard on the Collegeboard exams. They get no respect...</p>
<p>Quote from the NY Times article:
[quote]
But Patrick Hayashi, who as associate president was a chief aide, views the National Merit program as "bogus" and brought his concerns to the faculty senate after he stepped down as a College Board trustee last October.
[/quote]
As the parent of a kid who was a National Merit Scholar (college-sponsored), I have to say I agree 100% that the program is "bogus." Yeah, we took the money - and we were lucky, because my son's college let him keep the $2000 NM award on top of his need-based grant, so it was a big help. We also took the $1000 the state of California gave him because he scored well on standardized testing (That is a now-defunct program, given the present state of the Calif. economy - but students were able to get money that way from 2000-2002). </p>
<p>But the bottom line is that my son is a good test-taker with very strong math skills who got paid for test scores. There was no prep for him; he took the PSAT only once, and made the NM cutoff with the lowest possible score for our state. I'm glad my son is good at taking standardized tests, but it is a process that unfairly rewards some kids at the expense of others. I have a daughter who doesn't stand a chance of getting the same types of scores, even though she is equally intelligent and a far more dedicated student. (My son was a slacker, and proud of it). </p>
<p>What I see is that this scholarship isn't really any different than many scholarships that are really no more than contests. My son was going to apply for the Duct tape scholarship that gives out money for the best couple who attend their senior prom wearing attire made entirely of duct tape, but his date chickened out at the last minute. If he had gone through with it, the duct tape money would have been as valid as NM - probably moreso, because at least it would have taken effort, planning, and some creativity on his part. But the problem is that NM has undeserved prestige. </p>
<p>What I saw was that my son was actively courted by colleges because he scored 216 points on a test - they didn't care who he was, what he was interested in, what his goals or accomplishments were. It was nice, and it sure made the college app process easier... but it wasn't deserved. It was basically something he lucked into. </p>
<p>So yeah, if it is costing $$ for UC to sponsor kids when almost all of the kids they admit are equally deserving, then I think they are right to pull out. None of the very top colleges sponsor NM awards for that reason -- it's really a tool for lower-status colleges like Oklahoma State U. to attract capable students. It makes no sense for the most selective schools to be giving the extra monetary prize for high test scores.</p>
<p>Isn't any situation where people are applying for, or competing for a prize of some sort, a contest? While you don't "apply" for the first phase of the NM, why is a cutoff score on a test as a starting point wrong? Some criteria has to be used. At least they are not hiding under any false pretenses. It is what it is-- score well on this test and be considered for other opportunities. These tests are considered predictors (along with other variables) of college success, and colleges will want to attract students who are bright, will graduate, be successful in work as well as school and give back lots of $$ as an alumni/ae. Is that wrong?? Its just a business decision. Credit card companies try to lure customers with good credit scores. I am not sure this is all that different. Sure, there are slacker kids who test well, and extremely bright kids who don't, but there are plenty of other scholarship opportunities out there to apply to. Lots of "contests", as you say. This is just one. </p>
<p>A scholarship can place any requirement it wants as a criteria for consideration. I recall seeing one in Wisconsin only for people with a certain last name. Whether on not is is reasonable, they have a right to set whatever criteria they choose--its their money. </p>
<p>Maybe "merit" is the wrong word. Maybe they should call it the "National High Test Scorers Scholarship". I just found it inconsistent that they said it was based on the test score, but then, in our case, switched from a merit to a need-based scholarship.</p>
<p>It is silly, no question about it. I suppose if you have a national competition for juniors, you have to base it on some test that is universally available, hence the handy-dandy PSAT. </p>
<p>However, my issue is that although it is pitched as a means to find "the best and the brightest," that is simply false. It is NOT a national competition, but a state competition. From (approx) 107 to 122? PLEASE! So the real meaning of the NMF is "best test takers in each state." If it were truly national probably 50%+ of the individual winners would be other people. S is a Finalist, but many of his fellow Maryland students would have easily been semifinalists in Mississippi.</p>
<p>Where we live I don't know any NM Scholars who were not outstanding students with outstanding ECs and leadership qualities. However, we are from a state where the score cutoff is very high. There were students from our hs who did not make Commendee but would have been semifinalists elsewhere. Add to the inequities the fact that these "National" Scholars are actually chosen by state. (Oops, Yulsie and I posted at the same time!)</p>
<p>Both my kids were NM Scholars, sponsored by the NM corporation. I was glad when my husband's company stopped sponsoring an NM scholarship and started its own, separate award; this way they were able to double-dip. </p>
<p>Neither of them took an SAT or PSAT prep course (not a good investment unless you are applying to a school that sponsors NM Scholars; the NM-sponsored ones get $2500 and the courses around here cost $700, and besides, both kids were busy with ECs). They sat down with Ten Real SATs and with Up Your Score and did practice tests a few hours a week for the month before the test. They signed up to take the regular SAT the week before or after the PSAT (can't remember which), which meant their studying served as prep for both tests; they were able to put the SATs behind them in the fall of junior year...a process I have recommended before on these boards, because it made life way easier. </p>
<p>The NM scholarship is awarded by merit, but the amount given does not relate to merit. Those sponsored by NMS often get the least amount of money ($2500); however, the NMS-sponsored students are the ones being counted on lists of schools such as H that "attract large numbers of NM Scholars." Obviously, I'm biased here, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having at least one scholarship awarded on the basis of merit.</p>
<p>" On the other hand, I do think it strange that so many private schools throw money (full ride, half-ride?) and NMF's which is based almost solely one test and one test day. I know its great for marketing purposes, but a 217 PSAT score at a 3.5 gpa in Calif earns a 50% deal at USC, and a 216 gets absolutely nothin'.....quite illogical, in my view"</p>
<p>Agree. It is even more illogical when you consider that cutoff scores vary widely by state. The range my D's year was from the low 200s (aroud 204?), or just above the commended cutoff, to the low 220s (MA was 223 that year?).</p>
<p>It is pretty clear to me that the CB PR machine is behind this. Note the flurry of press releases that local papers publish every year. Note how well the announcements/press releases are timed. Note that most kids get token awards at most. Hmmm.</p>
<p>This is particularly sad as qualification is based on the thinnest of standards - performance on an abbreviated exam, the underlying questions of which were developed for a different purpose, and which show the thinnest of relevance to college performance. Yet we fall for it, and salivate over the outcome.</p>
<p>Yes, I was a NM finalist in my day. Then, it was based on a completely different, more rigorous exam, the NMSQT. It still made no difference in my life.</p>
<p>Newmassdad, the cutoff via test is somewhat dubious. However, to get from Finalist to Scholar is an entirely different story, requiring a record and recommendations that back up that high test score.</p>
<p>Yes, but considering that 15,000 out 16,000 make it from Finalists to scholars, the record, recommendations and essay either confirm the scores or do not count for very much.</p>
<p>I agree with Marite. IMHO, the step up to finalist is just designed to eliminate the anomalies. I bet, in fact, that the percentage that don't make it correspond quite well to the Standard Error tail of the PSAT - in otherwords, elimate those that made it as a statistical fluke (random error).</p>
<p>I suspect the essay, recs and so forth are just there to give an air of legitimacy to the selection process, and maybe bounce out a laggard or two that just don't do the work.</p>
<p>It is hard to come to any other conclusion, given a greater than 90% advancement rate.</p>