<p>The University of California announced Wednesday that its campuses will stop participating in the National Merit Scholarship program, contending that the annual competition doesn't fairly assess academic talent.**</p>
<p>I'm not from CA...but I have to say, I agree with the UC assessment of this. The PSAT is taken in the fall of the junior year when many students have not yet taken their most aggressive courses. Some would argue that this is actually a good thing...that the PSAT examines "inate" knowledge as opposed to "learned". Back in the "dark ages" when I was in HS, the National Merit program held far higher financial rewards than it does now. AND it was considered far more important to colleges than it seems it is now. I guess I agree that if the PSAT is not used for admission, it should not be used to award money for admitted students.</p>
<p>Am I correct in thinking that this is not the $2500 that NM winners get, but the much larger awards granted to finalists who agree to attend these institutions?</p>
<p>My impression is that all UC scholarship funds that go to National Merit Semifinalists/Finalists will no longer exist (after current award recipients graduate).</p>
<p>Based on the below, I'm wondering how much of an impact UC's decision will have. Those $2,000 scholarships are chump change. I'd be more concerned if some of the major universities offering full tuition scholarships to NM finalists pulled out. </p>
<p>"The decision means that the six campuses that had been funding scholarships of up to $2,000 a year for National Merit finalists will channel the money into other student awards, starting with the fall 2006 freshman class.</p>
<p>The move is considered a blow to the 50-year-old National Merit program, which is partly funded by campuses and corporations. It annually names about 8,000 scholarship winners, many of whom are recruited as intensely as star athletes by universities around the country...."</p>
<p>Back in the Dark Ages, National Merit semifinalists were selected based on performance on the National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test. I still have my score booklet. It was a five component test, if I recall correctly, and completely separate from the PSAT or SAT. </p>
<p>The NM Scholarship corporation has become a good PR machine that seems to have lost a sense of purpose. Their press releases (where do you think the newspaper articles with names and numbers of finalist, winners etc. come from?) are well timed. They have great geographic balance - same percentage from each state, necessary for political reasons, not intellectual reasons.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the whole program should be junked. You have slackers that get rewards just for taking a test (great message we send) and good students that lose out because of hair splitting or poorly designed questions. </p>
<p>Consider this: in psychometrics, there is the concept of test ceiling (not to mention standard error of measurement etc.) In many states, the scores of semifinalists and commended are well ceilinged. That means they are all in a zone where the exam does a very poor job of separating out the performance. Put another way, the measurement error overwhelmes the differences among test takers in that range. So statistically there is no difference between winners and runners up. Some selection process!</p>
<p>let me see boarding school kids in a separate pool of stats......each state has a different cutoff.....how is any of that equitable. I have long thought it to be a cash cow......full of itself but long on publicity and now maybe the cow is dry. Schools who pay for their students to take this exam can use the funds for some other purpose......NM cannot die soon enough.</p>
<p>So, this is the legacy of Mr. Hayashi! I guess he wanted his name in the papers before retiring? </p>
<p>As usual. the UC is not sure it is an issue of racial discrimination or a simple issue of liking to annoy The College Board. How much support did the UC give to the National Achievement Scholarship Program or National Hispanic Recognition Program?</p>
<p>While I am in favor of supporting minorities, I am not sure why anyone would applaud the elimination of one of the TRUE merit programs that is still race-blind and need-blind. </p>
<p>As far as the UC being able to implement a more equitable system, allow me to smile with derision!</p>
<p>This and NM have sold a bill of goods and cashed in for many years........regarding minorities......I understand your feeling but I don't in anyway see that NM helps the cause of minorities unless you are from a state with a low cutoff and even then I don't see it. </p>
<p>I say thumb off of nose to NM and CollegeBoard.</p>
<p>As someone whose S got one of those major university full tuition scholarhsips, I am glad this happened this year and not last. But, to refute the idea that becoming a NMF is based on your performance on "one" test taken in the fall of your junior year...That is how you are named a semi-finalist. To become a finalist you must validate your PSAT score with a high SAT taken later, you must send your transcript showing your high school classes and grades, recommendations are required, an essay must be written, and extra curricular activies listed. So, it begins with the score from the one test, but the money is only realized after the other criteria are met.</p>
<p>Newmassdad....I think you and I probably were in high school in the same dark ages. Was there even a PSAT...I do NOT think so. The NMSQT was administered as the PSAT is now. Actually when the PSAT first came into being, it was called the PSAT/NMSQT (must have been during the "transition" time). Nevertheless....I recall it being a much bigger deal to be named a NMS winner back in those days. Perhaps the awards were a larger %age of college costs at the time. I'm not sure the awards have kept up with the pace of college cost increases OR inflation.</p>
<p>FWIW, this past academic year, UC awarded $735,000 in scholarships to 618 national merit scholars systemwide. At UC San Diego, 140 scholars got $114,000 in scholarships from the school last year. </p>
<p>Of UC's National Merit Scholars last year, only 3 percent were black, Latino or Native American, and less than one-fifth came from families making less than $40,000.</p>
<p>Once again, California is on the cutting edge of change in college testing issues. I am interested to see the impact on the rest of the country.</p>
<p>Check what happened to the number of NMS at Berkeley after they decided to stop the funding. Since Berkeley stopped funding the scholarships, the number of National Merit scholars attending the university has dipped significantly, from a high of 245 in 2001 to 67 last year. The $400,000 that historically went to National Merit Scholarships has been put into the general scholarship pool at Berkeley.</p>
<p>It will be such a positive sign to lose some of your brightest students to other states!</p>
<p>From the NM website: "be a citizen of the United States; or be a U.S. lawful permanent resident (or have applied for permanent residence, the application for which has not been denied) and intend to become a U.S. citizen at the earliest opportunity allowed by law."
"# Corporate sponsors designate their awards for children of their employees or members, for residents of a community where a company has operations, or for Finalists with career plans the sponsor wishes to encourage. These scholarships may either be renewable for four years of undergraduate study or one-time awards. Corporations and Churches.</p>
<p>Only US Citizens......from parentage who works for a participating corporation....differing state cutoffs, I guess it is all in the definition of brightest now isn't it? So.....I could have gotten a perfect score on the SAT and not participated because of Non US and parent didn't have the right job? Right. Cutting edge as in CUT THE CRAP.</p>
<p>Why the anger? This is just ONE method of receiving scholarships. There are so many others. Do you have issues with people with high class ranks getting scholarships? How can you compare one school with another? There is inequity in just about all methods, even need based scholarships. We all know of people who have little or no savings but live the high life on credit. They get preference over people who have saved for their kid's education. The students who are named NMF's may not be the "brightest" without any question, but they are certainly bright, rewarding that is not an awful thing about which to show such vehement objection.</p>