<p>I am humored and in a way affirmed when other folks identify and act on beliefs I hold. I am high ranking and high achieving and do recieve funds for achievement so no the fact that folks can get money is not something which angers me. </p>
<p>What angers me is the masterful marketing job that NM and CollegeBoard have perpetrated upon the general public.....that is it.</p>
<p>To illustrate my position on "trusting" the UC system to reallocate the funds to future scholarships: </p>
<p>"Depending on the fund source, the campus may or may not continue to use the money being used now to fund NMSP awards for student scholarships should it cease participation in NMSP. $231,884 of the $734,867 total NMS funding is in the form of gifts or endowments designated for scholarship support. In addition, one campus is using USAP to support the need-based awards. The remaining $482,200 concentrated at four campuses, however, is discretionary funding from the Chancellor. When interviewed, at least three of these campuses expressed doubt that this funding would necessarily continue to provide scholarships for undergraduate students if the decision was made to cease participation in NMSP."</p>
<p>Source: Page 7 of <a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/nmsp.efm.background.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/nmsp.efm.background.pdf</a></p>
<p>Note: UC does not seem to be able to add columns very well. For them, $231,884 represents 54% and $482,200 represents 41% of the total funding. It must be acceptable when you use to balance your books with the help of fairies or elves, or with the magical intervention of the Federal Government's largesse.</p>
<p>Ahhhh...the shift from merit-based to need-based.</p>
<p>I guess our merit based award is that we gain acceptance into the elite institutions and then get to pay our way.....with our saved money. You are very correct and tracking the CA funding trail is important.....does this smell like the Top 10% rule? Doesn't matter how meritorious right? Take the top 10% of the least accomplished because they didn't have the advantage or the funding?? Is that about merit??</p>
<p>"What angers me is the masterful marketing job that NM and CollegeBoard have perpetrated upon the general public.....that is it."</p>
<p>Hazmat, what is exactly egregious about the masterful marketing job of NM and CollegeBoard? And what do they do that is so wrong, especially with the UC? </p>
<p>After all, in 2004-2005, NM gave $694,027 to the UC to fund 290 scholarships. In turn, UC funded $734,867. Unless I miss something, all the funds benefit UC students. </p>
<p>What is College Board's crime? That it owns and offers the PSAT?</p>
<p>Hey.....I just believe that the public acceptance of NM and the pressure put upon the schools to accept NM students....I guess there is no crime and I don't object to the monies students receive I just don't buy the fact that NM students raise the quality of any given Frosh class or the quality of the institution to the degree stated. My belief is that NM students are accepted over students who are of greater achievement. I guess that is what I believe.
This is not about the money. As to the marketing.....more appropriate would have been to be angered at the general public for buying the NM. I stand corrected....thanks.</p>
<p>Its not a very important issue. Outside of Ca, the UCs are considered overrated. Even Berkley is only well regarded in a few depts. UCs will lose some qualified students who may individually benefit by attending better colleges.</p>
<p>apparently there are folks just queing up to get into these fine institutions. They need the NM to pay their tuition and to let the UC know how qualified they are. Go figure.</p>
<p>I think this is a really unfortunate decision. Excellent test taking skills, like any other skill, ought to be rewarded. I think people are also missing the fact that in order to be named a National Merit Scholar, there is an application process that is totally independent of the test scores themselves. The test scores are merely a qualifier. </p>
<p>Coming from a school where the #10-#30 students are separated by fractions of a point (on a 100 point scale), I appreciate seeing a scholarship that's not entirely based on rank and GPA. Academic achievement is clearly the primary aspect of scholarship, but I think it's wrong to discount scholarships partially determined by test scores as unfair. No one has come up with a better way to compare students from different schools. </p>
<p>What kind of message is UC sending by eliminating the National Merit Program? They're telling many of their best in-state students (the ones that they ought to be trying to entice) that their achievement of becoming a NM scholar is worthless at their university system.</p>
<p>My HS did not rank the class. I just don't consider rank although my best friend from home went to a large public hs and was ranked. I don't get the ranking thing at all. Rank recognizing weight, not recognizing, adding in courses taken at other institutions....so much to dilute the validity.</p>
<p>I think most people like the PSAT just for the boost being a semi-finalist gives to your application. The money comes after you've already been accepted, most people probably aren't that upset about not winning. Whatever, I'm just bitter becuase I had the flu that day and only got commended...</p>
<p>Xiggi, do you really believe "It will be such a positive sign to lose some of your brightest students to other states!"?? Do you really believe NM identifies the "brightest students?"</p>
<p>I don't think so, and that's my problem with the test. </p>
<p>Regarding the statement others made that the PSAT is only an initial screener, yea, right, and the Miss America is a talent search, too.</p>
<p>IF NM were serious in their further efforts, you would not see such a high percentage advance. When 90+ percent move from semi to finalist, something more is going on. And most scholarship winners are externally sponsored. </p>
<p>Again, a great PR campaign for NM AND for CB.</p>
<p>BTW, in the late 1960s, both the NMSQT and the PSAT were around. I took both and have score booklets buried somewhere in the family archives.</p>
<p>Just one example of merit type awards. There are many contests which have exams having great participation numbers who don't advance as many candidates as has been pointed out.</p>
<p>I DO think that NM can be very helpful in identifying some, not all, of the best of the best. The NM Scholars are not only great test takers, but also great writers and great students and are involved in their communities. They submit essays, transcripts, and activity sheets AFTER they qualify by their PSAT score. These kids have it all. You also have to realize that the vast majority of kids who score well on the test are also great students in other respects. Not all of them, certainly, but a huge majority. </p>
<p>I'm very tired of people being so against commending kids for good standardized test scores. Logic and the ability to work quickly and accurately under pressure are great skills- how can anybody object to rewarding a kid who tests well and has an otherwise solid resume with a $2500 scholarship? These kids deserve some recognition for their achievements, just as a valedictorian does.</p>
<p>Elizabeth22: The thing is, most colleges that give merit aid based on the Nat'l Merit Scholarship program do so for "finalists", and that designation is still mostly based on test scores. (PSAT's and the SAT's, and grades only in the sense that they need to be generally commensurate with the PSAT performance) The vast vast majority of semi-finalists become finalists...NMSP just wants to make sure that they're not designating a student as a finalist who did great on that one test but has really poor grades or entirely different SAT's. The application with the list of ec's, recommendations, and essay, etc., are only taken into account when they actually decide who gets the National Merit Scholarship, and that's announced well after college admissions and offers of financial aid.</p>
<p>That's a fair point- but I still don't have a problem with rewarding kids who test well but aren't stellar students, just as I don't have a problem with rewarding a great student with sub-par SATs. I guess the difference is that I don't think that standardized test scores are a totally invalid way to make a partial judgement of a student. Obviously there are many bright kids who simply don't test well, but I've yet to come across a dumb kid who could qualify as a National Merit Finalist.</p>
<p>I agree with elizabeth22...the NMS is an example of what draws a lot of students from the Ivies to the UCs...to save money. Financial merit money in the UC system supports stronger students attending lower or middle UCs. A tactic used by Washington University in Saint Louis, this method of attracting students may be smart. It certainly would affect my decision.</p>
<p>You are from Maine so you must be pretty happy with your test pool. As for rewarding test takers.....not a problem. It is the other stuff that muddies the water for NM....and the pressure to admit and suggest that they improve the quality of the admitted class...to me that is laughable.</p>
<p>I don't understand how its laughable...my cousin turned down Northwestern for Washington University because they offered a ton of merit money. Obviously it works for colleges that want to boost their average stats.</p>
<p>I have a couple of concerns about the use of PSAT. </p>
<p>When S1 took it, it was presented by the school entirely as preparation for the SAT, not as a means of sorting out the bright from the not-so-bright, much less as a means of deciding who would get scholarships. I wonder whether he and his schoolmates would have taken the PSAT more seriously if they had known it was a consequential test and not just a taste of things to come. I believe the school continues to present the PSAT mostly as prep for the "real thing."</p>
<p>Since the UC is a public system catering almost entirely to CA students, it may make sense to use the PSAT; but let's bear in mind that different states use different cutoffs. A student who gets 210 may qualify in some states and advance to Finalist status, but that same student would be nowhere near qualifying in other states. NSM is not entirely about academics: it is about geographical affirmative action, too.</p>