<p>CA99, </p>
<p>I guess we disagree. I do NOT think the SAT is particularly justified, but at least there is some validation w/r/t the SAT. The PSAt, OTOH, is a joke by comparison. Even its administration is poorly controlled. So to use it for something significant like scholar selection is just mind boggling, at least for anyone with even minimal knowledge of testing theory, test validation etc.</p>
<p>I don't understand the difference between the validity of the SAT versus the PSAT. A joke? The administration? Enlighten me. I've taken the PSAT twice, and I did not feel that way at all.</p>
<p>Sure, of course there are kids who are good writers, good students, and community leaders who are not NM finalists. But I think that you'd find that a much higher percentage of NM kids can claim these than the population at large. Plus, the NM kids are good test takers, which is good in and of itself. As someone pointed out, it's ONE program. I still don't see the problem.</p>
<p>"We talk about "merit" awards but use a tool that probably doesn't even identify those that deserve the "merit"."</p>
<p>The NM Scholarship is a merit scholarship for those who did well on PSATs. You seem to be implying that the kids who score well on their standardized tests are less deserving of merit awards than kids with similar academic records but mediocre test scores. Given two kids with identical records, one of whom scored well on standardized tests and one who did not, I would certainly give my vote to the kid who tests well in addition to his other accomplishments. On average, kids who score poorly on the PSAT or SAT have lower grade point averages than kids who score well, so I don't think you can possibly say that the good test takers are inferior in other ways. If I believe your assertion that the two groups (i.e. good test takers and poor test takers) are otherwise equal on average (which I don't), what reason do would you give as to why the kids who can claim an additional achievement (their test scores) do not deserve some recognition?</p>
<p>Hazmat- glad to hear you like Maine...I apologize for misinterpreting what you said, but I won't apologize for defending my state's honor :).</p>
<p>in the same vein as elizabeth22's thread...the UCs have an incredible number of applicants, and using NM to weed through them to decide who deserves merit money was a good plan. But then our opinions don't really count, since they'll get rid of it either way.</p>
<p>I hear 'ya. I just see Merit Money as a way of attracting students who otherwise would NOT matriculate at any given school. If the UCs are in such demand then CA students need to migrate to the schools without such demand...in any economic model that is how it works....discounts for the product in lower demand.....premium for product in higher demand. It is supply and demand.....big demand in CA for UC schools.....look outside the state is my recommendation. Merit money offered by CA schools is buying in what they otherwise could not obtain.....demand has surpassed that need.</p>
<p>Is there some stat that shows students close to home achieve success at higher rates than students who go greater geographic distance?</p>
<p>"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"</p>
<p>Definitely true. I don't think that the NM scholarship money of $2,000 or so has been raised in 30 years. When I was in high school, that amount of money was equivalent to 1/3 of the total yearly cost of attending Harvard.</p>
<p>I do believe that many state schools give additional monies to the NM matriculants. Thus a student can have funds from 2 sources....NM and the college.</p>
<p>I don't see the big deal. UCLA and Berkeley are already rejecting students who are getting into Harvard or Yale or wherever (that's what formulas do), and having the kids go off to private places opens up desperately needed places in the extremely competitive end of the public system, so how can that be a bad thing?</p>
<p>If the state system wants to reward candidates for merit they can still do so, and will, just not depending on a particular test which they think discriminatory to do so. (By the way, they already do so, as they do in every state - it's called the Byrd Scholarship, and uses both GPAs and test scores.)</p>
<p>very nicely put. The state system as it was designed to serve the GIs returning from war.....with their FedFunds......those days have ended. As legislatures have starved our state systems the obvious has occurred. Inability to compete for the best faculty and to retain the ones they had. I think I agree that the state systems of today are there to serve the middling and below....a noble cause. Should they choose to reward for merit....so be it....let it not be from NM.</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>Just for the record, in TN, the Byrd Scholarship is a random drawing of all students who submit an application, who also have a GPA of 3.5 or better, or 3.0 and 29 on ACT. A specific number are drawn from each of the three Grand Divisions of the state. I am in agreement with your statement. No one can stop UC schools from looking to see what kids made on the PSAT, they just won't necessarily award kids money based on a specific cut score on that test.</p>
<p>I see the demise of the PSAT very soon.....why pay to take the test if you don't have to and it won't get you any money??? Do you just like funding the 401Ks at CollegeBoard???</p>
<p>In Washington State, the Byrd folks use a combined algorithm of unweighted GPA (or GED scores) and SATs and then just mark their way down the list til they run out of money.</p>
<p>hmmm - what a slap in the face to the collegeboard, after they went to all that trouble to add essays to the SAT Ones, at the behest of the UCs!</p>
<p>mini:</p>
<p>in Calif, gpa and test scores are only the beginning part of the selection process. As noted on the state web site, the SAT cutoff for this year's winners is 1260, and the gpa was below 4.0. Since there are literally thousands of high schools in the Golden State, many 4.0 vals with high test scores do not win the Byrd award. Obviously, other selection criteria come into play.....a GC I know says that suburban kids need a 4.0/1600 to even be considered.</p>
<p>That being said, I agree with your point, and not sure what all the concern is about. The Ivies dropped out of the NMF progrm a long time ago....</p>
<p>Instead, the UC's offer Regents and Chancellor's scholarships for kids they really want.</p>
<p>"I don't understand the difference between the validity of the SAT versus the PSAT. A joke? The administration? Enlighten me. I've taken the PSAT twice, and I did not feel that way at all."</p>
<p>The SAT was validated against first year GPA, as a predictor of such. Given the effort to equate current administrations with historic administrations, I'm not sure how well the predictor purpose is being met. The PSAT has been validated against nothing. As near as I can tell, it is just composed of a subset of SAT questions thrown together for practice. It IS pretty good at predicting SAT scores, and the CB has published a lot about this, so I suppose you could say it is validated against the SAT. It is not, of course, validated as any sort of instrument for selecting superior students.</p>
<p>"Sure, of course there are kids who are good writers, good students, and community leaders who are not NM finalists. But I think that you'd find that a much higher percentage of NM kids can claim these than the population at large." </p>
<p>So what? Your point is irrelevant and trivial (sorry for the bluntness). My point is that, because of limitations in the PSAT as a selection tool for NM finalists, there is no statistical (indeed, no practical) difference between the NM selectees and other sets of kids that miss the selection criteriza. It is a misuse of the test. Because of the huge SEM at the top score ranges, one CANNOT say that the kid who made the cutoff is better, even on that test, than one who was less than a SD below, and there are a lot that are one SD below. </p>
<p>Add to this the wildly varying SIs among states, and you end up with a pretty meaningless designation - meaningless except for the money and the PR. The latter is courtesy the NM marketing machine.</p>
<p>I think this is something of an indictment of the SAT as well. When you look at the statistical evidence presented at the time UC called the old SAT into question, you find that at best the SAT accounts for about 20% of the variance in first-year college grades, and that even in combination with highschool GPA you only got about 22% explained variance (going from memory here--haven't looked at the report for a couple of years). This means that a whole lot of other factors (including luck, chance) come into play in accounting for first-year college grades, and these other factors may be things that the UC feels uncomfortable about including SES, race, and other factors.</p>
<p>I do not disagree with those that say that the PSAT is a poor tool for selecting merit awardees. However, as stated by some posters, for the many universities that offer merit this way, it is a major convenience. If schools are trying to attract so-called top students across the country to apply, what would be a practical way to identify those that they'd like to recruit, if not through standardized test scores? They don't have access to GPA's, ranks, ec's of those who have not applied. And if they used SAT scores, is that any better? (in fact, that may be unfair to those who can't afford a prep course...the PSAT's are less likely to be influenced by that factor). So, it seems to me that if schools do not want to use these standardized test scores, but rather a fuller picture of the total student, they would have to limit offers of merit aid to those who've already shown an interest in the school by applying.</p>
<p>Mackinaw,</p>
<p>Your stats are pretty close RE the SAT and fy GPA. So, imagine using a subset of the SAT for a purpose for which it was not even designed: the identification of "merit" scholars! Good grief.</p>
<p>The SAT is a good example of things that start out with a good, noble purpose that get corrupted over time. The book "The Big Test" has a good history of the SAT, and why it served a reasonable purpose in its early years. Unfortunately, it seems to have been corrupted by the pursuit of $$, or at least the CEEB/CB has been, and sold out to ETS.</p>
<p>Donemom:</p>
<p>I agree with your analysis of the usefulness of the PSAT in identifying desirable applicants. I am less happy about tying merit scholarships to the PSAT, given the way NSM semi-finalists and finalists are selected.</p>
<p>Donemom:</p>
<p>actually, many kids I know are counseled to prep for the psat (and the sat) at the end of soph year, which given it's winner-take-all importance, is a not a bad idea. (One reason prepping for the psat has become popular in SoCal is that NMSF means nearly automatic acceptance to USC, and a steep tuition discount, 50%.) </p>
<p>Since top students are likely advanced in math as well as verbal skils (more than average scorers), taking the psat and the sat in the Jr fall is logical if kids have time to prep that summer; (btw: another plug for Xiggi method). </p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence in our district is that the 1550's-1600's are obtained during the fall of Jr year. Obviously, these same kids become NMSF's. The best part is that SAT 1 testing is over, and they can move on to SATII's. :)</p>