<p>Do you guys think the UC system should eliminate qualifying for the National Merit Scholarship (a.k.a. the NMSQT) from its future admissions decisions? If so, why/why not?</p>
<p>*The UC says the selection process for the scholarships is flawed, as 97 percent of applicants are wiped out of contention solely because they do not score high enough on the test. Out of 1.3 million test takers, only 16,000 advance with eligibility for a National Merit Scholarship, and only a little over half of those students will actually receive a scholarship, according to a briefing from the UC in conjunction with the academic council's resolution on the issue...<a href="Continued">/i</a></p>
<p>In my opinion, they shouldn't. A lot of people need that money and hey, why get rid of it? If they are going to get rid of it, then they should destroy all other awards in their admission process.</p>
<p>"UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale said some UC chancellors initially might have harbored concerns that, if they scrapped the National Merit program, they would lose out on talented students and be punished in the rankings published by such magazines as U.S. News & World Report. He called the decision "another move in the direction of doing what you think makes the most sense rather than be concerned about what it will mean for the rankings.""</p>
<p>"A lot of people need that money and hey, why get rid of it?"</p>
<p>A lot of people scoring high on the PSAT are those who can afford SAT prep school. Thus the rich have the advantage and will continue to always have the upper-hand.</p>