<p>Thought this was interesting in this morning’s Orlando Sentinel:</p>
<p>Top 10 universities attracting National Merit Scholarship winners followed by the number of recruited/enrolled scholars:</p>
<li>Harvard University – 312</li>
<li>University of Florida – 259</li>
<li>University of Texas – 242</li>
<li>Yale University – 224</li>
<li>Stanford University – 217</li>
<li>University of Chicago – 198</li>
<li>Washington University at St. Louis – 197</li>
<li>Princeton University – 192</li>
<li>University of Southern California – 183</li>
<li>University of Oklahoma-- 170</li>
</ol>
<p>According to the article, this was for students recruited for the 2004-2005 school year. It’s not surprising to see so many top scorers at highly-ranked private schools that don’t offer merit aid (many of these students, of course, also receive need-based aid). Some of the schools on the list have generous additional scholarship programs for NMS winners - apparently a very effective recruiting tool!</p>
<p>which is several years old, includes the "per capita" statistic related to National Merit Scholars. It also draws a distinction between enrollees who have "independent" scholarships, scholarships not tied to a particular school, and those who were induced to go to one school or another by the scholarship offer.</p>
<p>I know this topic has been discussed to death on CC, but given the chance for a full ride at a fine institution vs. no merit aid at an Ivy, there would be no hesitation here, no matter what the per-capita numbers are. HOWEVER, you still need a good fit. UT is just too big, I think. It would do no good to take a full scholarship, be unhappy, and have to endure 200-person classes. If a less-known name school is selected, make sure there's an Honors program that could provvide you into benefits like smaller classes or first-choice registration.</p>
<p>I guess the Pres of OK will need to update his commercial -- last night during the the Orange Bowl, a UOk commercial was broadcast whereby the Pres said that THEY had the most NMF's of any public univ. Or maybe he doesnt' consider Tx in the same academic category. LOL</p>
<p>"I guess the Pres of OK will need to update his commercial -- last night during the the Orange Bowl, a UOk commercial was broadcast whereby the Pres said that THEY had the most NMF's of any public univ. Or maybe he doesnt' consider Tx in the same academic category. LOL"</p>
<p>Maybe the number are just old. They've been making a push for more NMFs lately and they offer a full scholarship compared to the roughly 1/2 tuition UT offers.</p>
<p>BTW, it's interesting to compare the Laissez-Faire list of schools with the most externally sponsored NM winners to the schools with the most NMF attending on the Carleton website. Both are for students entering college in 2002 if I understand correctly. (I guess not, the numbers differ for Harvard. Probably a year apart.)</p>
<p>The Carleton list, with percentage of students that are NMF is a much more meaningful statistic, as texastaximom stated. If you had to choose between very good (not superb... say 1450-1500) SATS and being a NMF vs not being a NM anything and having 1550-1580 SATS, which would you choose?? Give it some thought before you answer. Importance of Financial incentives vs admission to reach schools? Which do you think is more important to the schools and why?</p>
<p>I'd take the national merit - there are loads of schools where I can get a good education, and i'd love to have the money to use for a stellar medical school. But the best, of course, is do do well on PSATs and SATs!</p>
<p>Now now Jen, stop thinking outside the box :D Also, you note i did not give the option of getting a perfect 1600 . Won't it be weird when after this spring we have to talk in terms of 2400 scores, and 1600 will be a poor performance !!</p>
<p>I did not in fact notice that you didn't give 1600 as an option - perhaps this was because i think that 1580 and 1600 are virtually equivalent. Statistically this is true, and i think colleges recognize that - but perhaps this is getting off topic.</p>
<p>To put this back on topic - I have to agree that the carleton list is more meaningful to me.</p>
<p>I had my son give me the list of corporations that offer NM scholarships from the packet he got last year. Turns out the list of colleges who offer scholarships was on the next page. Got me thinking. Given that 99% of those corporations are only giving to the children of their employees, why would a scholarship from a college be any less impressive. Everyone's working their own angle on this. </p>
<p>As for a college buying NM scholars this way, I guess I'm OK with that. A school's entitled to encourage highly qualified students that way. This is just one of the most visiable examples of them doing it. It can't be an entirely bad thing since it certainly doesn't hurt the kids.</p>
<p>My niece, who is a National Merit Scholar attends the University Of Texas. She turned down several other schools(with nice finanacial offers), including one ivy. She is part of the Plan II Honors Program. From what I can tell this program has an outstanding national reputation and none of her classes are in the 200 range about which you speak. She visited all her admitted schools and liked this program and the opportunities it presented the best. I am guessing most of the other National Merit Scholars at Texas are also part of this program.</p>
<p>I heard that Plan II Honors at UT takes about 180 students per year. That is a great gig if you can get it. My son's friend is a NMF at UT and he did not get into Plan II. He has several huge survey classes. </p>
<p>My point was that UT was listed as having more NMF total....but they also have more students total. I was interested in a per capita stat.</p>
<p>I am curious why Oklahoma would have so many national merit finalists. Why would a NMF want to go there of all places unless they have a boat load of money for these people and are simply "buying" these NSF kids.</p>
<p>OU as well as UT, USC and U of F all offer significant money to NM Finalists, don't know about WUSL, but rather than saying they are buying NMF, I'd call it offering merit scholarships. Why not try to attract scholars as well as athletes in this way?</p>
<p>Yeh, University of Oklahoma has an enormous incentive package and sent me a metric ton of mail about it (I'm a semi-finalist and should be hearing soon about finalist). It's tough to turn down soooo much money, especially as the scholarships offered by the actual NMS-corporation-thing are really puny in comparison. My mom won one when she went to college, and said that they've barely changed in value since then. I'm pretty much hoping that it makes me more desirable overall to colleges that offer merit aid regardless of NMF status.</p>
<p>I remember when my older son became a NM finalist, he had full ride offers from Oklahoma and Alaska (don't remember which college there, if there are several). He ended up going to Stanford on need-based aid, because it had the programs he wanted, and the others did not. I can't deny there was a certain temptation, however!</p>
<p>You need to look at how huge universities concentrate their best students. The are often honors programs and residential colleges that acy as virtual schools withing schools at a number of state flagships. Sometimes a student can get the best of all possible worlds at big State U. depending on his qualifications and major. The Ivy's and the elite private schools do not have a monopoly on the best students or on the best faculty - especially in the sciences and engineering.</p>
<p>The connections you make in Big State U can also be better than an Ivy or elite LAC particularly for some of the sciences, engineering, and computer science.</p>