<p>thethoughtprocess: I don't actually think that NM differentiates that much among these scholarships. They simply say,
[quote]
Beginning in March and continuing to mid-June, NMSC notifies approximately 8,200 Finalists at their home addresses that they have been selected to receive a Merit Scholarship® award. Merit Scholarship awards are of three types:
<p>They don't pretend that one is more prestigious than another. They go on to say,
[quote]
Merit Scholarship awards are supported by some 500 independent sponsors and by NMSC's own funds. Sponsor organizations include corporations and businesses, company foundations, professional associations, and colleges and universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You should also know that plenty of students who score very high on the PSAT do not bother doing the extra work to apply for the limited number of NM Scholarships given. </p>
<p>Also, plenty of very fine and selective schools (both public and private) do offer NM scholarships. These are also often worth more, over 4 years, than the one time scholarship award, and no extra work is involved, except putting down the name of the school as your 1st choice school.</p>
<p>collegehelp, my bad. Cornell does very well with NMS (predictably).</p>
<p>Jack - There IS a difference. National Merit Scholars actually win the National Merit Scholarship...the 2500 award. This scholarship is given with no strings attached, straight cash (err...check).</p>
<p>College sponsored scholarships are for people who don't win the National Merit Scholarship, but instead have a certain PSAT score and reached the semifinalist stage (or finalist stage). These people are given money based on the agreement that they will attend a certain school. Corporate scholarships often depend on whether your parent is an employee. These are not as prestigious nor as difficult to obtain as a true National Merit Scholar.</p>
<p>Again, the NMS distinguishes between the three. It has a seperate list for corporate scholarships, and indicates college sponsored scholarships with an *.</p>
<p>Thanks, but I know the difference; I provided you the link (remember?), so that you could see that while NM might distinguish among the three (because they are separate), they do <em>not</em> make the distinction that one is "better" or more "prestigious" than another. <em>You</em> may consider this more prestigious, but I don't think NM does. This is why I provided you the link and put their words in a box for you, so you could see that.</p>
<p>Once again, plenty of students who score very high (and have the rest of the package to go with it) do not bother with the extra work required for the NM Scholarships (not college or corporate-sponsored) for a one time check of $2500. They simply don't bother. This is especially true if the student knows he or she will attend a university that gives college-sponsored scholarships (and the student names that school as his/her 1st choice school). That money is also in the form of a check every year, or every semester, and usually is more money over 4 years than a one time check of $2500 (and requires no extra work). No strings attached, either, since the student presumably wants to go the school that's giving the check. Whew.</p>
<p>And just how exactly do you know how many of the NMS for each school are corporate sponsored then? If you really want to be picky about it, then I guess you need to further screen them out to get the number of what you called "true" NMS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
College sponsored scholarships are for people who don't win the National Merit Scholarship, but instead have a certain PSAT score and reached the semifinalist stage (or finalist stage).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All Merit Scholarship winner are chosen from the 15,000 finalists, not semi-finalists. Did you try to throw that out there just to exaggerate the difference? Regardless if they are "true" or not, they are all at least NM Finalists and I doubt there's really much difference among them.</p>
<p>First, the cutoff for national merit semifinalists (and finalists, since about 15,000 of the 16,000 semifinalists become finalists) varies wildly by state. A PSAT of 206 will get you NMSF stature in Arizona, but you need a 224 in Massachussetts.</p>
<p>Second, only about one-fifth (2,500 of the 15,000 NMFs) become scholars via the NM Foundation. The rest (about 5,000) become ordained by individual schools.</p>
<p>This means that every NMF who attends Arizona State University can become a NM <em>Scholar</em> if ASU gives them at least $500/yr. This may be why ASU has such a high number of NM Scholars (189), and why less than one-fifth of them (30) are not school-sponsored. It looks like every NM Finalist enrolled became a NM <em>Scholar</em>.</p>
<p>Compare that to Harvard, where 294 NM scholars enrolled last year, none school-sponsored. Using the same logic, there are probably 4-5 times as many NM finalists at Harvard as there are scholars, which would put there number over 1,000 if they gave school-sponsored scholarships to all of their NM finalists...</p>
<p>So is it fair to rank schools by total # of NM "scholars" when for some schools this means just the NM sponsored scholars, and for some others it means NM sponsored scholars PLUS almost all if not all NM finalists?</p>
[quote]
IMO the schools that are using their own money to attract these NMS Finalists should be applauded and recognized for their efforts and their success in attracting these students.
[/quote]
It does matter that schools that offer their own National Merit scholarships are attracting these top students, but, the fact remains that the students with school-sponsored National Merit scholarships have undergone no greater competition for the award than that required to become a finalist. To compare fairly you must compare students who have undergone the same degree of competition (ie, compare the total number of National Merit finalists, rather than just scholarship winners, or compare only the numbers of scholars chosen by the NMSC itself). As an example, I was a NMF who did not receive a National Merit scholarship. Had I gone to a school, the University of Florida, for instance (to use a school with a large number of National Merit Scholars), I would have been a scholarship winner. This would in no way make me a better student, or cause me to add more to the quality of the student body. If I would count as a NMS for UF (or ASU, UT, etc) for the purposes of comparing the number of NMS in the student body, than I should count at my current school. If I do not count at my current school, then someone who essentially reached the same level in the competition as I did should not count at UF or UT or ASU. Basically, these numbers are only useful as a standard of comparison when there is a standardized level at which to compare.</p>
<p>I suggest everyone take a look at this data, from the Chronicle of Higher Education, which reports the total # of Merit scholars at 94 colleges in 2005: the source is the National Merit Scholarship Corporation: I have copied the link below.</p>
<p>This table shows the 94 colleges enrolling 20 or more freshman Merit Scholars named in 2005, and the number of freshman Merit Scholars enrolled in those institutions in 2004.</p>
<p>For the fall of 2005, the table shows the total number of Merit Scholarship winners at each institution and the number whose scholarships were paid for by the institution, not by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation or other corporate sponsors. The rankings were determined by The Chronicle from an alphabetical listing appearing in the 2004-5 annual report of the National Merit Scholarship Corporation.</p>
<p>Over all, 8,299 freshman Merit Scholars were enrolled in the fall of 2005 -- 4,963 at 227 private colleges and 3,336 at 138 public institutions.</p>
<p>College / #2005 scholars /Total Sponsored by college/ #2004 total </p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard U. 287 0 312 </li>
<li>U. of Texas at Austin 262 202 242 </li>
<li>Yale U. 232 0 224 </li>
<li>U. of Florida 230 188 259 </li>
<li>Stanford U. 194 0 217 </li>
<li>U. of Southern California 190 159 183 </li>
<li>U. of Chicago 187 139 198 </li>
<li>Princeton U. 180 0 192 </li>
<li>Vanderbilt U. 175 133 144 </li>
<li>Northwestern U. 174 133 152 </li>
<li>Washington U. in St. Louis 169 120 197 </li>
<li>Rice U. 163 104 173 </li>
<li>Arizona State U. 156 136 162 </li>
<li>U. of Oklahoma 146 111 170 </li>
<li>U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 138 107 135 </li>
<li>Texas A&M U. at College Station 136 101 128 </li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology 131 0 134 </li>
<li>Duke U. 117 0 90 </li>
<li>New York U. 113 95 150 </li>
<li>U. of California at Los Angeles 113 92 115 </li>
<li>Brigham Young U. 110 73 118 </li>
<li>U. of Arizona 103 86 76 </li>
<li>U. of Pennsylvania 101 0 91 </li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology 100 71 104 </li>
<li>Ohio State U. 97 77 99 </li>
<li>Carleton College 89 72 82 </li>
<li>Purdue U. 86 66 69 </li>
<li>U. of Tulsa 83 61 66 </li>
<li>Columbia U. 71 0 41 </li>
<li>U. of Kansas 71 55 57 </li>
<li>U. of Alabama at Tuscaloosa 68 55 30 </li>
<li>Baylor U. 66 55 45 </li>
<li>Boston U. 66 44 56 </li>
<li>Dartmouth College 64 0 47 </li>
<li>Case Western Reserve U. 63 46 55 </li>
<li>Brown U. 62 0 57 </li>
<li>U. of Nebraska at Lincoln 60 51 65 </li>
<li>U. of Michigan at Ann Arbor 59 0 47 </li>
<li>U. of Minnesota-Twin Cities 59 44 51 </li>
<li>Harvey Mudd College 57 45 48 </li>
<li>Emory U. 56 41 59 </li>
<li>Iowa State U. 53 36 69 </li>
<li>Oberlin College 53 42 52 </li>
<li>Tufts U. 53 48 64 </li>
<li>Macalester College 51 37 46 </li>
<li>Johns Hopkins U. 50 29 48 </li>
<li>Michigan State U. 50 35 44 </li>
<li>U. of Arkansas at Fayetteville 50 38 47 </li>
<li>U. of California at Berkeley 50 0 67 </li>
<li>U. of Georgia 49 39 65 </li>
<li>U. of Notre Dame 49 0 52 </li>
<li>Tulane U. 46 38 57 </li>
<li>Grinnell College 45 36 47 </li>
<li>California Institute of Technology 44 0 51 </li>
<li>U. of Maryland at College Park 44 32 36 </li>
<li>Georgetown U. 42 0 30 </li>
<li>Louisiana State U. at Baton Rouge 41 32 36 </li>
<li>St. Olaf College 41 36 50 </li>
<li>U. of South Carolina at Columbia 40 32 39 </li>
<li>U. of California at San Diego 39 31 46 </li>
<li>U. of Kentucky 39 29 34 </li>
<li>U. of Washington 38 26 36 </li>
<li>North Carolina State U. 37 27 23 </li>
<li>U. of Mississippi 36 27 29 </li>
<li>U. of Virginia 36 0 33 </li>
<li>Cornell U. 35 0 42 </li>
<li>Furman U. 32 22 29 </li>
<li>Mississippi State U. 32 23 31 </li>
<li>U. of Miami 32 24 19 </li>
<li>U. of Rochester 32 26 27 </li>
<li>U. of Texas at Dallas 32 26 38 </li>
<li>Clemson U. 31 23 35 </li>
<li>George Washington U. 31 25 28 </li>
<li>U. of Iowa 30 25 26 </li>
<li>Auburn U. 29 25 26 </li>
<li>Kenyon College 29 25 30 </li>
<li>U. of Wisconsin at Madison 29 5 32 </li>
<li>Wheaton College (Ill.) 29 20 33 </li>
<li>U. of Richmond 27 20 24 </li>
<li>U. of South Florida 26 22 18 </li>
<li>Washington and Lee U. 26 20 27 </li>
<li>American U. 25 20 17 </li>
<li>Bowdoin College 24 19 26 </li>
<li>Amherst College 23 0 21 </li>
<li>U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 23 0 26 </li>
<li>U. of Utah 23 21 16 </li>
<li>Williams College 23 0 31 </li>
<li>Calvin College 22 19 20 </li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon U. 22 0 19 </li>
<li>Pennsylvania State U. at University Park 22 5 21 </li>
<li>Marquette U. 21 16 16 </li>
<li>Pomona College 21 6 33 </li>
<li>U. of Tennessee at Knoxville 21 16 24 </li>
<li>Swarthmore College 20 0 27
SOURCE: National Merit Scholarship Corporation
l</li>
</ol>
<p>What Sarahsdad said, and svalbardlutefisk. It needs to be a standardized measurement. The best way to compare is to go through the list provided by NMS, then take out college sponsored ones. </p>
<p>You can't compare schools based on college sponsored scholarships. If you are looking at NMS to indicate how strong the student body is, you should look at only NMS scholarship winners, not college sponsored, otherwise this would put schools who don't use college sponsored scholarships at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>jack is absolutely correct. I am amazed at the individual interpretations that some people here are making about the NMS. First of all you should know that the Foundation does not make the so called distinction about prestige that some of you are implying. The FINAL GOAL of the program is to reach FINALIST status (just call them and the will confirm it). There is not enough money for every body, so they go into the three different possibilities of giving the money out. It has nothing to do with more "prestige" or not.</p>
<p>Also, remember that at the time the students get their acceptance letters, they are still in SEMIFINALIST status. The universities, nor the students know yet if they are going to make it all the way to the end. Therefore, to make the analysis and conclusions that some of you are drawing here is absolutely ridiculous.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess: Your distinction is very similar to how I feel about the SAT. I personally think students who do really well in one sitting (once in one sitting) are inherently smarter than the students who take it multiple times, and then they and the schools have to take their highest scores from several sittings to come up with a combined high score (and then report it). So, I think a distinction should be made there, too-- you know, if you want to really look at "how strong the student body is" at a particular school.</p>
<p>Also, getting back to the PSAT. Are we going to make a distinction on which schools have students from Arkansas or Mississippi, or some of these other states where the PSAT score doesn't have to be very high, and compare them to kids from NY or CA, where the score has to be higher, and break them out from the rest, too? After all, the NM Scholarships (not college or corporate sponsored) are given by each state, right? So, you know, in Arkansas, for instance, it might be easier to get one than, say, in NY. And while we're at it, I think we ought to discount small states, like Delaware or Rhode Island. You know it's got to be easier to be awarded one in those states than in, say, CA. So, I don't think we ought to include them, either. </p>
<p>Let's start making some real distinctions here. This would really tell us how strong the student body is, don't you think?</p>
<p>Yeah, but thats too complicated, whereas college-sponsored NMS are already conveniently listed separately (courtesy of the National Merit Scholarship Competition - who also make the distinction. Hence, the * by every school that has college sponsored scholarships). </p>
<p>Most people applying to private schools don't find out about scholarships or admission until the spring of senior year, so if they applied to more than two schools (or any private schools not known for NMS) I'd expect them to want to compete for the final scholarship.</p>
<p>Either way, the only useful comparison to be made from the NMS data is the number of non-college and non-corporate sponsored scholarships (ie National Merit Scholarships granted by the NMSC). This is the only standardized measure available. </p>
<p>Otherwise, one could pretend that Florida attracts more National Merit Scholars than Harvard. In fact, I've received literature from Florida saying that it attracts more NMS than any school but Harvard, as if it attracted more than Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc. which was patently untrue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The number of NMS (college/corporation sponsored should not be included) in a class reflects on the strength of student body
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the underlying assumption you made. You were saying the number of NMF (college sponsored or not, they are all NMFs) doesn't reflect the strength of student body but that of non-college/non corporation sponsored NMS does (the list you prefer includes corporation sponsored; so in a way, that shouldn't really be used either according to you). Let's just say I agree with you that there's difference in "prestige" among the three. But I'd still argue the number of NMF reflects that just as well. That's like comparing 2 teams, one with 8 golds and 6 silvers versus one with 10 golds and 2 silvers. Which one is a better team? One can easily make a case the one with 6 silvers is better because it's a "deeper" team. It really just depends on how much weight one puts on each. Last year at the Big10 swimming, Northwestern was fourth despite winning the most individual events. It has the fastest few guys but it didn't have enough depth. Minnesota claimed the title without winning an individual event.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess: No, not because you're disagreeing with me, but because you're making ridiculously arbitrary distinctions. My post was meant to be sarcastic (though not the part about the SAT--I was serious about that). Maybe you were kidding, but your response to my post sounded as though you'd love to make the NM distinctions I suggested, if you only had the data (ie, if the work had already been completed for you).</p>
<p>As has been stated before, NM itself does not make the distinction that one scholarship is "more prestigious" than another. And to be honest, I'm not even sure that the limited number that schools do have (from any of the 3 categories) tells you anything about the overall strength of the student body. We're talking a fairly small number of students, among thousands, at these schools-- so few, that you may never have a class with any of them over a 4 year period.</p>
<p>Let me add one more time here, too, that plenty of students who score very high on the PSAT (and have everything else to go with that) do not ever bother applying for this one-time $2500 award. This would be especially true for students who know they will be going to a school that sponsors the NM scholarships, where--over a 4 year period--what they receive monetarily will usually be more than $2500.</p>
<p>NMS is just one of many, many ways to compare schools. The distinction to separate college-sponsored from regular NMS was made not just arbitrarily by me - but by the NMSC, who conveniently provided a list that notes a separate number for each.</p>
<p>I just prefer to keep things standardized when comparing schools. You'll see # of NMS winners have a high correlation with almost every other aspect of a University (in terms of student body strength). Also, PSAT scores correlate highly with SAT scores, so the "by state" idea you had sort of works. Just compare the SAT scores for a school with National Merit Scholars. You'll again see a very strong correlation.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess: But YOU are the one making the distinction that one NM scholarship award is more prestigious than another, and that the student who is awarded one is somehow more scholarly ("better" all around) than the student who is awarded one of the other NM scholarships. That's an assumption on your part, (and you know what they say about assumptions). You really are making a distinction that exists only in your head. If that makes you happy and convinces you of something, then great. I guess. I would be willing to bet the ranch, though, that these students are all very similar academically.</p>
<p>One other comment-- Sam Lee's point is well taken--that the corporation-sponsored ones should be excluded from your list as well.</p>
<p>Well, we'll just agree to disagree, then. NM itself does not make the distinction that one is better or more prestigious than another, but you go right ahead if it makes you feel better. (Out of curiosity, were you awarded any of these scholarships?)</p>
<p>Once again, yet another quote from the NM site:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Merit Scholarship awards are supported by some 500 independent sponsors and by NMSC's own funds. Sponsor organizations include corporations and businesses, company foundations, professional associations, and colleges and universities.