Bartleby007

@Philovitist: Geography? Is that what NMS is all about? If that's what it is, let's change the name of the competition to reflect it, e.g., the California State Merit Scholar competition, the North Dakota State Merit Scholar contest, etc. But then the scholarship would lose the cachet of the "national" moniker, wouldn't it?

In its current incarnation, the NMS competition attempts to "spread the wealth" artificially across the entire U.S. The fact of the matter is that educational resources (quality of teaching, opportunities, funding for teachers, after-school tutoring) are not evenly distributed across the country, within a given state, within a city/town, or even within a specific school.
If the point is to "reward merit in the context of one person's education resources," a far more compelling argument can be made for using socioeconomic status to stratify NMSF cut-offs.

RobD

It's a private company distributing scholarship money in the way they see fit. Part of the metric that NMSC uses to determine the selection index number for each state is to make sure that the percentage of NMSF for each state compared to the national total is roughly equivalent to the percentage of HS graduates for each state compared to the national total (that's why they don't just announce who's a NMSF at the same time they send letters to the top 50,000; they wait till after June so they have current national & state graduation numbers.)

If they changed to the top 16,000 scorers in the entire US, there are probably a few states that would have zero recipients and then the argument would be that it's not a "National" award then either as certain states wouldn't be represented. And the vast majority would be from NY, NJ, TX and CA. Companies & universities located in lower scoring states would have less incentive to be NSF sponsors if their local constituents wouldn't have a chance of making the cut.

Bartleby007

@RobD: Thanks for writing such a clear response.

I do understand that NMSC is a private company. Moreover, I see why NMSC might want to distribute NMS designation geographically...rather than make it solely merit-based. For the record, I don't blame regional NSF sponsors (large companies) one bit for wanting to fund students in their home states.

However, it's downright misleading to include the words "national" and "merit" in the name of the scholarship...and then, in an opaque process, base cut-offs on the student's state of residence (for the most part).

Why doesn't NMSC post the state cut-offs on its website...out in the open?

Why doesn't the company want people posting the annual state cut-offs on other Internet sites?
(I read that, at one point, NMSC pursued legal means to prevent websites, like College Confidential, from posting such information.)

It's no wonder that the top-tier colleges discount NMS designation as a regional award based primarily on the results of one sitting of a watered-down version of the SAT.

When I was at college, we'd joke that it would be difficult to throw a rock on campus and not hit an NMF scholar. Attaining NMSF/NMF/NMS status is not a big deal at all -- it's merely a positive side effect of good standardized test-taking ability.

Wolverine86

Bartleby...So by using your condescending dismissal of someone else's achievements as a basis for defining the quality of awards, the Presidential Scholars Program must also be only a "happy coincidence" and a "positive side effect"? Since the recipients only gain entry into consideration based on "good standardized test taking ability" and are only ever compared against other students from their own state, you must also consider them to be not worthy of being recipients of a nationally recognized merit award. Interesting that you'd have "so many" NM students at your college when they represent at most 1% of graduating seniors in any given year...but don't let the facts get in the way of you denegrating someone's accomplishments. Joking about throwing rocks and hitting NM kids is understandable (maybe) for college-age kids...but most people outgrow college. Obviously not everyone does.

Bartleby007

@Wolverine86: I think you've made a lot of assumptions and misinterpreted what I wrote.

Let me be clear about this. The way I feel about the scholarship program has no bearing at all on the way I feel about students who earned that scholarship.

If you're a student who has received NMS designation, good for you. Pat yourself on the back. You're a good standardized test-taker. If a school wants to give you a bunch of money to matriculate, take advantage of it...or at least choose the best college option for you.

If you're a student who missed the NMS cut-off in your state by the slimmest of margins, don't feel bad. It's not a big deal. Top-tier schools don't care. Presumably your SAT score will be very good (perhaps better than your PSAT score), and you'll do fairly well in the college admissions process.

The NMS selection process should be made more transparent. It is not strictly merit-based, which is what its name implies.

Oh, by the way, I received the NMF designation many years ago...and, yeah, my undergrad campus was filled with other NMFs. It doesn't change the way I feel about the flawed NMS selection process.

Have a great day! :-)

Wolverine86

Got it. Glad you clarified that. Doesn't sound condescending whatsoever.

As I said upthread, there's much more to it than just test scores and you do a disservice to all those kids by insinuating that they're one-dimensional.

Very few merit scholarships of any sort are strictly merit based. Check nearly any university website where they describe the requirements for their merit scholarships and you'll find GPA/Test Scores are only part of the equation...usually the entering argument. The rest depends on the individual scholarship, but holistic doesn't mean opaque. Actually, the majority of NM Scholars (5800 out of 8300) are awarded University sponsored or corporate scholarships and those are very transparent in their criteria IMO. I'll grant you the $2500 one-time awards are something of a mystery...but so are admissions to your coveted "top tier" schools. If you want to take pot-shots at programs, there's plenty of threads on those subjects to provide fresh targets for you.

Whether you choose to acknowledge or appreciate your own NMF status is your choice, but I congratulate you on achieving it nonetheless. You obviously worked hard and excelled in ALL facets of your HS studies, and you EARNED the recognition. If you think the process is "flawed" you're entitled to your opinion, but telling students it's "no big deal" and the scholarships they were awarded were the result of a "flawed" process is the definition of a back-handed compliment. Please Lucy...take the football and find another Charlie Brown thread to criticize.

Have a great day yourself!!

Bartleby007

I did nothing of the sort.
To clarify...
The awardees are not one-dimensional.
The criterium used for first-pass NMS selection is rather one-dimensional.
I absolutely agree that very few merit scholarships are strictly merit-based. I suppose that's why I find the name of the scholarship in question ("National Merit Scholarship") so amusing.
I took a test and did well on it. For this, I'm congratulated? Thank you...I think.

In case the OP is still monitoring the thread, let me reiterate the following:
Top-tier colleges really don't care about NMS designation. It means very little.

mom2collegekids

Some people have a problem with the word "national", but many national competitions begin at the state and lower levels, and those that "move forward" in each region/state are the better than some losers in other states.

the state science fair winners that go on to national are not all better than the losers in various states. But, in the end, it's a national competition.

jennieling

Bartleby007, your argument does not make sense. You say that the NMF is one-dimensional and just based on one's skill at standardized test-taking. Then you go on to say to the students who miss the NMSF cutoff : "Presumably your SAT score will be very good." So you are reassuring them that they have a good chance of getting into a top-tier school because their SAT score will be very good--ie that they will perform well on a "standardized test". So YOU are counting on standardized test-taking skill here, just a different standardized test! And how can you assume that a kid who has a low score on the PSAT will have a high score on the PSAT? Of course, many do--the SAT is often done a full year later, and the students are better prepared. But you can't assume that. Your logic doesn't make sense to me. Also, I agree with Wolverine that there is more to getting NMF than just test scores.

Bartleby007

@jennieling: I think we might have a reading comprehension issue here. Actually, I'm reassuring the students who barely missed the NMSF cut-off that they'll do well in the college admissions process...not that they'll have a good chance at getting into a top-tier college. Assuming that students will perform similarly on both the PSAT and SAT tests, a student who barely misses the NMSF cut-off score will probably score in the 2000-2200 range on the SAT. That's a solid score...and assumes no additional test prep work (between the taking of the PSAT and that of the SAT). With formal/informal test prep, it's certainly possible to bump up the SAT score higher than that. Of course, we are just talking about standardized test scores...which are not even the most important dimension of a student's application from the point of view of a college admissions committee.
Hmmm. Well, I never wrote that. Perhaps you meant to write the following:
"And how can you assume that a kid who has a low score on the PSAT will have a high score on the SAT?"
Even with the revised sentence above, the fact remains that I never wrote that. There's a difference between "a low score on the PSAT" and barely missing the NMSF score cut-off in a student's state of residence (or whatever NMSQT pool he/she is in).
For the record, I don't understand the logic underlying your post either. I hope I was able to clarify a few things in this post. Have a great day!

LonelyHapax

Personally, I thought NMSC was silly when I learned about it, and having gotten it I still think it's silly.

Getting a high PSAT score and qualifying to be a Finalist is indicative of a strong student. But I think a number of stronger students are unfairly eliminated when they might have significantly higher achievements academically and in other facets of their lives.

I should probably clarify my opening statement; NMSC can choose whatever method they'd like to distribute a scholarship. Every scholarship has to start eliminating based on their own criteria. What I don't agree with is being offered full rides or seriously lowered costs at many schools because of it. I wish colleges would offer all the funds they put into NMFs to the general admissions to be determined solely by merit. Instead they fight for Finalists so they can boast how many they have.

All Finalists are good students, but not all exceptional students are Finalists.

(Also, I agree the by-state thing isn't very fair. You could live in a rural middle-of-nowhere town, but if their is a major city in your state, you get no consideration for you achievement based on your available resources.)

~~~
To OP, I don't think the really top-tier schools hold it against you. They'll attract enough NFs without giving them preferential admissions. If you have strong SATs, GPA, and ECs, you have just as good a shot as any of them.

perazziman

US senators are elected by their respective states. So, are they state senators or US senators? If they are US senators then why are they not called state senators? I think you are making a bigger deal out of it than it is.