Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status of National Merit Scholars

[println]

<p>After recently receiving my PSAT scores and realizing that I made National Merit Semifinalist in my state (TX), I was curious about the ethnicity and socioeconomic status and general standing of National Merit Scholars in general. </p>

<p>I am Asian and have noticed quite a few Asian people making semifinalist and most of the rest would be white since both Hispanic and black students would qualify for their own National Hispanic and National Achievement programs. </p>

<p>I also noticed how once while in Louisiana, one of the high schools I saw (admittedly in a not very affluent area) actually had a massive 50 foot tall poster of its lone National Merit Scholar in its graduating class while my school (relatively very affluent) usually has quite a few. </p>

<p>Even UT Austin took away the 13K it used to give to all National Merit scholars since it realized that only about 5% or so of them actually had any demonstrated need, so it would make more sense for the university to redistribute the millions spent on the students who don’t need any aid to those who do, which is a good idea IMO (although I do want the money…)</p>

<p>I’m also slightly annoyed how black and hispanic students get to have much lower cutoffs for their own programs which have the same prestige yet Asian and white and students of other ethnicity do not. I mean, isn’t America supposed to be a meritocracy rather than a place run by affirmative action?</p>

<p>So I guess I just want to know if anyone has any thoughts on this? </p>

<p>Sorry if I came off as racist or prejudiced, but these are just my observations.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>I’m gonna both NMSF and NHRP.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>*I’m gonna become both a NMSF and NHRP scholar.</p>

[mifune]

<p>NM consideration is equally entitled to all regardless of racial and economic status. However, NHRP is available exclusively for minority students and is basically an offshoot of NM, but with a lower standard (~190).</p>

<p>

I also noticed how once while in Louisiana, one of the high schools I saw (admittedly in a not very affluent area) actually had a massive 50 foot tall poster of its lone National Merit Scholar in its graduating class

</p>

<p>That is hard to fathom considering that NMSF/NMF usually has a 210 threshold for consideration (to put it in idiomatic terms, its not a “big deal”). In fact, at many universities NMSF/NMF is a very generic accomplishment.</p>

<p>

I’m also slightly annoyed how black and hispanic students get to have much lower cutoffs for their own programs which have the same prestige yet Asian and white and students of other ethnicity do not. I mean, isn’t America supposed to be a meritocracy rather than a place run by affirmative action?

</p>

<p>I completely agree and I deeply share your same concern. Have you read this thread on the Yale forum: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/830524-quadruplets-admitted-yale-49.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/830524-quadruplets-admitted-yale-49.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>

Sorry if I came off as racist or prejudiced, but these are just my observations.

</p>

<p>No, not at all. There is nothing biased or incorrect for noticing the prejudice that is inherent within current admission practices at elite universities. Proponents of AA simply construe any arguments made against the policy as racially motivated as if one holds some subconscious stupefaction regarding his or her own innate feelings of superiority (which is complete rubbish as an argument).</p>