<p>^^ Because they have the fewest proportional semifinalists, so only the tippy-top is chosen–and that tippy-top is high-scoring.</p>
<p>Classic bimodal distribution</p>
<p>As has been pointed out in the previous posts, number of students who make SF depends upon total number of students who are in HS, not those who take the exam. For example, if there are 3 states with 100, 200 and 300 students and top 10% are taken, then each state should send 10,20 and 30 students respectively. Let us say that only 50 students take the exam in the first state, 180 students in the second state and 300 students in the third state. So in the first state, 10 students out of 50 (20% of the students) get selected and in the second state 20 out of 180 (a little more than 11% of the students) get selected etc. Assuming that distribution of scores is same across the states, it stands to reason that in state 1 the cut off score will be less than state 3 as you are actually taking the top 20% of test takers in state 1 instead of the top 10%.</p>
<p>I did a quick analysis of 2008 results and found that proportion of SF to total students was about .65% in NY (DC, International and some of the New England States were all in this range) and about 2.25% in Utah (with MO, KS in this range). This tells me that a larger proportion of HS school students take this examination in say NY or Washington DC as opposed to say MO, or UT. So it appears that a students chances of making in SF is very much related to how popular the PSAT test is in their state. If the PSAT was mandatory in all states, then scores would be around a much narrower range as compared to today.</p>
<p>It seems hard to believe that International, DC and Boarding Schools all come out exactly the same as Massachusetts every year. It seems instead as if these groups are being measured against the population of Massachusetts and that these children are being denied opportunities given to the rest of the country.</p>
<p>Everyone keeps posting a link to the pdf nation merit leaflet. The file is damaged and can not be repaired. Has anyone else tried accessing the link themselves?</p>
<p>-Thanks for the support on the editing of the phrase “black people”, guys. I already sent a message to CT Mom1 explaining my stance on the issue, but I’d like to add one thing. It’s stupid to get all worked up over something as trivial as this, when actual racism still occurs in this country on a daily basis. It’s people like her that feel some moral obligation to make a ruckus over something like this that makes it hard to move forward in racial relations. For crying out loud, we say “white people” all the time. CT Mom1, your behavior is a little patronizing to black people, although you may not realize it.</p>
<p>I can explain for boarding schools. NM has created regions for boarding schools with a high percent boarders and below a certain percent (I don’t know what this is) of residents from the state in which the school resides. In other words, a boarding school with a high percent of day students probably participates in NM for the state in which it resides. For example, Loomis Chaffee uses the CT scores. </p>
<p>I don’t know all the regions, but I do know that the New England and Mid-Atlantic states form a region. Within that region, NM uses the state with the highest hurdle, which has been MA. </p>
<p>Perhaps they use the highest hurdle for internationals and DC. I think MA is usually the highest hurdle.</p>
<p>Here is the proportion of test takers to SF in 2008. These are the corrected figures. Therefore in New York, there were 861 SF for 148416 test takers (.58%). In UT there were 160 SF for 4270 test takers (3.75%). The other selection units (international, boarding schools, Washington DC etc) was 1.06% which is compared to the national average of 1.09%. So we would expect the other selection units to have a higher cut off, but there may be variations within that group. I would expect that almost 100% of the students in a boarding school will take the test.</p>
<p>Propotion of PSAT Test Takers to semi- finalists in 2008<br>
New York 0.58
Rhode Island 0.62
Maryland 0.64
Indiana 0.65
Massachusetts 0.68
Connecticut 0.72
New Jersey 0.74
Delaware 0.78
North Carolina 0.79
Virginia 0.84
New Hampshire 0.85
Maine 0.85
Texas 0.89
Pennsylvania 0.93
Vermont 0.99
Georgia 1.02
Other Selection Units 1.06
Hawaii 1.07
South Carolina 1.15
Oregon 1.15
Florida 1.16
California 1.21
Colorado 1.23
District of Columbia 1.27
Washington 1.27
Nevada 1.28
Montana 1.29
Ohio 1.33
Illinois 1.57
Michigan 1.59
Kansas 1.61
South Dakota 1.62
Minnesota 1.63
Kentucky 1.65
Tennessee 1.65
Arizona 1.66
Nebraska 1.68
Alabama 1.71
Idaho 1.72
Alaska 1.72
Wisconsin 1.75
Wyoming 1.76
North Dakota 1.89
Iowa 2.11
Arkansas 2.17
Mississippi 2.18
West Virginia 2.20
New Mexico 2.20
Louisiana 2.26
Oklahoma 2.33
Missouri 2.45
Utah 3.75</p>
<p>TOTAL 1.09</p>
<p>Just a thought:
“When students don’t’ know when to stop…”
It reminds me another thread titled “Rudeness “on the rise…””</p>
<p>So, is this selection method fair?</p>
<p>Question was "So, is this selection method fair? "</p>
<p>The answer depends on who you talk to. People in the less populated states or states with higher number of residents above the poverty line would say “Yes it is fair as we should not be discriminated if less students take the test due to geography or because there is not enough coaching as compared to say the New England states etc.”</p>
<p>On the other hand for a child who gets 223 and does not get selected but someone with 201 in a different state gets selected, it is unfair. Both sides have a valid point. Therefore the question is how can the college board make the variation in scores between one state and another smaller while at the same time keeping some sense of proportion (avoiding a situation such that 50% of the winners are from three or four states).</p>
<p>There are I am sure several ways. A poster earlier on suggested that half the SF number (say 8000) be distributed on straight cut off basis (without wondering about the state) and remaining be distributed on a proportionate basis. Another could be to have a range rather than absolute proportion. For example, a state cut off should be between .9 to 1.3%. So a State like NY which has .58 will have the number of SF increased and state like UT or MO will have their numbers decreased. States and school boards should have some incentive to have more students take such tests and hence any change in formula should encourage that behavior. I am sure members of this forum will have other good ideas on the SF selection can be changed.</p>
<p>Unfortunately any system will unfair to someone and subject to criticism. Hence NMSC has taken an easy way out, which is clearly very unfair to some students. It is unlikely that NMSC will change unless there is a public uproar.</p>
<p>In the case of internationals they for the most part do not fit in the category of wealthy states with lots of access to coaching, etc. Most internationals attend International Schools or Department of Defense schools. These kids have lived all over the world and speak many languages. Often English is not their first or best language. Many have parents in the government or armed forces.</p>
<p>As to whether this is fair or not, let’s all remember that the National Merit Corporation is a non-profit corporation giving away money with no government assistance. It’s their money. They can choose to give it away any way they want. The corporations and colleges that participate also do so of their own choosing. This is free money. There are many other scholarship opportunities, and all of them also have requirements (good grades, financial need, athletic ability, etc). If someone is giving away money, they ought to be able to decide how to do it. If I were giving away my money and I wanted to give to students in all 50 states, but then there was a public uproar about my method, I would just yank the whole program. The National Merit Corporation, whether you like the method or not, is GIVING AWAY MONEY!</p>
<p>zmaster, are you referring to my post #700? It works fine for me and always has, just had last year’s dates until recently.</p>
<p>Barfly, I couldn’t agree more (and btw, my daughter just missed the cutoff). As ckohsa said, any system is going to be deemed “unfair” to someone–especially in the world of college entrance and scholarship opportunities. If NMC wants to do it this way, that’s their perogative. It is the colleges and universities that control the big $$$ if they choose to give to NMFs. They’re the ones who have made this the recognition standard, beyond SAT and ACT scores. And they could change the policy if they wanted, and only give money to top scorers, but they, too, often want geographic diversity. I just consider it a great opportunity for those who get it. If it all went away, that’s one less merit opportunity out there…that’s just my opinion, for what it’s worth.</p>
<p>Actually I agree with both Barfly and rvsfranklin that NMSC has the absolute right to choose their own criteria and geographic diversity is very important. Also, the criteria is known up front, a student in MA should be know going in that competition in his/her state is going to a lot more intense than WY and be prepared for it. It also has to be pointed out that some corporations give scholarships to those who did not meet the cut off but meet their criteria (special scholarships). </p>
<p>So may be my statement about public outcry was not appropriate. However, this does not mean there is someone out in this forum or the general public who still feels it is unfair.</p>
<p>I agree Barfly:
“Don’t bite the hand that feeds you Meaning: It is not be a good idea to hurt the person (or company) that pays you or takes care of you.”</p>
<p>I’m from CT and I’m a semi-finalist with a score of 224 (hoping to move on to finalist with my score of 2400 on the May SAT!). However, I attend a boarding school (Westminster), and I’m not sure if we use the CT cut-off or boarding school cut-off.</p>
<p>Answer313, Posts #210 and #707 above may help. if you haven’t already seen them. You may have to ask your achool for this determination. Btw, did you by any chance hear of any lower scores that also made the cutoff? I am hoping a 220 could have made it!</p>
<p>I know there is a minimum SAT score that must be met to move on to finalist but does the higher ones SAT increase ones chances of becoming a finalist? Also, if you make the semifinalist cutoff score by 10 are you chances better than someone who just made the cutoff? Is the essay used for advancing to finalist or is it just used to determine who is a scholar? The national merit site is clear as mud to me.</p>