<p>
hehehe 
good one. Dartmouth’s tradition of giving America bad treasury secretaries continues!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Reginaldo Howard Memorial Scholarship is listed under Duke’s category of ‘merit’ scholarships. So maybe you should take it up with Duke by telling them that that scholarship, by definition, is not really a ‘merit’ scholarship. Somehow I don’t think they are going to make any changes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But then how would you really know that those scholarships are using those factors or not? Many merit scholarships won’t tell you exactly what factors were used to determine the winners. Maybe somebody won truly through pure academic merit. Or maybe somebody won through affirmative action. Who knows? Nobody really knows. </p>
<p>Besides, I actually think there may be some justification for affirmative action, despite the myriad problems in its application. After all, not every student is raised in an environment conducive to academic success. Not every student has responsible parents that value education, live in neighborhoods that are safe from gangsters and drugs, or attend vibrant schools that foster a love of learning. A student who perseveres through those drawbacks may actually demonstrate more merit than somebody else who enjoyed every advantage in the world - i.e. who had parents who instilled a love of education from early childhood, who lived in the wealthiest neighborhoods, who went to the best prep schools, who had access to the best tutors. Put him in the same place as the other kid, and he might have ended up not caring about school and drifting into a life of crime. </p>
<p>It all gets down to what we really mean by ‘merit’. Does merit truly mean to succeed because you have enjoyed every advantage in the world, or does it mean to succeed in spite of numerous disadvantages? More importantly, from a company’s standpoint, who would you rather hire? I might argue that the company might hire the latter student, as, if nothing else, that student has clearly demonstrated resilience in the face of despair. We don’t really know what the privileged student will do when faced with setbacks. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then that may mean discounting awards like the Rhodes Scholarship. After all, they are apportioned by geography. For example, Canada is allotted 11 Rhodes Scholarship slots and the US is allotted 32 despite the fact that the population of the US is about 10x that of Canada. Those slots are also allotted on the basis of citizenship to educational residence. Hence, a Canadian who goes to Harvard is eligible for a Canadian Rhodes Scholarship. </p>
<p>The 32 US Rhodes Scholarships are themselves apportioned by subregional geographies, and, let’s face it, certain regions are less academically competitive than others. I believe Bill Clinton himself admitted that it was easier for him to win the Rhodes Scholarship because his Arkansas residency meant that he was competing in Region 11 that includes Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, and Kansas - states that, honestly, aren’t exactly academic hotbeds. The toughest region is probably #16, which is the entire state of California.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, actually, according to USNews, for undergrad, Harvard engineering actually outranks WUSTL. That’s right - for engineering.</p>
<p>For grad school, Harvard engineering outranks JHU, Rice, and Duke. Again, yes, we’re talking about engineering.</p>
<p>Harvard is actually a very good engineering school, when you consider that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of engineering programs out there, most of them being lower-tier no-name programs. That’s especially so when you consider the fact that Harvard engineering students have full cross-register access to MIT, which is arguably the best engineering school in the world. Engineering students at JHU, WUSTL, Rice, or Duke certainly don’t have access to MIT or any other comparable school. In fact, I would say that the combined engineering resources available to an student at Harvard - both at his home school and through MIT - probably exceed the resources that of almost any other engineering school out there.</p>
<p>So perhaps that begs the question of why a Harvard engineering student just doesn’t matriculate at MIT instead. One simple reason is that not everybody has that choice. I’ve certainly known a few Harvard engineering students who candidly admitted that they would have preferred to go to MIT, but they didn’t get in. It also presumes that you know that you want to be an engineer ex-ante. Let’s face it - many high school seniors don’t really know what they want to major in. Plenty of people don’t really know that they want to major in engineering until they are already in college.</p>
<p>
This is a pretty arrogant, offensive comment, to think that any area has a lock on intelligence or, to be more precise in a Sakkian way, are more “academically competitive” than others. To start, a student can apply in the district from which he lives OR attends school. Take a look at a winners list and draw your own conclusions, keeping in mind that students at elite universities come from every state - so Harvard reminds folks of frequently. <a href=“Office of the American Secretary | The Rhodes Scholarships”>http://www.rhodesscholar.org/assets/PDF/2008/final_winners_list_11_22_08.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bill Clinton had the choice of competing in the Washington DC (Georgetown) region. He chose to compete in his home district, and he admitted himself (in his biography) that he did so because of the perceived lowered competition.</p>
<p>Nobody is arguing that any region has a ‘lock’ on intelligence. But simply put, how many top universities are in the #11 Rhodes region? Perhaps WUSTL? Now, how many are in region #16, which comprises the entire state of California? Right. Furthermore, California has 33 million people. The #11 region, total, has about 12 million. You tell me which region is probably more academically competitive.</p>
<p>IIRC, National Merit semi-finalist designation is awarded to the top 1-3/4% or so of PSAT scorers in each state. The PSAT score cutoffs for each state required to achieve National Merit semi-finalist designation in a given year have been posted on CC from time to time. IIRC Arkansas PSAT cutoffs are usually among the lowest in the whole country.</p>
<p>In fairness though, there are some regions of the country where a smaller % of students take SATs at all, ACT is king, for in-region colleges. Maybe they don’t take PSATs as much then either. Also people headed to a state school that only requires ACT would be less likely to be taking prep courses to score higher on SAT, hence PSAT. Meaning there are other explanations for lower top PSAT scorers, besides relative stupidity of your state populace.</p>
<p>Though this possibility has not been eliminated…</p>
<p>Edit: Just checked ,this is from elsewhere on CC:</p>
<p>Qualifying scores for the Class of 2009 National Merit Semifinalists:
Alabama 209
Alaska 212
Arizona 209
Arkansas 204
California 217
Colorado 213
Connecticut 218
Delaware 219
District of Columbia 221
Florida 211
Georgia 215
Hawaii 216
Idaho 208
Illinois 214
Indiana 213
Iowa 210
Kansas 211
Kentucky 209
Louisiana 208
Maine 212
Maryland 220
Massachusetts 221
Michigan 209
Minnesota 214
Mississippi 201
Missouri 213
Montana 208
Nebraska 206
Nevada 206
New Hampshire 211
New Jersey 220
New Mexico 209
New York 216
North Carolina 215
North Dakota 201
Ohio 213
Oklahoma 208
Oregon 213
Pennsylvania 213
Rhode Island 213
South Carolina 212
South Dakota 205
Tennessee 213
Texas 215
Utah 203
Vermont 213
Virginia 219
Washington 217
West Virginia 203
Wisconsin 210
Wyoming 201
International 221
U.S. Territories 201</p>
<p>those South Dakota kids sure are a lot smarter than those North Dakota kids!</p>