National merit 2026?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think having different cutoffs for different states is bogus. Why should one kid be a NMSF with a 212 while a kid with a 222 in another state is not?

Because some states/school districts have a lot more resources. I personally think the current approach is fair.

I think that the system is generally fair. As a public school teacher in DC, I think that DC's scores are inflated by kids who come into DC for private school from MD and VA. I think it's hard when there are lower income kids in DC whose score would get them NMSF in almost every other state, who don't get NMSF, in state tuition, or in state financial aid. I know a kid like this whose scores would have qualified in any state except DC, NJ, and MA, and who would have qualified in DC if their scores were flipped.

How is that "generally fair"?

As someone who lives in MD, where there are more opportunities. I think it's fair that our cut off is set higher than South Dakota, because it's about exceeding the norm for your community.

My guess is that DC has a higher percentage of out of state kids earning NMSF than any other state. If you look at the list of who won, it's a lot of kids from Sidwell, GDS, St. Anselm's etc. . . and a high percentage of those kids don't live in DC. So, I think that that is unfair for kids from DC. I think the cut off should be based on the percentiles of kids who live in DC.

I also think that when the high cut off is combined with the lack of instate options in DC, and an extremely unfair DC TAG program that is designed to help MC and UMC kids, but that doesn't address the fact that state schools generally don't give financial aid to low income kids who are OOS, I think it is unfair for kids from DC.

Given that DC makes up 0.2% of the population, I would describe a system that is fair for everyone but 0.2% of the population as "generally fair".

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

DC spends $31k per student and SD spends $12k per student. Level playing field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son has a 225 in MD and to be honest the idea that it jumped to 226 is totally throwing me off here. It’s making me re-think if we are being too optimistic about his chances at safeties, targets, and reaches. This just feels so unexpected and outside what we imagined was possible.

It isn’t so much about NMSF, although it would have been nice, but this has shaken our confident in his chances overall even at schools that should be easy safeties. A 225 score felt totally safe for MD NMSF but wasn’t.

NMSF is meaningless for college admissions. NMSF a state by state contest (sorry, DC!) for top 0.5% scores.

It may or may not be meaningless for admissions, but for some schools it means big money and for some people that's a big deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think having different cutoffs for different states is bogus. Why should one kid be a NMSF with a 212 while a kid with a 222 in another state is not?

Because some states/school districts have a lot more resources. I personally think the current approach is fair.

I think that the system is generally fair. As a public school teacher in DC, I think that DC's scores are inflated by kids who come into DC for private school from MD and VA. I think it's hard when there are lower income kids in DC whose score would get them NMSF in almost every other state, who don't get NMSF, in state tuition, or in state financial aid. I know a kid like this whose scores would have qualified in any state except DC, NJ, and MA, and who would have qualified in DC if their scores were flipped.

How is that "generally fair"?

As someone who lives in MD, where there are more opportunities. I think it's fair that our cut off is set higher than South Dakota, because it's about exceeding the norm for your community.

My guess is that DC has a higher percentage of out of state kids earning NMSF than any other state. If you look at the list of who won, it's a lot of kids from Sidwell, GDS, St. Anselm's etc. . . and a high percentage of those kids don't live in DC. So, I think that that is unfair for kids from DC. I think the cut off should be based on the percentiles of kids who live in DC.

I also think that when the high cut off is combined with the lack of instate options in DC, and an extremely unfair DC TAG program that is designed to help MC and UMC kids, but that doesn't address the fact that state schools generally don't give financial aid to low income kids who are OOS, I think it is unfair for kids from DC.

Given that DC makes up 0.2% of the population, I would describe a system that is fair for everyone but 0.2% of the population as "generally fair".

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

DC spends $31k per student and SD spends $12k per student. Level playing field?

But DC doesn't even get to compete. They just use the cutoff for whatever the highest state is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the cutoff for Virginia?

Compass Prep is saying 223 or 224.

[Anonymous]

Will these unusually high cut offs make the new college board recognition for “top 10% psat score in your school” mean more? I had thought it was fairly meaningless, but I also thought my 223 kid in Md had a shot of NMSF(!). FWIW her CC says this new “recognition” is worth putting on application.

[Anonymous]

A lot of bitter losers here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think having different cutoffs for different states is bogus. Why should one kid be a NMSF with a 212 while a kid with a 222 in another state is not?

Because some states/school districts have a lot more resources. I personally think the current approach is fair.

Last year, students from Title 1 schools in Massachusetts had to score 222 to be semifinalists, and private school students in the wealthiest Mississippi enclaves only had to score 209.

My kid in public school in NJ got a 219 and won't qualify for SF, but if she instead had gone to the private high school in TN that I attended, she would have. How is that right?

Your kid is not in top 1% in NJ but would be in top 1% in TN. Why is that wrong?

Because state cutoffs are inherently arbitrary.

it's not. top 1%. nothing arbitrary about it. you are just upset b/c your kid didn't make the cut and i can understand that

That is what "arbitrary" means. Shame that vocabulary isn't on the SAT anymore.

It is their criteria for winning. That’s what matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a NMF back in the early 90’s, when it might have meant more for college admissions. I’ve done ok, typical law career trajectory- but many in my high school class who didn’t get National Merit recognition went on to achieve more academically and professionally. My point is, it really didn’t matter back then and probably matters even less now.

It didn't mean anything then either.

It meant a lot for me as my dad's business had scholarships for kids with NMSF. I prepped the hell out of that test and got almost a perfect score. For some kids, it really does mean a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think having different cutoffs for different states is bogus. Why should one kid be a NMSF with a 212 while a kid with a 222 in another state is not?

Because some states/school districts have a lot more resources. I personally think the current approach is fair.

I think that the system is generally fair. As a public school teacher in DC, I think that DC's scores are inflated by kids who come into DC for private school from MD and VA. I think it's hard when there are lower income kids in DC whose score would get them NMSF in almost every other state, who don't get NMSF, in state tuition, or in state financial aid. I know a kid like this whose scores would have qualified in any state except DC, NJ, and MA, and who would have qualified in DC if their scores were flipped.

How is that "generally fair"?

As someone who lives in MD, where there are more opportunities. I think it's fair that our cut off is set higher than South Dakota, because it's about exceeding the norm for your community.

My guess is that DC has a higher percentage of out of state kids earning NMSF than any other state. If you look at the list of who won, it's a lot of kids from Sidwell, GDS, St. Anselm's etc. . . and a high percentage of those kids don't live in DC. So, I think that that is unfair for kids from DC. I think the cut off should be based on the percentiles of kids who live in DC.

I also think that when the high cut off is combined with the lack of instate options in DC, and an extremely unfair DC TAG program that is designed to help MC and UMC kids, but that doesn't address the fact that state schools generally don't give financial aid to low income kids who are OOS, I think it is unfair for kids from DC.

Given that DC makes up 0.2% of the population, I would describe a system that is fair for everyone but 0.2% of the population as "generally fair".

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

DC spends $31k per student and SD spends $12k per student. Level playing field?

It's just an apples and oranges comparison. There's a lot of social services (like ESL) that DC is including in the cost of education that is not included in the SD number. Plus of course cost of living in SD is a lot lower, and the biggest component of education cost is labor costs, which are going to be much higher in a higher COL area. There are actually some pretty nice areas in every state, including SD.

[Anonymous]

Compass prep has confirmed Virginia at 224

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of bitter losers here.

I don't live in MD, but I feel for the kid that got 1500/1520 and didn't make the cut - that kind makes this whole process seem a bit silly now. At least in trying to call it national recognition. Ultimately the system is what it is and that's life. But one can have empathy.

There is increasingly little money connected to NMF anymore so it's largely about bragging rights unless one was hoping to go to Bama or Tulsa. And bragging rights kinda lose its sheen when the differences across states are so vast. And it still has legacy 2x weight for verbal which is pretty arbitrary when they went from 2 section to 1.

It's actually a rather strange national recognition program/process. Maybe thats partly why schools have been dropping scholarships over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of bitter losers here.

I don't live in MD, but I feel for the kid that got 1500/1520 and didn't make the cut - that kind makes this whole process seem a bit silly now. At least in trying to call it national recognition. Ultimately the system is what it is and that's life. But one can have empathy.

There is increasingly little money connected to NMF anymore so it's largely about bragging rights unless one was hoping to go to Bama or Tulsa. And bragging rights kinda lose its sheen when the differences across states are so vast. And it still has legacy 2x weight for verbal which is pretty arbitrary when they went from 2 section to 1.

It's actually a rather strange national recognition program/process. Maybe thats partly why schools have been dropping scholarships over the years.

It's worth remembering that it's not the cutoff being higher that's the issue -- it's your score relative to everyone else in your state. Likely this test was easier than past tests, which is why the cut off was much higher. If you missed the cutoff by one point, you probably wouldn't have gotten NMF if the cutoff has been lower, because it is all relative.

NMSC sets a target number of Semifinalists for a state. For example, California sees about 2,000 Semifinalists every year, Michigan 500, and Wyoming 25. In each state, NMSC determines the Selection Index that comes closest to matching its target number of Semifinalists. If 1,900 California students score 222 and higher and 2,050 score 221 or higher, then the Semifinalist cutoff would be 221 (this assumes that the target is exactly 2,000). Because score levels can get crowded, it is easy for cutoffs to move up or down a point even when there is minimal change in testing behavior or performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son has a 225 in MD and to be honest the idea that it jumped to 226 is totally throwing me off here. It’s making me re-think if we are being too optimistic about his chances at safeties, targets, and reaches. This just feels so unexpected and outside what we imagined was possible.

It isn’t so much about NMSF, although it would have been nice, but this has shaken our confident in his chances overall even at schools that should be easy safeties. A 225 score felt totally safe for MD NMSF but wasn’t.

This is exactly where we are. My DD got a 226, so she's almost certainly a lock for NMSF.

However, her 1590 on the SAT seemed like it was insanely great last week. Now, I'm wondering if schools will be getting a ton of applicants with 1590-1600s. Decided to add in another two safety schools just to be sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son has a 225 in MD and to be honest the idea that it jumped to 226 is totally throwing me off here. It’s making me re-think if we are being too optimistic about his chances at safeties, targets, and reaches. This just feels so unexpected and outside what we imagined was possible.

It isn’t so much about NMSF, although it would have been nice, but this has shaken our confident in his chances overall even at schools that should be easy safeties. A 225 score felt totally safe for MD NMSF but wasn’t.

This is exactly where we are. My DD got a 226, so she's almost certainly a lock for NMSF.

However, her 1590 on the SAT seemed like it was insanely great last week. Now, I'm wondering if schools will be getting a ton of applicants with 1590-1600s. Decided to add in another two safety schools just to be sure.

This is entirely logical to wonder about with the new digital SAT. Does anyone know what the data says?

My child took the SAT twice and got a wildly different math score. Got a 630 on the math at the first testing session and then got a 790 the next testing session. Same amount of rest, etc no significant prep and only about two months between the tests. Have heard from other parents that the scores have huge swings. So, if you keep testing, are you are likely to get one of the tests that is easier for one section? And then able to superscore an insanely high score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of bitter losers here.

I don't live in MD, but I feel for the kid that got 1500/1520 and didn't make the cut - that kind makes this whole process seem a bit silly now. At least in trying to call it national recognition. Ultimately the system is what it is and that's life. But one can have empathy.

There is increasingly little money connected to NMF anymore so it's largely about bragging rights unless one was hoping to go to Bama or Tulsa. And bragging rights kinda lose its sheen when the differences across states are so vast. And it still has legacy 2x weight for verbal which is pretty arbitrary when they went from 2 section to 1.

It's actually a rather strange national recognition program/process. Maybe thats partly why schools have been dropping scholarships over the years.

Its still a huge deal if you are from one of the states that has a high cutoff. In the age of superscoring and kids taking the test 5+ times, having a one day test that shows a very high score on both sections is a big deal.

Closer to home, VCU gives a full ride for NMSF. This is huge for the parents in the DC area who have very intelligent children, but not enough resources to pay $90K for per year to a T10 school. https://honors.vcu.edu/admissions/scholarships--aid/