Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Last year's qualifying scores listed here, around page 13.
221 for MD, 219 for VA and 223 for DC.
Apparently won't announce qualifying scores for this year's juniors for sometime.
https://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/guide_to_the_national_merit_scholarship_program.pdf?gid=2&pgid=61
I don’t understand why there is a single national cutoff score for a test that calls itself National Merit.
I meant “why there isn’t”
I don’t understand why there isn't a single national cutoff score for a test that calls itself National Merit.
This. 100%.
Actually make it a cool 110%!
Because they want to ensure state distribution and take into account that kids in South Dakota or Alabama do not have the same educational opportUnities as kids in NJ and MD.
State-level differences seems like such a broad-brush approach as to be pretty inequitable... kids in a poor part of a state generally don't have the same educational opportunities as kids in a rich part of the state, doesn't really matter so much how rich or poor the state is "as a whole".
If the goal is to better account for those differences in opportunity, why not do it based on some broader set of measures (e.g. median income, $ spent per student in public schools, with locality adjustments perhaps, median home value, etc.) and at some more granular area of geography (e.g. census tracts) which can then be grouped with similar high/mid/low opportunity census tracts across the nation? Sure, it's a bit more complicated, but not that much so really, at least on the calculation side. It might be harder for the average person who doesn't pay attention to these topics regularly to understand the "why" behind it, but that seems a poor argument against. If you're going to try and do it (account for the differences in opportunity), at least do a good job of it.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}