National Merit Semifinalist Cut-off Scores for High School Class of 2016

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are there different cutoffs for different states? The test is a national test.

Is this regional affirmative action in practice?

If a national cutoff score is used, most of the winners will come from the high cutoff states - NJ, MD, CA, and Mass. You will see many states with no NMSF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PSAT is useless even worse than SAT. SAT doesn't predict the college performance and produces one dimensional drones. Top colleges can fill its classes with perfect SAT score applicants and still have applicants with perfect SATs left over.

In fact doing well on PSAT/SAT is inconsistent with creativity and leadership ability and high scores on these tests shows the opposite to be true.

Let me guess. Your kid was no NMSF?

I wouldn't say the PSAT is totally useless, because it's practice for the real thing, but being a NMSF has virtually no bearing on college admissions unless it's backed up by scores on the SAT themselves. One of my kids was commended, just missing the NMSF, while another came nowhere close. But when the real thing came along, the loser became the winner by a nearly 200 point margin. And another who didn't do spectacularly on the PSAT went on the crush the ACT and got admitted to a slew of top colleges.

We learned through experience that the PSAT means very little.

ACT is so popular with college applicants since it is much easier to get higher score on ACT compared to SAT. Kids usually take both and end up submitting the ACT scores since it's way easier.

This is a very individual thing. My DC got a 32 composite score on the ACT. Not bad. Then DC took the SAT and got a 2360, equivalent to a 35 on the ACT.

Clearly DC is better suited to the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ it means nothing unless you make the cut. the second tier and below schools actively go after NMSF b/c it's good for school's image and reputation as a PR tool. if you "almost" made it, it really doesn't get you anything.

It doesn't even matter if you DO make it. That's my point. It certainly doesn't matter to the top schools at all, and most NMSFs don't want the second tier. So who cares?

As for the PP talking about the ACT being "easier," it's not always the case. Three of my kids took both tests; one did much better on the SAT, the other on the ACT, and the third did about the same. And the one who killed the ACT actually had higher math scores on the SAT. The ACT generally seems easier for kids who work hard and have good grades, as it's more of an achievement test than an aptitude test.

It did matter to my kids. Doesn't mean they are going to be more successful than non-NMSF kids but it sure meant affordable UG education for them.

Explain. You mean they eventually got the $2000 scholarship? Wow. Doesn't mean much.

no, each got a full ride to a state school.

On the basis of the PSAT alone? I had no idea. Good for them, even if we are talking about third tier. I stand corrected.

You obviously have no idea. I don't want to hijack this thread. I think you are being silly.

Best wishes to Class of 2016 kids.

That was obnoxious. As I said, I stand corrected. The PSAT can lead to rewards from second and third tier schools, thereby helping the less affluent afford college. That's a good thing.

You are a first class ass.

[Anonymous]

It's the OP, back again to see if we have more news about National Merit Semifinalist cut-off scores by-state. Any posts on that topic would be much-appreciated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are there different cutoffs for different states? The test is a national test.

Is this regional affirmative action in practice?

If a national cutoff score is used, most of the winners will come from the high cutoff states - NJ, MD, CA, and Mass. You will see many states with no NMSF.

So kids are penalized for where they live? Sounds like affirmative action to me.

Seems like this policy hurts URMs as well.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/04/04/not-so-national-merit/

"Troublesomely, I also found that states with larger minority populations tend to have higher cutoffs."

Looks like the policy is designed for flyover whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the OP, back again to see if we have more news about National Merit Semifinalist cut-off scores by-state. Any posts on that topic would be much-appreciated.

http://publicuniversityhonors.com/2013/12/11/psat-national-merit-scholar-qualifying-scores-and-sat-equivalencies-by-state/

http://www.collegeplanningsimplified.com/NationalMerit.html

[Anonymous]

The cut off keeps going up and up, with NY and MA leading and VA and MD not far behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are there different cutoffs for different states? The test is a national test.

Is this regional affirmative action in practice?

If a national cutoff score is used, most of the winners will come from the high cutoff states - NJ, MD, CA, and Mass. You will see many states with no NMSF.

So kids are penalized for where they live? Sounds like affirmative action to me.

Seems like this policy hurts URMs as well.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/04/04/not-so-national-merit/

"Troublesomely, I also found that states with larger minority populations tend to have higher cutoffs."

Looks like the policy is designed for flyover whites.

This discussion happens every year. I wouldn't characterize it as kids are being "penalized" per se but state based cutoff approach has inherent sense of unfairness. Keep it mind, however, resources available to kids vary widely state-to-state and district-to-district. Some states just don't have educational resources to match high cutoff states. Also, the national cutoff approach will result in NMC losing its national appeal since most states will become non-players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cut off keeps going up and up, with NY and MA leading and VA and MD not far behind.

it may feel that way but it's not true. It usually goes up or down by +/- 1 to 2 pts. Once the commended scores are released, it's a good sign whether we will have a up year or down year and (to some extent) by how many points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are there different cutoffs for different states? The test is a national test.

Is this regional affirmative action in practice?

If a national cutoff score is used, most of the winners will come from the high cutoff states - NJ, MD, CA, and Mass. You will see many states with no NMSF.

So kids are penalized for where they live? Sounds like affirmative action to me.

Seems like this policy hurts URMs as well.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/04/04/not-so-national-merit/

"Troublesomely, I also found that states with larger minority populations tend to have higher cutoffs."

Looks like the policy is designed for flyover whites.

This discussion happens every year. I wouldn't characterize it as kids are being "penalized" per se but state based cutoff approach has inherent sense of unfairness. Keep it mind, however, resources available to kids vary widely state-to-state and district-to-district. Some states just don't have educational resources to match high cutoff states. Also, the national cutoff approach will result in NMC losing its national appeal since most states will become non-players.

every year it seems that education in this country is becoming more about social engineering over finding and nurturing excellence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are there different cutoffs for different states? The test is a national test.

Is this regional affirmative action in practice?

If a national cutoff score is used, most of the winners will come from the high cutoff states - NJ, MD, CA, and Mass. You will see many states with no NMSF.

So kids are penalized for where they live? Sounds like affirmative action to me.

Seems like this policy hurts URMs as well.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/04/04/not-so-national-merit/

"Troublesomely, I also found that states with larger minority populations tend to have higher cutoffs."

Looks like the policy is designed for flyover whites.

This discussion happens every year. I wouldn't characterize it as kids are being "penalized" per se but state based cutoff approach has inherent sense of unfairness. Keep it mind, however, resources available to kids vary widely state-to-state and district-to-district. Some states just don't have educational resources to match high cutoff states. Also, the national cutoff approach will result in NMC losing its national appeal since most states will become non-players.

every year it seems that education in this country is becoming more about social engineering over finding and nurturing excellence.

Asians will make up at least 90% of the NMSF if there were national cut off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cut off keeps going up and up, with NY and MA leading and VA and MD not far behind.

it may feel that way but it's not true. It usually goes up or down by +/- 1 to 2 pts. Once the commended scores are released, it's a good sign whether we will have a up year or down year and (to some extent) by how many points.

It goes up or down depending on the difficulty of the test in any particular year. Poke around on College Confidential's National Merit area and there's a thread that discusses test difficulty and cut off scores.

[Anonymous]

The National Merit Scholarship Corporation is a privately owned business, so they can make whatever rules they like about how the scholarships are distributed. Students can choose to participate or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The National Merit Scholarship Corporation is a privately owned business, so they can make whatever rules they like about how the scholarships are distributed. Students can choose to participate or not.

And forgot to add, the method of designating Semi-Finalists has been the same for decades. Commended students have always been top 5% nationally, while Semi-Finalists were the top scorers in their states. This is nothing new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are there different cutoffs for different states? The test is a national test.

Is this regional affirmative action in practice?

If a national cutoff score is used, most of the winners will come from the high cutoff states - NJ, MD, CA, and Mass. You will see many states with no NMSF.

So kids are penalized for where they live? Sounds like affirmative action to me.

Seems like this policy hurts URMs as well.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/04/04/not-so-national-merit/

"Troublesomely, I also found that states with larger minority populations tend to have higher cutoffs."

Looks like the policy is designed for flyover whites.

This discussion happens every year. I wouldn't characterize it as kids are being "penalized" per se but state based cutoff approach has inherent sense of unfairness. Keep it mind, however, resources available to kids vary widely state-to-state and district-to-district. Some states just don't have educational resources to match high cutoff states. Also, the national cutoff approach will result in NMC losing its national appeal since most states will become non-players.

every year it seems that education in this country is becoming more about social engineering over finding and nurturing excellence.

Asians will make up at least 90% of the NMSF if there were national cut off.

we must protect white hegemony, right?