Anonymous wrote:It was just reported that New Jersey's cutoff is 225!!!

That is crazy if true.

It was just reported that New Jersey's cutoff is 225!!!

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".

Did you know that in July, the unemployment rate for South Dakota was 1.9%, the lowest in the nation, and Maryland’s was 3.4%?

The median household income in SD’s wealthiest county (Lincoln) is $112,681. Last year, their students had a cutoff of 209. The median household income in MD’s poorest county (Somerset) is $44,980, and last year’s cutoff for them was 221.

The difference in cutoffs doesn’t reflect the difference in resources or opportunities available to students. The cutoffs reflect NMSF’s prioritizing geographic diversity and proportionality (in relation to the population of the US). They reward students for test performance (verbal more than math) strictly within that framework.

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

The wealthiest kids in Charleston, who benefit from every advantage, can score lower than a large majority of semifinalists from other states and still make the semifinalist cutoff; meanwhile, kids growing up in poverty in Baltimore can achieve excellence against all odds, score higher than 99.5% of all test takers, and still not get semifinalist status. Pretending that everyone in the same state has a level playing field is ridiculous.

I agree. Acting like states are homogenous are ridiculous. Every state has richer areas/schools and poorer areas. Some kids growing up in depressed Canada border upstate NY is not more advantaged than a kid in Shaker Heights or Scottsdale. I was a NM Scholar from a crap state, but my school was high enough to quality in any state. I bought a prep book from a store in the mall and studied my butt off all summer. The state cutoff variations are dumb--it's like we want to avoid hurting the feelings of states with crap educational systems. Maybe if it was more obbious how bad their educational systems are, they would do more to raise standards there?

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

The wealthiest kids in Charleston, who benefit from every advantage, can score lower than a large majority of semifinalists from other states and still make the semifinalist cutoff; meanwhile, kids growing up in poverty in Baltimore can achieve excellence against all odds, score higher than 99.5% of all test takers, and still not get semifinalist status. Pretending that everyone in the same state has a level playing field is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:if a national cutoff is used, most of winners will come from 1/2 dozen states or so (most eastern states - Mass, NJ, NY, MD, DC...etc.). 40+ states will produce very few winners

This. There’s no perfect system in such a large country, both geographically and in population. Doing it by state is about as fair as it can be.

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?

It's a free country. You could have chosen to live in TN.

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.

Okay. It would be interesting to know how many private school Mississipian NMFs there are. And how many Title 1 school lids scoring above 209 there are.

The data for the Mississipians could probably be assembled from press releases. But no way to know how many title 1 kids from Massachusetts are theoretically missing out.

ACT takers don't get anything.

It's just a contest with its own rules.

if a national cutoff is used, most of winners will come from 1/2 dozen states or so (most eastern states - Mass, NJ, NY, MD, DC...etc.). 40+ states will produce very few winners

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".

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.

if anyone can complain about the methodology, it's the DCPS kids. i think the current methodology really screws up DCPS kids due to private school kids.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is torture - I want the results!

I know that Sept 10 is the day, but it's so hard knowing that the information is out there!!!

The state cutoffs seem to be coming out pretty consistently 1 point higher than the "likely" predictions by Compass Prep.

I believe texas is two points higher and most have not been reported 😬

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.

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"?