A recent resolution passed by the University of California
Academic Council has made headlines (“UC May End Its National
Merit Grant Program,” Los Angeles Times, July 6). The
resolution, which was brought to Academic Council by UC’s
Board on Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS), recommends
that the UC system not participate in the National Merit
Scholarship (NMS) program nor consider NMS standing in making
admissions decisions. Admissions policy is the purview of the
faculty; this resolution represents the final decision of the
faculty with respect to admissions. With regard to scholarships,
the resolution is advisory to the chancellors, who make the
decisions on each campus regarding the use of scholarship funds.
Whatever the outcome, students currently receiving National Merit
Scholarships from the UC will continue to do so.
Each year, 1.3 million high school juniors take the PSAT. Out of
that pool, 16,000 are selected as National Merit Semifinalists
based solely on their PSAT scores. This group is narrowed down to
15,000 finalists on the basis of transcripts, essays, and letters
of recommendation. Thus 98.8% of test-takers are eliminated on the
basis of PSAT scores, while use of additional information
eliminates only another 0.08% from reaching finalist status.
Universities that participate in the NMS Program select scholarship
recipients from among the finalists who have listed that university
as their first choice. Additional scholarships are awarded by the
National Merit Scholarship Corporation and corporate sponsors. The
scholarships are renewable for four years.
UCLA participates in the NMS program, as do Davis, Irvine, San
Diego, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. In the 2004-05 academic year,
UCLA gave out approximately $400,000 to 197 new and continuing
students (freshmen through seniors). Our comparison institutions
(the set of eight private and public institutions to which we
compare ourselves) don’t participate in the program. None of
the Ivy League schools participate; they have an agreement to award
only need-based scholarships. But many universities, including
high-caliber ones, do take part in the NMS program.
In its resolution, the BOARS identified a variety of concerns
about the NMS program, including: (1) the PSAT exam has not been
validated for the purpose of identifying meritorious students or
predicting college success; (2) the use of a cutoff score to
eliminate students is inconsistent with fundamental principles
(including those of the College Board) regarding the appropriate
use of standardized tests; and (3) the selection procedures of the
NMS program adversely affect underrepresented and disadvantaged
students.
While these are significant concerns, there is an additional
argument that I find particularly persuasive. The criteria used to
select National Merit finalists are inconsistent with the way that
UCLA defines merit. When we admit students, we rely on a whole
range of information including grades, test scores (ACT or SAT I,
SAT II, AP tests, etc.), extracurricular activities, and personal
statements, all in the context of the school the student attended
and the opportunities and advantages (or lack thereof) at that
school. When we evaluate students for our most prestigious
scholarship (the Regents scholarship), we again look at the whole
record. Why would we allow an outside agency to select scholarship
recipients for us, particularly when its selection process is so
heavily based on the student’s score on a single exam? We
have more information about each of our applicants than the NMS
Corporation does, and our own examination of those data is much
more nuanced than theirs.
Undoubtedly, many of the National Merit finalists who apply to
UCLA are students who do meet our definition of merit, whom we
would love to welcome to our campus, and who will be successful in
our own merit-based scholarship competitions. The best way to honor
these students’ accomplishments would be to judge them in the
same context we use for all of our scholarship applicants. To be
true to our vision of merit, the right decision is for us to
withdraw from the National Merit Scholarship Program.
Adrienne Lavine is a professor in the mechanical and
aerospace engineering department, the incoming chair of the
Academic Senate, and a member of the Board on Admissions and
Relations with Schools.