A University of California panel has voted to recommend that UC stop participating in - as in, funding - the National Merit Scholarship program. One reason given was concern over the PSAT's validity for the purpose, and UC is within reason to question that validity. No standardized test is beyond that sort of questioning. But I believe the heart of the matter is here:
Faculty members had also raised concerns about the fairness of the program's selection process, which has tended to choose more whites, Asians and upper-income students.Of UC's National Merit Scholars last year, only 3 percent were black, Latino or Native American, and less than one-fifth came from families making less than $40,000, said Michael Brown, the head of UC's systemwide faculty admissions policy committee.
Notice that they've now defined "fair" not as a system that might identify the most-qualified or most-able (assuming the test were appropriate), but a system that makes sure the ethnic and SES composition of the winning group is pleasing to the committee. Whatever that might be.
Some experts yesterday applauded the UC vote."I'm not fond of merit-based scholarships," said Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
"I don't think they produce much public benefit," he said, noting that many of the upper-income students that benefit from the scholarships already have the means to afford college.
I certainly don't know how many National Merit scholars are upper-income. I find it odd, however, that Callan would use the "public benefit" argument to reject merit-based scholarships. Isn't he saying that it's better to award scholarships who those who want to go to college, but might not be qualified, instead of to those who are qualified to go but are just above the lowest-income-level? Does it really benefit people, colleges, or society more to make sure only that the poorest have a way in?
Full disclosure - I was a National Merit Scholar, and my family fell squarely into that not-poor-enough-for-needs-but-not-rich-enough-to-pay-full-tuition category. Presumably that's the category that UC, and those who think like Callan, would like to write off.
To give the article credit, it addresses this issue:
Redd speculated that even if UC drops the National Merit program, other schools are unlikely to do so because of the accelerated competition to attract top students and the program's popularity among middle-and upper-income families who have trouble qualifying for need-based aid...Some incoming college students said yesterday they would oppose a move by UC to discontinue participation in the program.
"I would be disappointed if UC stopped paying the scholarships because I've seen a lot of people stuck in the middle class who cannot get need-based scholarships and cannot find enough merit-based scholarships to go to college," said Liz Krow-Lucal, a National Merit scholar who will be studying biology at UC San Diego in the fall.
Disappointed, indeed, to disover that UC, unlike most of the real world, seems unwilling to reward those who have achieved something.
Posted by kswygert at June 23, 2005 05:21 PM