Number 2 Pencil

A free ride, but not for everyone

Jay Tea at Wizbang! notes that Massachusetts is in a bit of a pickle when it comes financial aid and illegal immigrants:

Massachusetts...[gives]...free schooling to children up through high school, and admit them to colleges without restraint. They also offer college scholarships to students who score the best on the MCAS test, the state-wide assessment exams all students have to take.

That policy -- a truly laudable one -- ran into a problem recently, when Lt. Governor Kerry Murphy Healey attended a high school ceremony and personally handed out certificates to 148 seniors recognizing their achievements and offering them the scholarships. The complication was that four of those students are illegal aliens -- and federal law forbids granting any financial aid to illegal aliens...

What caused this little embarassment is simple. Massachusetts schools are forbidden from inquiring about students' immigration status (the polite way of saying "are you here legally or illegally?"), and the officials who process the scholarships simply couldn't ask -- they just picked the top scorers and passed them along.

UC vs. the PSAT - Another state

Missouri still wants students to take the PSAT:

High school students who want to get a National Merit Scholarship through MU won’t have to worry about the university following the actions of the University of California System. The six-campus California system announced July 13 that it will redirect funding for the National Merit Scholarship program to other merit-based scholarships. The shift in funding will begin with freshmen entering the system in the fall of 2006...

Steven Osterlind, a professor of education at MU who studies standardized testing, said he’s not surprised by the University of California’s decision. “They’ve been talking about it for quite some time,” he said.

Osterlind said the California system stopped sponsoring the scholarships because the PSAT doesn’t produce the number of minority students that the California system wanted.

Wow. And I thought I was being blunt on this topic.

UC vs. the PSAT - another opinion

Op-Ed writers at UVA's Cavalier Daily aren't impressed about the recent UC decision to do away with National Merit scholarships:

It's difficult to overstate the influence of the University of California system. Several years ago, criticism of the SAT prompted the College Board, the company which develops and markets the SAT, to completely redesign the test. At that time, the university President, Richard Atkinson, complained that the test was "perceived by many as unfair, and … can have a devastating impact on the self-esteem and aspirations of young students."

As everyone knows, rarely is any test given in high school that isn't perceived as unfair by those students who do poorly. But Atkinson seems to think that no one should have to take a test that might make him feel bad. Even more ridiculous is the main reason behind California's rejection of the SAT and now the PSAT – the accusation that these tests are racist.

Of all the possible flaws a standardized test might have, racism is not one of them. Many critics offer "cultural bias" as an excuse for the poor performance of many minorities, but more National Merit Scholarship money in California went to Asian students than to white students. Few have accused the test of having an Asian bias.

Heh. Funny how Asian students keep getting left out of discussions of "biased" tests.

...the number of minority students who receive an academic merit scholarship shouldn't matter. The only factor that should count is the academic and personal strength of the recipients. Granted, standardized test scores are not the only way to judge merit, and California's officials are now talking about pursuing a "broader definition of merit." This would be fine if it were merit that the University of California were really trying to gauge. But it's hard to believe, after the uproar over the race of National Merit Scholars, that any new definition of "merit" will ignore a person's race, as it should.

Leave it to college students to be so blunt. Good for them.

UC vs. the PSAT

I have to admit, there's nothing in this article that is inaccurate:

Six University of California chancellors unanimously decided on Wednesday to end their campuses' participation in the National Merit Scholarship Program, a move they believe will result in a fairer evaluation of all students for other merit-based scholarships and a more level playing field on which underrepresented and low-income students can compete.

Starting in fall 2006, UCLA, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara and UC Santa Cruz will redirect the money once provided for National Merit Scholarships to fund other merit-based scholarships such as the Regents Scholarship Program and the campus-based Chancellor's Scholarship Programs...

The decision was made following a recommendation by the Academic Council of the UC, challenging the use of the PSAT as the preliminary eliminator of students, rather than part of a comprehensive evaluation of all PSAT participants...

"This decision in no way indicates that we don't value academic merit at the University of California. The issue is how academic merit is defined," said UC Provost MRC Greenwood, the highest ranking academic officer in the UC system.

They're absolutely right, and perfectly free to redefine academic merit. Given the concerns they've listed about the PSAT, it's obvious that their definition of academic merit is related to ethnicity, because they've decided it's "unfair" of the PSAT to "discriminate" against minorities. I assume at this point they are going to tweak their definition of academic merit until they obtain what they consider to be the appropriate number of underrepresented applicants, and they are going to have to do so using methods that don't produce a score gap.

Oh sure, I'm putting it way more bluntly than they ever would, but this is what UC is doing. They're also perfectly free to do it, and perfectly free to produce research supporting their claim that high school grades, and not test scores, predict performance in the UC system. Let's hope they do, because their dislike of the PSAT is so out of proportion to the amount of money involved that it's hard not to assume they're just making a meaningless stand to impress the anti-testing crowd. I wouldn't be so suspicious if UC officials were making more substantive criticisms of the NMSQT system (such as the type I've made before), instead of just harping on how it's unfair of us to expect certain underrepresented folks to do well on tests.

(Find previous PSAT-related articles here.)

A question of need

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.

Mean, squat right-handers need not apply

I have to admit, it's articles like this one that make me skeptical every time some activist or politician claims that only rich Americans can afford college:

There's money for college in duct tape. Being left-handed has cash rewards, too, as does being tall or exceedingly nice. And anyone who likes to flap his arms has a chance to go to college free. A mountain of college scholarships based on almost every imaginable qualification is available -- more than 2.4 million awards worth more than $14 billion each year, according to Sallie Mae, the corporation created by Congress to provide financial aid and information.

More students could attend college if they took time to research, experts say.

Parents who do their research will be happy to know that there are options for their weird - er, unique - children who don't have great grades, nor any discernible athletic ability:

Some scholarships are open to all, such as one sponsored by Henkel Consumer Adhesives Inc. The company awards $5,000 to the couple who attend their school prom wearing the best outfit or accessories fashioned out of Duck brand duct tape...

And there are scholarships for students with average grades -- including one for telecommunications students at Ball State University in Indiana endowed by graduate and late-night talk show host David Letterman.

If your kid can't be tall, left-handed, or average, you can still teach them to be nice:

At Hiram College in Ohio, the Hal Reichle Memorial Scholarship is available for students based on their anonymous acts of kindness. (Reichle, a Hiram graduate who died in the Persian Gulf War, was known for his kindness.) The award is not given every year, because, the school Web site says, "understandably, qualified recipients cannot always be located."

This means you need to teach your kids to do anonymous acts of kindness that someone, somewhere, can find out about and drop a dime to Hiram College. If they can figure out a way to do this, college ought to be a cinch.

"Victimizing" students by refusing to give them free money

A little brouhaha in Maine over new scholarship requirements:

For the last seven years, the University of Maine has offered scholarships to the two top students of every Maine state-approved high school in an effort to recognize the state's "best and brightest." In October, however, staff at Richmond High School were informed that its top two scholars — as well as those at other Maine high Schools — would no longer automatically qualify for full scholarships to the state university.

Instead they will now join all other Maine students in a competitive selection process that will include performance on standardized tests.

Uh-oh. Cue the "Oh no, our students are now oppressed by this heinous new requirement!" refrain. But first, the man who changed the rules valiantly tries to defend his decision:

[Assistant provost and dean of enrollment manager for the University of Maine John] Beacon said the university made the change to address what he believes is an inherent flaw in the selection process. "My personal concerns is that we're setting students up for potential failure," he said.

Instead of using each school's ranking methods to predict success at the university, Beacon suggests that standardized tests provide a better measure. He cites a statistical correlation between high standardized test scores and student success — and between lower test scores and academic unpreparedness — at the university.

Nice try, but no cigar for the anti-testing, anti-empirical-data crowd:

[Richmond's superintendent of schools Denison] Gallaudet argues that the SAT is merely a "mild predictor of a kid's ability to succeed as a freshman," and referred to a report by Bates College last year that said comparisons showed no difference in academic performance or graduation rates in their students since the Lewiston college started making the SAT exam optional 20 years ago.

As to Beacon's data, Gallaudet said "correlation is not causality." He worries this is a case of "blame the victim" that could create a barrier for good students from families with lower income to get scholarships.

Holding students to an objective standard in the process of deciding whether to fork over free money to them is now considered "blaming the victim?" Talk about a sense of entitlement. Gee, why wasn't kicking the third-ranked student out of the running for the scholarship in the past also considered "blaming the victim?" Isn't that a standard? Might not class rank also positively correlate with SES?

I agree, it could suck for those for whom the rule has just changed. But it would have also sucked for those kids had they admitted to a school that was beyond their capabilities. Now they can take the standardized test and see how they do on that; as Beacon points out, top students shouldn't exactly be afraid of such a test. Not unless they believe the hype about tests being inherently biased against students who are first in their class.

Massachusetts experiments with free tuition

In Massachusetts, students who score in the top quartile of the state standardized test, the MCAS, can get into college for free. Not surprisingly, this has brought out the protestors who are appalled that some of the kids who are smart enough to go to college also have enough money to pay their own way; these protestors miss the point of this "meritocratic" gesture entirely:

Governor Romney touts the program, which is projected to cost taxpayers $34 million annually, as a way to lure more of the state's highest-scoring students, many of whom can afford private school tuition, into its higher education system - and as a way to encourage all students to score better on the exam.

By contrast, 3 percent of students in blue-collar Lowell, Mass., score well enough to see the aid.

Expect this to bump up controversy over the MCAS quite a few notches. Sure, the money's not reliant on grades, as in Georgia's flawed HOPE scholarships, but, just as grades can be inflated, test standards can be lowered if there's enough political pressure. Giving money directly to students might avoid the accountability issues with awarding money to schools instead, but when there's tuition riding on the line, there's going to be a lot of complaints that wealthier kids don't deserve this boost, even if they earned it.

An update on TN's lottery scholarships

Tennessee's first scholarship lottery will begin this fall, but some odd arguments are being made about the scholarship's requirements:

Current law says high school students with either a 3.0 grade point average or a 19 score on the ACT college entrance exam qualify for one of the lottery scholarships, which range from $1,500 to $4,000 a year.

Sen. Steve Cohen, who fought for nearly 20 years to get the lottery approved by the voters, said last week he thinks the ACT standard should be eliminated and the scholarships awarded on the basis of GPA only.

I'm confused. The ACT score of 19 (which is, we should note, below both the national average and Tennessee's average) was made optional because it was thought to be "too high" a barrier. Yet Sen. Cohen claims that kids with ACT scores that low will struggle in college. What's going on here?

If the assumption is that anyone with a 3.0 GPA will be prepared for college, then by Sen. Cohen's arguments, we could expect those students to score higher than a 19 on the ACT. The ACT requirement would be useless, but not an impediment; the GPA/ACT requirement would produce the same scholarship pool as the GPA alone. There's no reason to use it, but by the same token, there's no reason not to use it.

That is, unless the state fears a backlash from minorities who have a 3.0 GPA but turf on the ACT, which is what I bet is at the root of both the original change to the either/or and Sen. Cohen's insistence. Sure enough, "adverse impact" gets mentioned later in the article:

Larry Miller, D-Memphis and a member of the Legislative Black Caucus, which met with Cohen over his proposal last week, said the choice puts him "between a rock and a hard place." Legislators have questioned if removing the ACT standard would have a disproportionate impact on black students. According to THEC's figures, it would not. Of the students predicted to be eligible under the current standard, 11.5 percent are black; of those predicted to be eligible without it, 12 percent are black.

"My question would be, Who do we adversely impact?" Miller said.

Is that the right question to ask, or should the question be, how does Tennessee give the money to those students who are most qualified to make good use of it? The warning bells were ringing back in December, thanks to Georgia's experience with such lotteries; will Tennessee's governor listen?

And do my Devoted Readers from Tennessee (who were pessimistic back then) have any updated information on this?