Is scholarship change merited?

This week, we asked our parent panelists: Last week, UC officials

said the university system would redirect National Merit funding to

other scholarships beginning in fall 2006. At UCI, that means about

$45,000 a year -- the school in 2004-05 sponsored 49 National Merit

Scholars -- will be used for other scholarships. The university

system’s reasoning is that the National Merit practice of judging

students by a single test (the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test)

goes against university standards. Do evaluations by such single

methods fail to adequately measure students’ potential?

The decision to change the National Merit scholarship program was

a pretty easy one to make. Basing these scholarship awards on only

the PSAT was really not a very good idea in the first place and

changing it won’t affect very many students. The “P” in PSAT

officially stands for “preliminary,” but what it really means to most

people is “practice” for the real thing. The PSAT was not designed to

be a complete or completely accurate measure of anything except

readiness to take another test. That’s a pretty weak criterion for

handing out thousands of dollars in scholarship money and, as noted

in the announcement, many students don’t even take the PSAT. Under

the prior terms for National Merit scholarships, skipping the

completely optional PSAT would eliminate students from any

consideration for a National Merit scholarship.

Evaluations for scholarship eligibility based on a single method

don’t necessarily fail to adequately measure students’ potential, as

long as the evaluation method is comprehensive -- that is, more than

just one multiple choice test. It certainly seems to be a better idea

to award scholarships and grants based on at least a few different

factors, but that requires more time and effort than just looking at

one test score. If the awarding bodies are willing to expend the

effort to evaluate multiple criteria, then so much the better.

However, the rules for the awards need to be clear, unbiased and

readily available. One nice thing about the PSAT as criterion was

that it was plain and simple. Those who chose to pursue a National

Merit scholarship knew exactly what they needed to do. If the new

rules are clearly spelled out and made easily available to students,

then these changes will definitely be an upgrade to a good program.

* MARK GLEASON is a Costa Mesa resident and parent.

Even though the National Merit selection criteria may not be the

same as the University of California criteria, it is foolish for the

UC regents to end their long-standing participation in the National

Merit program. Qualified students should be awarded scholarships

based on their scores on a single test regardless of need, race or

other criteria.

Yes, I believe a single test does predict college potential and

future success. Have you ever heard of a National Merit Scholar who

was a failure in college?

By denying scholarships to worthy National Merit recipients, UC

Regents have removed an incentive for all students to participate in

this well-respected program. The Regents are disingenuous. A National

Merit spokesperson defending the process said grades, recommendations

from schools and personal statements are required of finalists.

A news article said the National Merit program has been criticized

in the past for its narrow selection process. Thus, the underlying

reason for the regents’ decision revolves around National Merit not

naming more Latino, black, low-income and other underrepresented

groups of students as scholars.

But regents are engaging in a form of reverse discrimination

toward those who qualify and deserve a scholarship. We have an

unelected governmental agency lowering the bar of achievement so that

race and income are determining factors instead of scholarship.

Maybe we will see the regents’ reasoning applied to Olympic

competition where tens of contestants representing many races and

economic groups will stand as a group of winners. Gone will be the

gold, bronze and silver distinction for being the best.

A few years ago, the school district altered the valedictorian and

salutatorian recognition system to include many top scholars, not

just the two students with the highest GPAs. I voted against the

change. The old way worked, and the competition among students was

healthy. Not everyone can be No. 1.

Competition is color blind and doesn’t care about income level or

race. In America, we should continue to recognize individual

achievement. We were created equal, but we have unique gifts, such as

intelligence, which some apply fully and some don’t. Fooling with

programs just to accommodate special groups is a bad idea and leads

to socialism.

* WENDY LEECE is a Costa Mesa parent, former school board member

and member of the city’s parks and recreation commission.