Talk:National Society of Collegiate Scholars

Legitimacy?

I am an NSCS member and did my research before joining. If the school doesn't announce the ranking, they most likely just go with GPA. But I do know that some schools don't give out student information, but instead, NSCS sends the school the invitations and then the school gives them out to their students. I looked on the NSCS website and saw that Rice University has 119 new members this year and a total of 1,820 (including alumni). NSCS has chapters at over 270 schools nationwide (including Princeton, Cornell, MIT, BYU, UCLA) and at this time has over 750,000 members.

When Googling, I see multiple press releases, Facebook posts, Tweets and articles talking about scholarships that NSCS members have received. They give out $250,000/year in scholarship money. You can find their annual financial report here: http://www.nscs.org/annual-reports.

Any legitimate honor society has a membership fee. How else would they have money to give scholarships? And they don't just "mass mail" random students. They send a real invitation to the students' home addresses and ALSO an e-mail to some. If you didn't get a hard copy invitation, they probably just don't have your address.

NSCS has a Board of Directors: http://www.nscs.org/board-directors, a National Leadership Council: http://www.nscs.org/national-leadership-council and an office in DC with staff: http://www.nscs.org/national-staff and NSCS members who intern there.

The NSCS Misson Statement is, "NSCS exists to recognize and elevate high-achievers." To fulfill their mission of "recognizing high-achievers", the organization relies on $95 membership fees that unsuspecting students pay which totaled $6,722,960 according to their IRS Form 990 for FY2017. They spent over 85% of their mission or $5,660,589 (IRS Form 990 for FY2017) on their mailings ($1,438,076), office expenses ($2,320,910), and salaries ($1,985,360). They focus on leadership, integrity and community service. Through programs like Planning to Achieve Collegiate Excellence (PACE): http://www.nscs.org/PACE and "I Stand for Integrity" Week: http://www.nscs.org/i-stand-integrity-week, members are encouraged to be active in their communities.

You can find TONS of photos on their Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/nscs94 and they have videos about NSCS at http://www.youtube.com/thenscs.

If you just do a little research before rushing to judge, you will find out the facts. The facts are that this organization spends over 85% of their revenue on operating expenses, not scholarships. Savvy students shouldn't pay $95 for networking and the scholarship information that students pay for is free with a little research (MEgirl04103 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)).

Someone better than me should edit this document come on 218 chapters and not one wikipedia editor?--69.122.196.117 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Some more stuff to be included might be a list of all chapters, the 5 regions, hierarchy of leaders in the National Leadership Council (NLC) the ambassadors, staff, directors. There should be something about all the mottos they have like Honor, Inspire, Engage or whatever it is. TEAM together engaging all members is a good one to have. Definitly some excerpts from the induction pledge. Our influence on campuses. --12.154.99.51 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is NSCS a legitimate organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.8.21 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe so 24.136.121.173 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why they email random students and ask for $95 for membership ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.241.166 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

NSCS is not a legitimate organization. No honor society would send out mass emails to students, never mind ask them to fork over a $95 membership fee. The article says the organization is nationwide at a number of campuses, but I have never heard of such an honor society at my college. Why would a prestigious honor society email students instead of sending official letters to the homes of students? I wouldn't fall for it. 75.143.66.188 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of NSCS and my invitation came as an official letter to my parents' house. Nearly all honor societies ask for a membership fee, but NSCS holds the right to waive the fee for students with financial need. I do get a lot of e-mails from nationals about different programs and opportunities, but anything important comes through the mail. Just because your school doesn't have it does not mean that NSCS isn't a legitimate organization. My school doesn't have Phi Beta Kappa, does that mean it's not real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.23.210 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a money making operation. My daughter reported that many many of her friends and their parents got fancy looking invites. Save your money for Phi Beta Kappa or other such that you have actually heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir ken g (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to see a full disclosure of the financial statements, how much are the directors/executives paid, how much goes to advertisement/direct mails. Than we have a better idea of whether it is just a money generating machine for a bunch of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.248.70 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit of Googling pointed me towards a couple financial statements (I can add direct references to them here if desired) that showed the foundation wasn't making much money, was spending most of what it was making on "membership" (though not explicitly stated, this tends to suggest the organization does indeed spend most of its income on acquiring additional members), and expected to have issues continuing to operate because of the decline in new memberships and revenue. Because nobody's offered to clean up the page at all after my "reads like an advertisement" tagging last month, and since I don't believe the entity to be noteworthy enough to warrant a page, is it appropriate to flag the page for deletion or speedy deletion? Does Wikipedia:CSD#G11 apply here (since much of the page is copied straight from the organization's own web pages, Wikipedia:CSD#G12 might apply as well)? -- Willfe (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with some of the statements made, such as that NSCS is a non-profit, that it's a member of the Association of College Honor Societies, and that its first chapter was formed at a prestigious university is that people interpret these statements as lending credibility to the organization. What people don't realize is that a non-profit can be run for the financial benefit of the organizers. People don't know that all it takes for an honorary society to be admitted to the Association of College Honor Societies are (1) maximum fraction of 20% of the class is eligible to join, (2) it's been in existence for 10 years, and (3) they pay the associated membership fee. People don't consider the fact that a prestigious university doesn't necessarily have any kind of vetting process for an organization to form a chapter there.

A truly neutral page on NSCS would be a good thing, but my experience is that within the context of the Wikipedia rules, it's very difficult to do that for something controversial like this, generally because suitable citations for the differing points of view are not available. A page which only includes a pro-NSCS view is obviously very helpful for NSCS, but detrimental to Wikipedia. Thus my vote goes for deletion. Fabrickator (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

http://cageyconsumer.com/students/scholars.html

Mass advertisements?

This organization mass-mails their letters to Rice University, according to one of the secretaries who delivers the mail to roughly 10% of the students (Wiess College). Rice University does NOT reveal class rank and thus the statement "Membership is offered by invitation to first-and second-year college students who rank in the top 20 percent of their class and have a minimum GPA of 3.4" is likely false or partially untrue. Is their any evidence to back up this claim and/or evidence to the contrary?

--98.200.114.9 (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just received a letter today and it claims (exact quote): "Membership in the Society is for students who are in the top 20 percent of their class with a 3.4 grade point average or better on a 4.0 scale." So I'm not sure what to make of this... they obviously claim to invite the top 20%, even if they don't really. 24.247.162.139 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

96.255.206.140 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Hello...I have read the posts on this page with some unease and am disappointed with some of the folks who expressed their unwillingness to educate themselves before opening their virtual mouths and inserting their feet. (While I know my spelling leaves much to be desired...at least I try to get my facts correct)

The first thing I want to address is this "mass mailing" issue. The person two spots above me wrote: ~> "This organization mass-mails their letters to Rice University, according to one of the secretaries who delivers the mail to roughly 10% of the students (Wiess College). Rice University does NOT reveal class rank and thus the statement "Membership is offered by invitation to first-and second-year college students who rank in the top 20 percent of their class and have a minimum GPA of 3.4" is likely false or partially untrue"<~ Now stop me when I mess up here but wasn't that clearly explained both in a post above and proven in this statement itself. They mail a bunch of invitations to the University ...not to the students...for the University to issue to its students who meet the Societies membership requirements...and they do this BECAUSE Rice does not reveal class ranks. If they did then the Society would mail them directly to the student bypassing that poor overworked secretary.

Secondly, I have a child at both George Mason University and at William an Mary (both in Virginia)and both were sent invitations. When they were in High School they were both bombarded with these invitations and we were all more than a little skeptical about the legitimate status of this organization. We did our research....viewed the Mission Statement...and all the other information we could get our hands on...and came to believe that this organization is in fact for real. It just is not in the same league as Phi Betta Kapa. Since I live right outside of Washington I actually went down to the Dupont Circle address that this organization claims to be headquartered at and - low and behold....it actually exhisted...and it was not in a huge sparkling office building like some other organizations. Look folks...this is a small society flowing out of GW University designed to encourage underclassmen to continue to strive to achieve excellence in both academics and the community through emphasis on integrity and community service. It is not a big organization, and does not have its web cast across the entire country (and Rice is a LONG way away from here).

If you doubt that it is a "real and Legitimate orgainzation" I would suggest you might want to check out the membership of their Honorary Board of Regents...I think that you will find that none of these folks would be associated with the organization if it would tarnish their name. I am including a partial list of some of the folks on this Board: Maya Angelou, Joan Ganz Cooney (Chairman, Sesame Workshop), Henry Louis Gates, Jr.(Director, W.E.B. DuBois Institute for Afro-American Research), Wendy Kopp (CEO and Founder, Teach For America), J.W. Marriott, Jr.(Chairman & CEO, Marriott International, Inc.), and Harold T. Shapiro {President, Princeton University (1988-2001)}

This is a great small organizatin to join...if you qualify... Think of it as your first "networking" opportunity and a $95 membership fee is a relatively small price to pay compared to what you will be paying later on to join other professional organizations that have much less constructive goals. 96.255.206.140 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a student that recently received an invitation, I can confidently say that their standards are fairly inclusive. My own grades are mediocre, and some length of research has shown me that while the organization is legally legitimate, it undoubtedly works hard to keep the appearance of "integrity." Most front-page Google searches return formal, positive reviews alleging the organization's legitimacy, but each reviewing site is usually in some way directly connected to the NSCS site. The more visible forums where people question the legitimacy of the organization have one or more posters claiming personal experience of the organization's veracity, but they do so in obviously canned and conspicuously formal messages. This own Wikipedia page has been subject to obvious tampering by people attempting to market the organization as worth the entry fee (as seen in previous iterations of the page), and though there may in fact be some awarded scholarships (which I can find no evidence of), I would not be surprised if they were small in comparison to the sum of entry fees the organization attempts to accrue. At best the organization's marketing and this page are very suspicious-looking attempts to clarify the organization as being wholly legitimate, and at worst both are examples of internet advertising through tampering with public forums to further the goals of a scam.

96.255.206.140 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tremendous doubts about this organization. It took in $7,178,348 in total revenues in last year and paid out $415,200 in scholarships. Read the annual report which is base solely on data provided by the "charity" http://issuu.com/nscs/docs/2012_annual_report_final. I love the support of a person early, alluding to the Honorary board of directors. Have you called any of them? I haven't either but do you think Maya Angelou is going over their books or attending meetings at 85 years old? What are her specific obligations to NSCS? I sent her an email, let's see if she responds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbg123 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Honorary board of regents

This "Honorary" Board of Regents sounds awfully fishy to me. It makes me think that these board members did not consent to (and may not be aware of) the "honor" of being on the board. If nobody has a source proving otherwise, this section should be removed from the article. Nathan Korth (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Society of Collegiate Scholars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080316082819/http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu:80/nscs/Service/commServ.html to http://www.cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/nscs/Service/commServ.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120609062500/http://www.nscs.org:80/about/faqs/ to http://www.nscs.org/about/faqs/#q5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

admittance criteria confusion

Following a recent edit, National Society of Collegiate Scholars now states:

Membership is offered by invitation to first- and second-year college students who have GPAs of at least 3.4 and are in the top 10% of their class.

Prior to that edit, it had stated:

Membership is offered by invitation to first- and second-year college students with GPAs of 3.4 and are at the top 20% of their class.

The citation for this claim (archived from 2012) states:

You must be a first or second year college student in the top 20 percent of your class with a GPA of 3.4 or above.

Per the Orgsync web site (https://orgsync.com/104034/chapter):

We invite first-and second-year college students who have a GPA of 3.4 or higher. This puts them in the top 20% of students nationally.

Per the ACHS (http://www.achsnatl.org/society.asp?society=nscs) :

ELIGIBILITY: NSCS invites first and second year students who are in the top 20% of their class with at least a minimum cumulative grade point average of 3.4. NSCS is an interdisciplinary honor society. (updaed 2/21/2017)

I'll let somebody else figure out what this should really state and make the appropriate correction. Fabrickator (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Serious concerns about the quality of the page

First let's get my unverified opinion out of the way: NSCS is a shady organization at best and a scam at worst. They consistently work to plant false reviews all over the web to make themselves appear legitimate. One reason that it's so effective is that they understand they're targeting smart(ish) people, so these aren't the typical bad grammar/obviously fake testimonial reviews - they put in a bit of effort to make them sound legit. But at the end of the day their claims are unsubstantiated and often downright false, and their primary goal is that $97 membership fee. This is actually pretty effective as well because they boast that it is a one-time fee for a lifetime membership, and after all there are other honor societies who charge similar fees so what's the big deal - right?

Ok, now to the substance. This page SUCKS, and I've seen some bad wikipedia pages (we all have). The primary issue is that many of the citations come from NSCS or NSCS-affiliated sources (13 out of 29 by my counting at the time of this writing) - a HUGE red flag!! And some sections read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia.

Back to opinion. Given NSCS's history of bad faith practices, this article should be cleaned up and locked to prevent people from getting scammed by an organization which has engineered a glowing wikipedia page. I now leave it up to those users further up the hierarchy to look into this and hopefully do something about it. --NoamB (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

NoamB, I agree. A college student recently asked me if this organization were legitimate, saying that it seemed to be, because the WP page lists Jimmy Carter in the "Notable Members" section. In fact, the people listed are "honorary members", not actual members. Searching Google, there's no evidence that Jimmy Carter has even heard of the organization, let alone accepted an honorary membership. As such, I'm deleting the "Honorary Members" section, as it has no value. Any organization can declare anyone to be an honorary member, so what? If the org wants to put forth a list of actual notable members, they're welcome to do so. I'm also adding a link to a college newspaper critical of the org. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

DMacks, well, we can tag along with this, can't we? Just a few quick notes: the resume-quality of the club is clear from a Google News search, which is full of results from local newspapers of smart people with memberships, but I don't think anyone doubted that, and it isn't very relevant for the article content. There are very, very few reliable articles that discuss the organization. Here is something--but then you see that a spokesperson for the organization said this, "Barclay said The National Society of Collegiate Scholars uses the fees for the scholarships." Strictly speaking that is true--but 90% of the fees go elsewhere, if these numbers are accurate. The article, from a student newspaper, doesn't comment on it. And here is an article from USA Today on the same topic ("which ones are sketch"), and it quotes Loflin, who says little more than "if it's non-profit it's OK". (Non-profit? Well, his salary as a CEO of that club is five times mine, and I'm a PhD with tenure, so at least one person is profiting.) One thing that could come of the the Chronicle article (Andrew Brownstein, "Dishonor Society". The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 22, 2002.) is the link between Golden Key and NSCS, by way of Loflin: surely that is relevant, as is the brief note in that article about marketing strategies (who aims at which students).

The larger problem of course is that such organizations, actually like many professional organizations too, just don't get a ton of coverage, and without more secondary sourcing it's difficult to improve an article. But it is also clear to me that what we have now is just not good. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There have certainly been very many people over the years who have acted as "touts" for NSCS (I think members commit to this as part of the induction ceremony  ;-) ), claiming all the great opportunities NSCS has provided them with... never mind the scholarship possibilities! Content that is critical of NSCS may be hard to find, but it's out there. Here's one source, I don't know if it would be useful for citing in an article, but at least it's an amusing read:

NCSC fails at every avenue to suck in master's student

Article is at the bottom of the linked page.

So is there anybody who continues to assert that publication of the financials is actually contrary to WP policy? It is not excluded based on "primary source", nor does inclusion of this information violate any policy concerning "original research". Of course, that's my interpretation, but I might besmirch your name if you disagree. Fabrickator (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the single sentence identifying criticism of the org. should be in the lede. Ledes are supposed to summarize the most important info, so you get that most important info without having to read the whole article, especially since you might miss details in the wall of text. Indeed, I checked out the article because a college student asked me if the organization were legitimate, and she'd already looked at this article. An encyclopedia doesn't weigh in on whether the criticism is justified, just that it exists, and it certainly exists, and a single-sentence reference to it ought to be in the lede. Here are other articles where the existence of criticism is mentioned in the lede:

1. Scientology
2. My Pillow
3. Hillary Clinton
4. Google

This list goes on and on. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

verifying non-profit accredited tax-exempt claim

I am reviewing the sources cited to support the following statement:

NSCS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization accredited by the Association of College Honor Societies, and is tax-exempt.

Here are the currently-cited sources (as of 28 May 2021):

• NSCS page on identifying legit honor societies
• USA Today story on identifying legit honor societies
• BBB entry for NSCS (listed as "Honor Societies Certified by ACHS")
• irs.gov non-profit search

commentary:

1. The NSCS page states the criteria for a "legitimate" honor society, and then asserts that NSCS fulfills each of the criteria. A purely self-serving page, which is only credible to the extent that the reader already accepts that NSCS is a legitimate honor society.
2. The USA Today story provides criteria for legitimate honor societies, including membership in ACHS. The article is partially sourced from a representative of NSCS. The relevant claim is that NSCS is non-profit, but that's provided by the NSCS representative, not good for much since there's no indication that the claim was verified.
3. The BBB entry is a "mish-mosh" of stuff. It has the "A+" rating from the BBB, and it appears to imply the non-profit status, but again, the information largely comes from the NSCS itself. There are a handful of reviews provided, which are admittedly interesting, but they are not pertinent to these claims. However, while the link goes to the BBB, the provided text implies that the link is from ACHS. Something is awry!
4. The IRS non-profit search needs to be updated. Here's a good link: Details about National Society Of Collegiate Scholars. Although this page describes a prior revocation, it at least confirms that NSCS has held non-profit status. It is the result I got from the Tax Exempt Organization Search page using the search by organization name option.

This is my first cut. The claims made aren't really much, and I don't doubt that they're true, but the sources generally don't support the claims and they are largely self-serving.

I will eventually get around to doing some further analysis, but I would appreciate additional input from anybody who's watching. Fabrickator (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Connected Contributor

I am new to Reddit and trying to do the right thing in providing information on the organization.

I don't understand the vitriol and hate that some of the editors seem to have but everyone is entitled to their opinion. What can we do to help get truthful and accurate information for those looking for it? The organization isn't trying to hide anything. DupontNSCS (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@DupontNSCS: "Vitriol and hate" are pretty strong words. There might be some unsupported opinions expressed on the talk page (please note, however, that the talk page isn't intended as a place for a general discussion of the article topic), but if you are referring to the article itself, please identify the text or edits that you are referring to. Inasmuch as I have done a couple of edits of this article, I would especially like to know if you feel any of them are as vile as you suggest. That said, be aware that Wikipedia is subject to a certain amount of vandalism, and while this is to some degree mitigated by editors who happen to notice disruptive edits, that is far from a foolproof mechanism.

Now I do have a specific question I am hopeful that you can help with. As written, the article implies that admission to NSCS requires being in the top 20% of one's class (though only at the time of admission). I suspect that requirement is or was part of the ACHS rules (though not sure about that). Can you please verify one way or the other whether either NSCS or ACHS imposes such a requirement, and if so, if there's a presumption that a 3.0 GPA will fulfill this requirement? One more thing, please remember to always "sign" your talk page posts with the sequence of four tildes. Thanks. Fabrickator (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I appreciate your observation and your question. My reference to the vitriol and hate are in some of the comments people make, not in the article about NSCS itself. So your point is taken that the Talk isn't representative of the published information. To answer your question, NSCS changed its requirement for membership from a 3.4 GPA to a 3.0 GPA about 16 months ago. When that decision was made, the "top 20%" was no longer accurate and was removed from NSCS marketing materials. Previously the estimate of a 3.4 GPA and above was the top 20% of students. NSCS invites students to join based on data received from its university chapters. Due to privacy reasons, we don't receive actual GPA information, we only receive information on whether or not students qualify. Some universities pull information for the top 20%, some pull based on GPA, and some pull only the students that make the Dean's List. The rules for ACHS do state that students should be in the top 20% according to their Bylaws. This is something I believe ACHS is debating changing based on the requests of some member institutions however I do not know yet if a decision has been made. I hope that helps answer your question and that I am doing this correctly. DupontNSCS (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the "Bylaws" reference in the preceding paragraph to an inline link ... this talk page is not an article, so inline links are okay, and this avoids the need to define a "references" section. Of course, in making this change, I've violated the guideline against revising pre-existing content on talk pages. Fabrickator (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

COI issues

Although we have an editor who has declared COI status, I think we are getting edits from people who are not actually disinterested parties. While members of an organization do not necessarily have to declare a COI status, NSCS members (particularly those in leadership roles) are encouraged to promote the organization and may view making "positive" changes to the NSCS article as a way to promote NSCS, even in the absence of any explicit encouragement to do this.

I'm not formally asking for semi-protection, but if somebody else agrees, I would support it. Fabrickator (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Colors

The NSCS's former colors were crimson and gold. In the 2021 rebranding I note that these were switched to Burgundy and Gold, but these do not quite match the new logo. Which are correct? Vendors selling graduation cords still list the old colors (at times), and some list the new colors. I just updated the main article infobox to reflect the current address, chapter count, number of lifetime initiates, address, and new logo.

Also, is there a publication, in addition to the 3 Pillars blog? Jax MN (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Malware

As of 10 Oct 2021 I'm getting a malware / phishing warning when I link to the official website. I didn't see any further alerts when I went to it, so it may be benign, but it should be noted by the organization for repair. Jax MN (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

scholarships and membership fee

@Jax MN: As of your edit of 23:03, 12 November 2021‎ revision, the "finances" section states:

To be eligible for scholarships, premium membership is required, with a one-time fee of $189.

while the "scholarships" section states

NSCS provides members with access to over $750,000 in scholarships and awards. Premium membership in NSCS provides access to nearly $100 million in scholarships.

Can you please resolve this discrepancy... and can you also please clarify whether the $189 is in addition to or instead of the fee for basic membership. Fabrickator (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Nice catch, with that flyer. I rewrote several passages and clarified the fees with a new section. I found the Hub, which is the source of that $100M. That passage was carefully worded to note "allow access to"", which is normally seen as weaselly wording among WP editors. I figured since it was a direct quote I'd let it stand, also noting that the group of scholars eligible for a piece of that $100M is very limited: only 15 annually, and they must be studying Islamic Studies or a related field. I'm OK with it now. I see the Founder still takes home a pretty salary. And he isn't the Executive Director... Good livin'... Jax MN (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you've stumbled across some information that puts NSCS in quite a bad light. The best take on criticism of NSCS been that it's all subjective whether or not NSCS is particularly different (in a negative sense) from other honorary societies. Charging an extra $100, only to have people discover that there's very little chance the additional financial aid would be of interest to the typical member (as well as it being objectively overstated as to how much funding is actually available), it's difficult to understand what they were thinking. Fabrickator (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Negative light? I hadn't really considered that. My entire interest is in providing factual content, fully referenced and clearly summarized from which readers may derive encyclopedic value. Looking at the article, I think readers would appreciate seeing fees delineated in the summaries for all honor societies, where at first I thought it could seem merely promotional. To the issue at hand, it may be that some potential NSCS members find that the extra $200 to gain a resume review and mentorship support is valuable (even if colleges will do this for free), where the extra $100 for NSCS' mid-level tier, upon inspection, loses its shine. (In retail we used to call this a "good-better-best" step-up strategy.) Whether a viable strategy or not, is not my role to judge. NSCS's founder and staff are well paid, which one would assume is an indication that they are extremely good at what they do, right? Jax MN (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)