<p>Even 99th percentiles don’t guarantee SF status in high scoring states. The number of SF is allocated by state–for example, in NJ, a high scoring state, last year there were 506 SF out of 15,596 total SF nationally. So NJ was allocated 3.24% of the SF, and the state Selection Index cutoff was set accordingly to include the top 506 scorers. If the same percent is applied this year, NJ will be allowed 392 SF; thus, the NJ SF Selection Index will be set to include approximately the top 392 scores (3.24% is a rough estimate–the NMSC percent allocation should be adjusted each year according to the percent of juniors in NJ among the total national number of juniors who took the test this year, 1,210,797). I just don’t know how to predict from that whether the selection index will rise or fall. It all depends on how many high scorers there are in NJ this year. State reports will be posted by College Board in March. Unfortunately these do not indicate the percentile ranks of the total score, just the percentiles for subscores. </p>
<p>I think NMSC should move up its date for release of SF names, so that families can have more time to explore and schedule visits to potential scholarship colleges (like in April…). NMSC’s number is 847-866-5100. Maybe if enough people lobby they will consider making it easier for families who need merit opportunities.</p>
<p>My son’s GC told us in late August. If your school is slow to notify check CC for updated state by state cutoff info around that time. Of course you will be notified that you are ‘at least’ commended in the spring. That’s a very good score - congrats. My son made it with 212 in AZ but I think CA has been 217 and 218 for the past 2 years.</p>
<p>^^Silver Turtle, you can appeal a question or score??? More info, please!</p>
<p>So many people are saying that the writing scores were way down this year…I wonder if there was perhaps a question or two on there which were poorly vetted? Perhaps they were just a bit too hard, or had ambiguous meanings, more than one plausible correct answer, etc. and that would explain why there seem to be so many students noticing a significantly lower-than-expected writing score.</p>
<p>Note to those who are just joining this thread, if you want to know if your score was high enough to make Semi-Finalist, there’s no way to know for sure but you can make a pretty good guess by looking at the cut-offs for the last three years.</p>
<p>Please see Post #63, page 5 of this discussion, for a complete list of the cutoffs for every state last year.</p>
<p>HowtheHeck, I am appealing a Writing question from Form W. The question:</p>
<p>The (arrival of) swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring (fascinates) scientists, who (continue to) search for (an explanation of the) phenomenon. (No error)</p>
<p>I’d be happy to email anyone a copy of my petition if they’d like to see it. I sent it to the College Board two and a half weeks ago and am waiting for a response.</p>
<p>The question wasn’t ambiguous, nor did it have mutiple correct answers. The College Board simply has the wrong answer. I assume that the error was a product of the presence of “search for” before “explanation of”: “explanation for” sounds somewhat awkward, as it repeats the preposition in the preceding phrase.</p>
<p>It is unfortunate, though, that an error was made on a test given to so many people (well over a million for Form W). Hopefully, the College Board is willing to resign to its mistake.</p>
<p>CB has rescored in the past. But, as far as I can tell, it has done so exactly once for a writing question. (2002, Oct. 15). A flawed math problem was also dropped that year. About 50 challenges a year are issued.</p>
<p>@silverturtle,
I don’t get it. Couldn’t it be “explanation of?” I looked at the link you made. It said, “If you give an ‘explanation of’ something, you give details about it or describe it so that it can be understood.”</p>
<p>Couldn’t the author of the sentence have MEANT “explanation of?” The scientists are searching for details about the phenomenon or hoping to describe it so that it can be understood?</p>
<p>Of course, if the author of the sentence said “explanation for” then the reader could surmise that the scientists are searching to name the specific reason for the swallows’ migration.</p>
<p>In that regard, wouldn’t either use be correct, depending upon what the author of the sentence was trying to convey? To me, ‘explanation of’ goes well with the word ‘phenomenon,’ because they’re wanting to reveal details of the phenomenon to make it better understood – the definition you gave for ‘explanation OF.’</p>
<p>It’s tricky, isn’t it?! I guess we know why absolutely perfect scores are so hard to come by on PSAT tests!</p>
<p>If you give an explanation of something that has happened, you give people reasons for it, especially in an attempt to justify it.</p>
<p>If you say there is an explanation for something, you mean that there is a reason for it. </p>
<p>If you give an explanation of something, you give details about it or describe it so that it can be understood.</p>
<p>And the question again:</p>
<p>The (arrival of) swallows in San Juan Capistrano on the same day each spring (fascinates) scientists, who (continue to) search for (an explanation of the) phenomenon. (No error)</p>
<p>SimpleLife, you’ve misinterpreted the definitions. “explanation of” doesn’t mean “details” or “reason”; it means an offering of these details or reasons. An explanation of something is a physical action.</p>
<p>Scientists can’t logically search for a physical action. The College Board is blatantly wrong on this one. I have search dozens of dictionaries’ entries on “explanation” and found about fifty different example sentences with “explanation of” or “explanation for”; all of them support this distinction.</p>
<p>“search for an explanation of the phenomenon.”</p>
<p>This phrase is correct, and here is the main flaw in your argument. </p>
<p>You are simply using the phrase “explanation of”, when in reality you should include the “search for an” because this is the key flaw in your argument. </p>
<p>Your sentences are flawed because they are used when dialogue is spoken or given, but the scientists aren’t “giving” the explanation; they are searching for it, thus you cannot say that “explanation of” is used exclusively for dialogue, that is, you are “searching for the facts/details of something, for better understanding”.</p>
<p>“Explanation of” and “explanation for” can be used interchangeably: but this certainly does not mean “explanation of” is incorrect.</p>
<p>alihaq, you’re making the error I referred to in post #192. “search for” doesn’t represent a flaw in my argument; rather, it makes it much simpler for me to prove my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you positing that all of those dictionary sentences entries are “flawed”? Perhaps you made a typographical error.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the crux of my argument. Illogically, you seem to be suggesting it as a flaw in my point, unless I am again misunderstanding you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, you’re using the College Board’s use of “explanation of” in the question I am petitioning as support that “explanation of” doesn’t necessarily indicate an action? Surely I don’t have to explicitly point out the flaw in this.</p>
<p>alilhaq, I have claimed that “explanation of” exclusively indicates a physical action and that “explanation for” is synonymous with reason. Every dictionary I have looked at (which is about fifty) either actively supports this, irrefutably indicates this through examples, or doesn’t speak to it (in that the dictionary doesn’t use a preposition following “explanation”). </p>
<p>If you disagree, I invite you to cite a source. Perhaps there was a dictionary I forgot to check. By the way, I found about eight instances in which the College Board uses “explanation” followed by “of” or “for”; all of them support my distinction.</p>
<p>What about your link’s reference to “explanation of” used this way:</p>
<p>“She told the court she would give a full explanation of the prosecution’s decision on Monday.”</p>
<p>Nobody’s “giving details about” the prosecution’s decion or “describing” the decision “so that it can be understood.” There’s no dialogue taking place, and nothing has been described. There is an expectation that it will be described. And yet, your link to Google Dictionary used “of” instead of “for” because the sentence is saying that the she would eventually give details about the decision and decribe the decision so that it could be understood. </p>
<p>Similarly, the scientists are searching for an explanation that will further describe and give more details on the phenomenon of the swallows’ migration.</p>
<p>I really don’t see the problem. But you might be able to create enough dissension with the board to have the question thrown out.</p>