My point is that if NM Commended and SF pools are targeted at certain %iles rather than hard numbers (even in the latter case, the hard number is a function of the former based on historical data), then these cutoffs do not conform to the historical %iles for selecting these two (or the hard number for that matter). The only way this could have happened is that # of test takers in OCT 2015 was several fold higher compared with previous years, which is not plausible either. I believe I saw a similar comment/analysis in the board about Tx cutoffs.
Sure you can do flat %s of the test takers and historical data on the NMSF in any given state. Otherwise, how else one can make year-to-year cutoffs to ensure the selection of those in certain %ile.
NMSF is not by percentile. It is give to approx 16,000 students who are at the top of their states. The number per state is apportioned by the percent of US high school graduates in that state the previous year. Percentiles don’t actually come into it, and end up being quite different for each state.
So, for example, California has about 1/8 of the young population of the US. So, it gets about 1/8 of the 16,000 NMSF, or ~2,000. They line up the scores in California from top to bottom and cut closest to the 2,000th student. That happened to be 221 this year.
Is 221 at the 99th percentile nationally? No. If CB would give us accurate data, judging from historic data, that would be one or two scores up from where the 99+ percentile starts. By “99+”, CB meant where the 99.5%ile starts. It doesn’t seem like they are actually going to release that data anymore, or at least for a year, and they have changed the meaning of what “percentile” means (to include that level and lower, rather than just the levels lower).
The states with the lowest cutoffs (same as commended cutoff) used to be typically around the 97th percentile. So, by the old definition of percentile, 209 is somewhere close to 97%ile.
My boy has a 221 in NH. He has not yet been contacted by anyone…however he was told to meet with his guidance counselor after school tomorrow, so hopefully that is it!
Are you certain that CA is allotted ~2k NMSF? Out of how many CA high school PSAT takers, total juniors, and HS graduates in CA? If you were to put the numbers for CA, how would you approximate: # of juniors, % junior who took PSAT, % of juniors who graduate? Also, what about home-schoolers? They need to be taken account, if your base number is graduates. Of course, one can presume that this number is very small in comparison, but to me a more robust (and readily available to CB) number is # of PSAT takes who are juniors.
@janara , here is how it’s explained on another website:
Although Commended Scholars are honored based on the same national cut-off, NMSC distributes Semifinalists proportionally to states (and District of Columbia and U.S. Territories) based on the number of graduating students in the state. For example, California sees approximately 2,100 Semifinalists each year — the most in the country. It gets 13% of Semifinalists because it produces approximately 13% of high school graduates. Mississippi, on the other hand, typically sees about 135 National Merit Semifinalists because the state produces a bit more than 0.8% of U.S. graduates. The distribution is completely unrelated to the number of students taking the PSAT in the state. (Compass is the website.)
@Rebecca1212 the cutoffs are confirmed as accurate and 216 is the number for NH. Your son is definitely sf. Congrats to him!
@janara, yes, CA is allowed about 2K NMSF. Go look at prior years’ numbers from the National Merit Annual Report. This year won’t be any different unless demographics for the state suddenly changed in one year. @suzy100 beat me to it but here is the wording again right from the Official Guide to the PSAT/NMSQT:
“NMSC designates Semifinalists in the program on a state-representational basis to ensure that academically able young people from all parts of the United States are included in this talent pool. Using the latest data available, an allocation of Semifinalists is determined for each state, based on the state’s percentage of the national total of high school graduating seniors. For example, the number of Semifinalists in a state that enrolls approximately two percent of the nation’s graduating seniors would be about 320 (2 percent of the 16,000 Semifinalists).
NMSC then arranges the Selection Index scores of all National Merit Program participants within a state in descending order. The score at which a state’s allocation is most closely filled becomes the Semifinalist qualifying score. Entrants with a Selection Index at or above the qualifying score are named Semifinalists. As a result of this process, Semifinalist qualifying scores vary from state to state and from year to year, but the scores of all Semifinalists are extremely high.”
http://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/student_guide.pdf
2k out of 16k SFs is 12.5% – so, CA HS graduating class must be ~437k (3.5M graduating seniors in the US). I have seen numbers online ~400k for CA HS graduating class in 2012-2014, which is close enough, I guess. If all these HS graduates took PSAT (unlikely), that’s 99.5%ile (for 200 SFs in CA), a more realistic figure is probably that ~300k took PSAT in CA, i.e. 99.3%ile would/should get one SF status. My guess is that quoted SI cutoff for CA corresponds to much higher %ile than any of these two figures, probably ~99.8ile or higher. %ile rank is relevant here because it has to corresponds allocated SF #, which in turn corresponds to the SI cutoff. I see no other way of selecting SI to ensure that “top” scorers make up your allocated 2k SF limit in CA.
Since this is new PSAT, and the FULL Selection Index score is 228, NOT 240 like previously. Will be the cutoff still as high as around 220?
@MA2017CB Cutoffs are already in. See http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19918610/#Comment_19918610
It appears that 221 is the cutoff in WA - my student received a 220 and was not named as a semifinalist
There has been something strange going on in Washington scoring. It has moved back and forth from 220 and 221 a few times in the reporting process. I think the official announcement from the organization is this week. @RustyFinch - sorry that it appears your student missed it by one.
I believe those are still estimates.
221 of Index number? My daughter got it and her index is 224. But I don’t believe it will be that high.
220 is the cutoff for WA. The number went back and forth while an estimate but it’s confirmed at 220.
Anyone know the cutoff for international?
I heard 222 for international.
222
A 221 would only be commended then, right? Is there anything in between commended and semifinalist?
California list is up on http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/14/national-merit-semifinalists-announced/