@appgodxoxo The best answer you are going to get at this point (note that a more accurate concordance table will be released by College Board in May 2016) is “probably yes”. I have a feeling that the cutoff for CA will be either 220 or 221, and would be very, very surprised IF the CA cutoff turns out to be 222.
@websensation
I feel like 222 would be pretty ridiculous, considering 228 is the new highest score. Based off of concordance, 220/221 is an appropriate match, if not a little high.
@appgodxoxo I agree with you. That is why I said I would be “very, very surprised” if the CA cutoff turns out to be 222. The 222 CA cutoff was mentioned because many people felt that more people did well in the changed format PSAT. However, I believe this is not case for the following two reasons:
- People who post their scores at CC perform very well.
- Many people who would have done well under the old PSAT format ended up doing worse.
I would not be surprised if the CA cutoff score turns out to be 219, 220 or 221, but I would be highly surprised if it turns out to be 222. That’s my best guess at this point.
@websensation
Even if people did “very well,” the highest capped score is a 228; 222 out of 228 is far, far higher than last year’s semifinalist cutoff for CA.
Can anyone give me a good explanation to why the concordance tables are not wholly accurate?
@appgodxoxo It’s just my opinion that the concordance tables are inaccurate. First of all, the tables are preliminary and college board is not submitting the final tables until May. Then reviewing the tables and reconciling them with the scores posted on CC, the percentiles really don’t match up. For example, a 1380 on the 2015 test was in the 99th percentile. When matching this up to the concordance table, the 1380 would be a selection index of 202. A score of 202 probably only got you a NMSF designation in West Virgina and North Dakota last year… so this seems off.
@appgodxoxo You have to view the College Board’s Concordance tables. According to their tables, the range is around 219, 220 or 221. That’s the best guess you have. You have to go by the College Board’s Concordance tables at this point and ignore others, until they come out with an updated tables in May 2016.
Perhaps several of us can reach out to the test prep companies who have made some predictions about adjustments to the cut-off scores in various states based on the new PSAT scoring approach and the charts constructed on these threads showing some actual scores & percentiles and see if they believe their predictions warrant adjustments or what info they will be looking for to make further estimates about how the state cut off scores will likely be affected. Perhaps link them to the comments with some of the tables constructed so far: – here is one http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19162494/#Comment_19162494
Here are 2 companies that made predictions (which many on CC do not agree with):
http://blog.prepscholar.com/whats-a-good-psat-score-for-2015
Contact form: http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/contact
http://collegeadmissions.testmasters.com/psat-scores-cut-national-merit-2016/
Contact form: http://collegeadmissions.testmasters.com/ask-test-masters/
@Mamelot 35, 36, 36.5
On the other thread you posted:
“My husband and I each estimated this a different way and both came to the same conclusion: 218. It’s bizarre and based on some interesting scale relationships between the old and new test as represented in the preliminary concordance tables. We are hoping that it’s an overestimation. We’ll all know more once the final concordance tables are released in May.”
Can you explain who you came up with a cutoff of 218/228 for Minnesota when last year the cutoff was 214/240? I can’t wrap my mind around how ANY individual state cutoff would be higher than last years when we have gone from a 1-240 scale to 1-228. It doesn’t make any sense.
I agree with you @suzyQ7 I think all the cutoffs this year will be lower than last year. If there was a bookie taking bets on this, I would certainly put some money down!!
Ooo, call Las Vegas, a whole new audience for online betting – NMSF cutoffs by state!
So, will a Will a 1470, 221 SI ( a common high score) make semifinalist in CA?
Michigander here. Will a score of 1400 (720M 680W/R) and 208 SI make commended or Semifinalist in Michigan?
@appgodxoxo You keep asking that question in every thread. First of all, 1470 is completely irrelevant. Second, no one knows if 221 is semifinalist. Best guess is that yes it is. But no one knows for sure until September.
Hello Michigander @marccoreus11 ! I definitely think you have a great shot for NMSF with that score based on where MI scored in last year’s PSAT. Keep your fingers crossed and look for a communication in September.
@marccoreus11 208 is easily commended. No one knows for sure if it will be SF or not, though. Michigan is not normally a high scoring state, so you have a shot.
Thanks guys
@jerzmaster I agree. I have no idea why people think the cutoff will be the same or higher in any state. It doesn’t matter if the test is easier. It’s a scaled score. The scale takes into account things like more people taking the test and the difficulty of the test.
@suzyQ7 surely. However, before doing so I believe it’s better to concord current scores section scores with last year’s and then compare THAT total to last year’s state SI cut-off. (in other words, go backwards rather than forwards).
So what I did: I took last year’s MN cut-off of 215 and noticed that it’s at the lower end of the 99th percentile (using historical percentiles published by CB, etc. that many on this forum have already linked to). Knowing a bit how this might break out on a separate test basis (math percentiles here are a bit higher than the reading or the writing tests) I then arrived at estimates of the individual estimated test scores. I then took a look at how those scores would translate into the current section scaled scores using the last set of concordance tables. Then I added them up and multiplied by two and the result I came up with was 218.
What my husband did (and this took about 1/10th the time!). He noticed that 215 was near the low end of the 99th percentile (not the bottom though) - then he figured that if each separate test score was at the bottom the 99th, they would all correspond to something higher. So he just found which score corresponded to that minimum percentile, con corded it to the section tables, added up the total and multiple by two - again getting 218.
We probably really did do the same thing just using slightly different assumptions. Mine was deriving “likely scores” corresponding to a 215, his was just looking at the bottom of the 99th percentile.
I think this is a bizarre result, by the way and it’s probably because the concordance tables should be delineated into 1/10 of a percent. People have noticed inconsistencies between historical percentages and the concordance tables. Logic tells us it should be slightly lower - and yet D3’s 220 concords with a 219-220 depending on which tables you use. So go figure.