@MrAustere using the third set of concordance tables I get 209 - 215. Wide range and not very helpful. Hopefully you’ll get more clarity when the final tables are released in May. I wouldn’t give up hope because you are definitely on the cusp. For sure you are commended at the very least so congrats!
For those who can’t figure out why someone would estimate the cut-off to be higher this year than prior years I can only respond: take it up with CB and their concordance tables.
@PAMom21 - that’s a good point. Obviously you can just look at the math section by itself. The real question is what do you need on the Reading and Writing subtests to get the 99th percentile? I’m sure that data exists in all of these floods of posts :-), just not sure where. My DD had 35 on reading, which is 97th, and 37 on writing, which is 99th. I thought I read somewhere that the 99th percentile for writing was (relatively) low.
Also, Earl’s chart showed a 730 math was 99th percentile, but my D had exactly a 730, and that’s 99th national, but 98th user.
If I guess that 37 was needed for reading, and 35 (?) was needed for writing [does anyone know the lowest writing subscore to get a 99th user percentile?], and 37 for math, then that makes a 222 from last year equivalent to a 218.
Which is getting higher / closer to the concordance table prediction…
36 was listed as 99%ile for reading in my score report @thshadow
Where do you find the distinction between national and user percentiles reflected on the report? I can easily see the national, but I am not finding user. Thank you.
@ackack You can see two percentiles only on-line.
@ackack - you have to look at it online, and possibly click “show details”.
@Studious99 - thanks for the reply. I also saw that in another thread that 36 reading was enough for 99th.
So my estimate is now revised so that 222 (2014) might be equivalent to 36 R + 35 (???) W + 37 M = 216 selection index…
@thshadow wouldn’t the writing score be 36? lowest 99th score (11 graders) has been a 73 historically and that corresponds to a 36 per the (controversial) concordance tables.
Is 195 good for New York? Also, how are this many people on CC in the 13 and 14 hundreds? I only got a 1260 and the highest score in my school was a 1300. :-/
I’m trying to find out actual percentiles from people’s scores, from their writing (and reading) subscore sections. I’m trying to come up with an estimate that’s independent of the concordance tables.
@Mamelot @drshoema @EarlVanDorn
I’m totally confused. Probably need a nap.
Mamelot finds 213 (99% 2014) corresponds to 218 for 99% estimate 2015 (concordance table).
drshoema et al find ~210 (across-board-99% 2015 CC data = 690 E+W 720 M) >> concordance table,
voila, 210 (2015) corresponds to 204 in 2014.
Perhaps, the 99% in 2015 is among 5 mil test takers and 99% in 2014 is based on 1.5 mil test takers?
LOL… I think the odds are low that there are 3 times as many high school juniors taking the test this year than last! I don’t want to brag, but I’m pretty good at math. I don’t think there are many irregular posts about people trying to calculate/convert/guesstimate what the selection index might be for NMSF consideration.
@payn4ward If you look at the published stats for the PSAT for last year there were 1.6 million Juniors who took the test and 1.8 million Sophomores. I’ve seen rumors that there were over 4 million total test takers this October. If that is true it is a big jump, but doesn’t represent even twice as many Juniors. Plus, you’ve got to assume that if there are quite a few new test takers that very few of them would fall into the category of the top 4% of the students in their state. The additions would disproportionately fall to the bottom.
Hey, I’ve been following this post for a while now, and it seems that nobody’s posted from CT yet.
I got a 1440 (750M, 690W) [37.5M, 37W, 32R] and ended up with an SI of 213.
Per the concordance tables, my score is somewhere between 216-220 (CT’s cutoff last year was 220) so I’m feeling a bit scared thinking that my score is supposedly “on the fence”.
What do you guys think? Do you guys think that this is enough for Semi-Finalist status?
35 R + 35 W = 99% user on 1430 total score, 36.5 m = 98% user 213 SI
@starjoy tons of people on cc report 33-36 act scores and 2100+ SAT scores also. CC isn’t representative of the average population. I would guess that a much higher percentage of kids who have top scores post on CC than a more average group.
@candjsdad Yes, but there will be a lot more students in 1% if they are counting significantly more test takers, which they shouldn’t.
The concordance table indicates this year’s score would increase compared to the one last year in 200-218 range and I do not understand why.
@starjoy8, your score is very good, in the top few percent in the country and you should be very proud! But it probably won’t make NMSF…so very many kids from NYC will have higher scores which will pretty certainly bump the cutoff higher. DS '17 got 1280 in NY (a small upstate rural school), and that won’t be high enough, but we’re exceedingly proud of him 
.
DD’14 got 221 on the old test which just squeaked through (the only NMF in the county that year), but DS '15 just missed with a 216 so we know both sides of it. Now they’re both doing great at an excellent school, and in the end, DD '14 didn’t use the NMF scholarship anyway because she went to a school that didn’t give NMF money.
Don’t stress about the test. You did very, very well and have lots of possibilities ahead.
@candjsdad, I initially assumed that the concordance was constructed using detailed percentile data that CB has and we don’t. But since the percentiles are so far off (A low 99 percentile score corresponding in some cases to a 94 percentile score on the old scale by concordance), I am wondering whether that concordance is correctly scaled. With all the percentile numbers floating around it’s hard to be sure what percentile comparison we are talking about–and I’m not even sure the percentiles on the old charts and the percentiles on the current score reports are using the same comparison group. (Has someone figured this out?) There are a lot of younger students–actually more than juniors–taking the test now, so it does matter which population is being used to calculate percentiles. I guess they should be using scores of juniors actually eligible for the competition (eg. not foreigners).
@payn4ward it’s 215 (last year) that might correspond to a 218 (this year). Best estimate given the preliminary tables.
I’m wondering if that unexpected result comes from rounding on the 38 scale and also that the two tests were obviously very different - had they not been you’d see a smoother concordance. Also, you can just eyeball the tables and see that very quickly the new scores surpass the old for reading and writing (you have to multiply by two) - math seems to track the best. Therefore, it’s not clear at all that the new scores should necessarily be lower.
Perhaps the concordance tables are totally messed up but that seems a bit far fetched. More likely there are just so many new factors involved in the redesigned test that it’s very difficult to make accurate assumptions about which direction scores should go.
A different updated “professional” estimate, but it shows a much flatter spread than used to be the case: http://collegeadmissions.testmasters.com/update-psat-scores-cut-national-merit-2016/