In past years, weren’t the PSAT score and SI one and the same number? Therefore, the PSAT score percentile * was *the SI percentile.
It’s the CB’s decision to go back to a 2 component SAT score (M + V) that is making things a concordance mess this year. Meanwhile, the NMSC wants to stick w more weighting on verbal abilities to achieve better gender balance.
And here we are in January with incomplete data, trying to figure out who the fast breaststroke swimmers are, based on people’s backstroke times…
Maybe they purposefully chose not to give an SI percentile.
If 207 is correct, than expected cutoffs increased by 2.2% from the sliding scale predictions. So 99th percentile 228/240=.95*213 (2014 99th percentile) = 202; actual 207; 202/228 = .886; 207/228 = .908 so 2.2% increase from expected.
@GMTplus7
“And here we are in January with incomplete data, trying to figure out who the fast breaststroke swimmers are, based on people’s backstroke times…”
Pretty accurate indeed! But the swimmers are now also being evaluated 1/3 on their form and 2/3 on when they touch the finish line so its hard to figure out who really “wins”!
@suzyQ7 No, I don’t think so. It would be slightly lower. For example, TX 228/240220 = 209 (expected on sliding scale). 2091.025 = 214 - 215. I haven’t checked every state. Even testmasters is saying their projections are conservative, so even though this is “back of the envelope” calculations, they kind of fit with some of the data. Commended would be 199ish.
Thanks, @billchu2. This is probably a dog-paddle rather than a legitimate swimming stroke but here goes:
The mean is higher this year. 2014 PSAT averages (off the CB state report): 46.9 R, 45.3 W, 48.6 M. Converting to this year’s score format: Average the R/W: 46.1; now add the Math score to get a total of 94.7 or 59.2% of 160. This year the average is 1009 which is 66.4% of 1520. Call it anything from making excellent prep free and accessible to dumbing down the test but kids did better on average this year and it wouldn’t surprise me to read CB talking excitedly all about that “fact” in the upcoming State Report.
Then I looked at that 1009 to see what it concords to and the closest answer is 139-140. When I add up the three mean scores above I get 140.8. So not exact but pretty close.
I didn’t attempt to concord the three mean test values above and then sum that up to see if the answer is consistent with a 1009. Leaving that fun for someone else <:-P
So that’s all for the average test score. Does this shed any light on the accuracy of the preliminary concordance tables? Not sure.
Thanks @primenumber2! This is an excellent article. At my son’s school, he and one other student have the same total score, but the other student has an SI of 222 and he has 221. They are the top scorers in the school.
We are in the highest cutoff bucket, so it could happen that my son does not make it, and the other student does. He normally does much better in English/Writing than math, but on this test he got ONE wrong on the writing and 4x on the English. The other student got 1 more wrong on the math, but 1 less wrong on the English.
“Out of this confusion, different approaches to forecasting National Merit status have appeared. Many families are looking at percentiles to make judgements about likelihood of earning “Commended Scholar” or “Semifinalist” designation. And to arrive at these estimates, families are using percentiles derived from the National Representative Sample, which is prominently displayed on the front of the score report, when they should be using the “Test User” sample—a more difficult to find number provided to individual students online after they complete registration with the College Board.”
Gee, I wonder where writer is getting her research from? LOL
BTW, @PrimeNumber2 I think you might be correct about scores increasing for many states. If the average is higher, and the max is capped at a lower number, that means that upper portion of the distribution will get a bit crowded with cut-off SI’s constituting a smaller range than before. Scores towards the bottom are the likeliest to increase, and scores toward the top are the likeliest NOT to increase (meaning they stay the same or decrease). That just seems to be the characteristic of the distribution at the higher end, even considering that the cut-offs have to derive from total number of graduating students, etc. as @suzyQ7 and others are pointing out.
@payn4ward wow - that’s one amazing job you did. How did you keep track of all the combinations?
See my comment #38 on the thread. Sorry to repeat here. My D3 scored a 220 with a (2, 2, 4) which I didn’t see on the chart. Did you only do some of the 220’s or did I miss it?
Update: specifically she missed (2; 2; 2,2) if that helps.
When looking at scholarships on college websites, is there a difference between NMS and NMF? Or if a student selects that school as their NM choice, that makes the distinction? Those 2 references are confusing me.