National Merit Cutoff Predictions Class of 2017

All bets are off this year! Who knows?

@replyback I think the total stays the same and the state number varies yearly since one cannot split within the score. I think this year they will have a difficullty since much more students can land on the same score compared to previous years. The score multiplicity is much higher above 220.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19178623/#Comment_19178623

But then they eliminated the kids from reaching 218+
who got more than 5 writing questions wrong no matter what their math/reading scores are
so the number may be manageable.

Since CB published the SI percentile information, and I donā€™t think we have any good reason to doubt that information, it would be interesting if students could then get info from their guidance counselors as to how many kids in their class scored at or above the historical NMSF percentile cut-off for that state and compare that to how many kids from that school were NMSF last year. I think that would give us a good idea of whether kids were generally scoring higher this year, which seems to be the biggest concern. Just thinking out loud.

@2muchquan As we understand, cutoff is just based on SI score, so CB can not tweak any further by including a separately needed subject score to decide who meets cutoff. So possible theory so far would be the one @PAMom21 suggest, the no of students from each state will have a small give and take adjustment so that a single cutoff score can be used to allow everyone from that state with that SI to get in.

I completely agree with post #595ā€™s numbers - those were what I was referencing in my previous post (I did it unclearly though).

@ SLParent http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/1257840-psat-score-199-any-chance-of-making-commeded-scholar-p2.html - Interesting post with cutoffs for 98 and 99%

@ SLParent - Historical cutoffs by state http://www.collegeplanningsimplified.com/NationalMerit.html

I apologize for not sending you the ā€œunderstanding your scoresā€ from prior years, but it took me hours to find them on different posts. I have them saved on my hard drive, but I donā€™t think I can link that here.

I belieave no matter which State it is, there will be more than handfull juniors would have the same SI score. How would it be possible to make the exact 16,000 SF without cutting in the middle of a score? Just curious. I hope they take into account that someone who got the perfect score in math part, placed in a lowest possible SI score.

Everyone who is interested in the percentiles may want to look at this blog, linked over in the parents forum. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19183686/#Comment_19183686
A lot of analysis, and reports that some school counselors are seeing several times as many students supposedly in the 99th percentile as they have historically.

Check this out. Donā€™t pop your champagne yet, even if your SI is 220.

https://www.ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– /blog/2016/01/14/can-you-trust-your-psat-score/

@PrimeNumber2 my daughter has a 220 and I havenā€™t even purchased the champagne yet! I agree with several posters who think that there may be trouble cutting off the top scorers, especially in the heavily populated states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/01/09/scores-for-new-psat-are-finally-out-what-to-know-about-them-and-what-they-mean-for-redesigned-sat/

Washington Post reports that the PSAT percentiles being reported to kids this year are inflated.

Being in the 99th percentile doesnā€™t mean you are in the top 1% of kids who took the test. It means you are in the top 1% of a national representative sample of HS kids, which sample includes kids who didnā€™t actually take the test. And those kids, had they taken the test, would be expected to score low.

Your percentile-age will vary, but expect your real percentile to be lower.

Iā€™m very glad this story was published in the post, but I donā€™t see any new information here. I still think the concordance tables are faulty (and marked preliminarily) and the percentiles are final. Think about it, the CB HAS the %'s of current test takers - the real ones. If they were SO squewed to the user percentile sample, they wouldnā€™t have published them.

Plus, the article is complaining about then national % that is shown on the paper report, not so much the user %. The user % is what is shown on page 11 of the CB analysis.

Before freaking out about the applerouth blog, try using the concordance tables and see if there is a huge variance in outcome for your scores. We didnā€™t see any. I think the variances described are going to depend on specific score breakdowns.

The concordance tables equates a 2015: 221 = to a 2014: 221-228. Cutoff in my state in 2014 - 225. Clear as mud.

Did you try using the concordance tables by individual sections?

yes-
Reading 2015- 36 = 2014 - 70-74
Writing 2015- 37 = 2014 - 74-76
Math 2015- 37.5= 2014 - 77-78

Total 2015-:211 SI = 2014: 221-228 SI

Yeah, I can see if you go with the lowest score and it isnā€™t clearly above the cut-off that you are going to be in suspense for awhile. :-SS

@suzyQ7 @Mom2aphysicsgeek you might get a better indication of the ā€œconcordedā€ score by computing ALL the possible outcomes. Some are going to recur more than others. When I did this I arrived at a range of -1 to +6 but the maximum frequency was at +2 to +3. It helped me better understand just where the 2014 ā€œequivalentā€ would lie assuming that the concordance tables are accurate.

I agree with @suzyQ7 about the percentiles for SI. Assuming that they are accurate and derived from the students who sat the exam as 11th graders I donā€™t see how they can can be considered ā€œpreliminaryā€ or subject to change. Iā€™m a bit nervous, however, because CB actually removed the bullet point describing where those percentiles come from. They donā€™t actually SAY they are based on 11th grade test takers. But why would CB publish ā€œrepresentativeā€ percentiles for the SI? It would make no sense.

I also donā€™t think that CB is deliberately ā€œinflatingā€ the percentiles. Those ā€œrepresentativeā€ percentiles are appropriate to the broader purpose of tracking college readiness. Obviously they donā€™t pertain to the kids who are seeking National Merit qualification.

Does 99+ mean at or above 99.5%? Does anyone know where thatā€™s defined?

@Frankmeister, Iā€™ve never seen 99+ defined in a College Board document. If you do an internet search, you will see some definitions on various web sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT - for example, says ā€œ** 99+ means better than 99.5 percent of test takersā€.