My mom and I have been following the number of NMSFs at my high school for about 5 years, and it has been between 23 and 28 each year. I think it’s highly likely the same number will happen this year due to a feeder GT program that I was in- most NMSFs come from there. If a large number of additional kids beyond the 30 or so who will likely qualify for NMSF score in the 99th percentile, then I could reasonably have some tangible evidence that the SI percentiles are not based on actual test taker data. @suzyQ7
My school has a high number of NMSFs from year to year, so it’s unlikely that we suddenly got 50% more NMSFs. That might be more likely at a school that only gets 3-5 NMSFs, where no real patterns can be observed because of a small sample size.
Again, it doesn’t matter if the test is easier - only 1% of the test takers can be in the 99th percentile. Not 2%, or 3%, or 5%.
Suzy - look at it this way. Let’s say that your state’s cutoff is generally right at the 99%. And usually your school has 2 or 3 kids who test that high. Then this year comes around, and according to the college board tables, 40 kids are in the 99%. Which is more likely - that your school suddenly has a lot more really smart kids this year, or that the table that lists the scores as being at the 99% is incorrect, and that the real 99% band is a much higher score than the table shows.
I think the math & reading curves show they were not so easy, right?? Just my perspective - not as a statistician - that in many states where most students do not prep for the PSAT like it is an actual competition - the scores won’t all be bunched at the top. And I think that GCs can access much more detailed info and if we can tap into those reports with their help, it will bring some more clarity (or grounds for much more speculation). Also, some state summary reports might be available in a a few weeks too - so perhaps we should give ourselves a little break and think about & do a few other things while we wait for some more “real” info. I know it’s hard bc I have been pretty glued to this for a week too. And I am grateful that my kid does not have a clue or care about the PSAT or that he might possibly be a semi-finalist - thank God, right?
All this information tells me that there will be relatively more NMF’s from the “low scoring” states - which states will be giving up NMF’s as a result beats the heck out of me.
When counselors are stating that everyone’s in the 99th percentile, beware of which percentile the GC’s are talking about. If it’s national representative then so what - doesn’t pertain to the NM program.
Mamelot - the number of NMFs that a state has is based on the population of the state, and the percentage of students in the United States that live in that state. If your state contains 5% of the students in the US, you get 5% of the NMF. They start at the highest scoring kid, and go down until they hit that number, regardless of the score. That’s why every state has a different cutoff. No NMFs will be given up by any state - it doesn’t work that way.
But the 99% are not by school, they are across the country. So what it tells me is that we have 40 kids that aced THIS test at my school, but there are 37 other kids that didn’t at some other school that doesn’t normally take the test (weekday sitting). Not sure. My strength is not in stats, and I hate the CB, but hard for me to believe that they would publish something so incredibly wrong (highly inflated user %), when it literally takes 5 minutes to get that info right (user % based on the real scores). They labeled the concordance charts preliminary, and not the %'s. That is more logical- but again - you all are much better with the numbers than I am.
Agree @CA1543 - we need to get off this site. My kids are busy having a life, while I’m here reading these threads!
GCs will voice results whenever those results are anomalous, whether good or bad. If you hear reports of GCs being surprised because, according to the percentile tables, their students are performing worse than they have in previous years, I’d love to hear them.
Our GC said based on the results of our school, 47% of juniors took it - it was on a school day of course, She said that it did not look to her that the test was either much harder or much easier for the students. But she seemed not to have a report that would should a comparison of the school’s SI’s to the state so I’ll ask about that next week. CB indicated in the webinar yesterday that this info should be available to educators.
@ bilchu stated "From my son’s guidance counselor: National score average this year is 1009. State average (NY) is 968. No data based on SI nor any spread data. Don’t know if this would further refine anyone’s analysis. "
For 2014, the mean PSAT score for NY was 135 and the mean National was 140.6. If you divide 135/140.6 = 95.7%; If you divide 968/1009 = 95.9%.
I don’t know if it’s that simple, but wouldn’t that mean performance was similar. If NY had way more people in the 99%, wouldn’t that skew the mean numbers higher?
That poster only mentions 99th percentile - not where it came from. Score report? User sample? SI? It’s not enough information to go on. The 99th percentile for SI went down around a 205, didn’t it? (admission, I didn’t look it up.) And 99th for score was under 1400. So it’s very hard to make any prediction based on their information. Their post needs more information as to what is specifically being referred to. To extrapolate from that that those with a SI in 99+ won’t make the cutoff is a bold statement. I feel we need more to that story.
@DoyleB , Think we all to need to wait to see the final SI percentiles as it is unlikely that there are twice as many 99%er’s at a school as compared to last year, and impossible for that to occur across the National set - the curve would just bend higher and not flatten out as typical.
The lowest National 99th percentile score for total score is 1370. This corresponds to a range of SIs of 198-212. For 2015, a SI of 198 and 199 is the 96th percentile. So, based on total score and national percentile, I’m guessing a lot more kids would get picked up than just looking at SI 205.
For the NY report for example, shows total test takers and the numbers of students who got certain subscores (students did better in math than reading or writing in NY) so could be helpful thought it likely will not say precisely about percentiles and SI’s. Once the Commended cut-off score is known in April, that should provide a base to use as well for estimates.
