Our school in PA (cut ranges 213-217) almost never has NMSFs, and only averages 0-3 students that reach commended on a yearly basis. I can’t believe this is the only school that has historically scored under 200. Student population is typically around 300. I would love to gather local data, but I don’t think they’ve gotten scores yet (!!!)
** 2015 vs 2014 Scores ONLY based on the number of errors in each section **
Since I made this table showing different error combination for each S.I. Score,
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19178623/#Comment_19178623
it is easy to make the following table showing 2014/2015 scores only based on the # of errors.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19191794/#Comment_19191794
The scores fluctuate depending on which section the errors are between the two years.
2015 | 2014 | | # Wrongs | | R | W | M | | | | | | | | 2014 | 2015 | | # Wrongs | R | W | M
228 | 240 | | 0,1, | 0.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 240 | 228 | | 0, | 0.0 | 0, | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
228 | 236 | | 1,2, | 0.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 240 | 228 | | 1, | 0.0 | 1, | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
227 | 233 | | 2,3, | 0.5 | 0.1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 2 | 37.5 | | | 238 | 226 | | 1,2 | 1.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 1 | 39.0 | 0 | 40.0
227 | 229 | | 3,4, | 0.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 3 | 37.5 | | | 237 | 226 | | 2, | 1.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
226 | 238 | | 1,2, | 1.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 1 | 37 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 236 | 228 | | 1,2 | 2.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 1 | 38.0
226 | 234 | | 2,3, | 1.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 1 | 37 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 235 | 224 | | 3, | 2.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 1 | 39.0 | 0 | 40.0
226 | 234 | | 2,3, | 1.0 | 2,3 | 37 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 234 | 226 | | 3, | 3.0 | 3, | 37.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
226 | 228 | | 3,4, | 1.0 | 2,3 | 37 | 0 | 38 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 234 | 226 | | 2,3 | 3.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 1 | 39.0 | 1 | 38.0
226 | 228 | | 4,5, | 1.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 4 | 37.0 | | | 233 | 224 | | 2,3 | 3.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 2 | 36.5 | 0 | 40.0
226 | 227 | | 5,6, | 1.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 5 | 37.0 | | | 233 | 225 | | 2,3 | 3.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 2 | 36.5
225 | 228 | | 6,7, | 1.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 6 | 36.5 | | | 233 | 225 | | 3, | 3.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 0 | 40.0 | 1 | 38.0
225 | 231 | | 3,4, | 1.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 1 | 37 | 2 | 37.5 | | | 232 | 224 | | 4, | 4.0 | 4, | 36.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
225 | 227 | | 4,5, | 1.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 1 | 37 | 3 | 37.5 | | | 232 | 224 | | 4, | 4.0 | 3, | 37.0 | 1 | 39.0 | 0 | 40.0
225 | 227 | | 4,5, | 1.5 | 2,3 | 37 | 0 | 38 | 2 | 37.5 | | | 231 | 225 | | 3,4 | 4.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 1 | 39.0 | 2 | 36.5
225 | 223 | | 5,6, | 1.5 | 2,3 | 37 | 0 | 38 | 3 | 37.5 | | | 231 | 224 | | 5, | 4.5 | 3, | 38.5 | 1 | 39.0 | 1 | 38.0
224 | 233 | | 2,3, | 2.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 2 | 36 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 230 | 224 | | 5, | 5.0 | 5, | 35.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
224 | 229 | | 3,4, | 2.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 2 | 36 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 230 | 222 | | 4, | 5.0 | 2, | 38.5 | 2 | 36.5 | 0 | 40.0
224 | 230 | | 4,5, | 2.0 | 4,5 | 36 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 230 | 225 | | 4, | 5.0 | 2, | 38.5 | 0 | 40.0 | 2 | 36.5
224 | 226 | | 5,6, | 2.0 | 4,5 | 36 | 0 | 38 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 230 | 222 | | 3,4 | 5.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 3 | 35.0 | 0 | 40.0
224 | 222 | | 7,8, | 2.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 7 | 36.0 | | | 229 | 227 | | 6,7 | 5.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 3 | 34.5
224 | 232 | | 3,4, | 2.0 | 2,3 | 37 | 1 | 37 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 228 | 222 | | 6, | 6.0 | 6, | 34.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
224 | 231 | | 4,5, | 2.0 | 2,3 | 37 | 1 | 37 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 228 | 220 | | 4,5 | 6.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 4 | 34.0 | 0 | 40.0
224 | 226 | | 5,6, | 2.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 1 | 37 | 4 | 37.0 | | | 228 | 226 | | 4,5 | 6.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 4 | 34.0
224 | 225 | | 6,7, | 2.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 1 | 37 | 5 | 37.0 | | | 228 | 222 | | 6, | 6.0 | 5, | 35.0 | 1 | 39.0 | 0 | 40.0
224 | 220 | | 6,7, | 2.0 | 2,3 | 37 | 0 | 38 | 4 | 37.0 | | | 228 | 226 | | 4, | 6.0 | 3, | 36.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 1 | 38.0
224 | 219 | | 7,8, | 2.0 | 2,3 | 37 | 0 | 38 | 5 | 37.0 | | | 228 | 223 | | 5, | 6.0 | 2, | 38.5 | 1 | 39.0 | 2 | 36.5
223 | 221 | | 8,9, | 2.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 8 | 35.5 | | | 227 | 220 | | 5, | 6.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 3 | 35.0 | 0 | 40.0
223 | 223 | | 6,7, | 2.5 | 4,5 | 36 | 0 | 38 | 2 | 37.5 | | | 227 | 226 | | 5,6 | 6.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 5 | 33.5
223 | 219 | | 7,8, | 2.5 | 4,5 | 36 | 0 | 38 | 3 | 37.5 | | | 227 | 222 | | 5, | 6.5 | 3, | 37.0 | 2 | 36.5 | 0 | 40.0
223 | 223 | | 4,5, | 2.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 2 | 36 | 2 | 37.5 | | | 227 | 225 | | 5, | 6.5 | 3, | 37.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 2 | 36.5
223 | 222 | | 5,6, | 2.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 2 | 36 | 3 | 37.5 | | | 226 | 220 | | 7, | 7.0 | 6, | 34.0 | 1 | 39.0 | 0 | 40.0
223 | 225 | | 8,9, | 2.5 | 2,3 | 37 | 1 | 37 | 2 | 37.5 | | | 226 | 224 | | 6, | 7.0 | 5, | 35.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 1 | 38.0
223 | 221 | | 6,7, | 2.5 | 2,3 | 37 | 1 | 37 | 3 | 37.5 | | | 226 | 222 | | 4,5 | 7.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 3 | 35.0 | 1 | 38.0
222 | 230 | | 3,4, | 3.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 3 | 35 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 226 | 223 | | 4,5 | 7.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 2 | 36.5 | 2 | 36.5
222 | 226 | | 4,5, | 3.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 3 | 35 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 226 | 224 | | 5,6 | 7.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 1 | 39.0 | 4 | 34.0
222 | 225 | | 6,7, | 3.0 | 6,7 | 35 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 226 | 222 | | 5, | 7.0 | 2, | 38.5 | 2 | 36.5 | 1 | 38.0
222 | 221 | | 7,8, | 3.0 | 6,7 | 35 | 0 | 38 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 225 | 224 | | 6, | 7.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 0 | 40.0 | 4 | 34.0
222 | 221 | | 9,10, | 3.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 9 | 35.0 | | | 225 | 218 | | 6, | 7.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 4 | 34.0 | 0 | 40.0
222 | 228 | | 10,11 | 3.0 | 4,5 | 36 | 1 | 37 | 0 | 38.0 | | | 225 | 220 | | 6, | 7.5 | 4, | 36.0 | 2 | 36.5 | 0 | 40.0
222 | 224 | | 6,7, | 3.0 | 4,5 | 36 | 1 | 37 | 1 | 38.0 | | | 225 | 223 | | 6, | 7.5 | 4, | 36.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 2 | 36.5
222 | 222 | | 8,9, | 3.0 | 4,5 | 36 | 0 | 38 | 4 | 37.0 | | | 225 | 222 | | 7, | 7.5 | 7, | 32.5 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
222 | 217 | | 9,10, | 3.0 | 4,5 | 36 | 0 | 38 | 5 | 37.0 | | | 225 | 218 | | 6,7 | 7.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 5 | 32.5 | 0 | 40.0
222 | 220 | | 8,9, | 3.0 | 0,1 | 38 | 1 | 37 | 7 | 36.0 | | | 225 | 225 | | 6,7 | 7.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 6 | 32.5
222 | 220 | | 6,7, | 3.0 | 2,3 | 37 | 1 | 37 | 4 | 37.0 | | | 224 | 220 | | 8, | 8.0 | 8, | 32.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
222 | 219 | | 7,8, | 3.0 | 2,3 | 37 | 1 | 37 | 5 | 37.0 | | | 224 | 222 | | 7, | 8.0 | 6, | 34.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 1 | 38.0
221 | 218 | | 10,11 | 3.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 0 | 38 | X | 34.5 | | | 224 | 220 | | 5,6 | 8.0 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 4 | 34.0 | 1 | 38.0
221 | 221 | | 7,8, | 3.5 | 4,5 | 36 | 1 | 37 | 2 | 37.5 | | | 224 | 222 | | 7, | 8.0 | 5, | 35.0 | 1 | 39.0 | 1 | 38.0
221 | 217 | | 8,9, | 3.5 | 4,5 | 36 | 1 | 37 | 3 | 37.5 | | | 223 | 220 | | 9, | 8.5 | 9, | 31.5 | 0 | 40.0 | 0 | 40.0
221 | 217 | | 6,7, | 3.5 | 2,3 | 37 | 2 | 36 | 2 | 37.5 | | | 223 | 216 | | 6,7 | 8.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 6 | 31.5 | 0 | 40.0
221 | 216 | | 7,8, | 3.5 | 2,3 | 37 | 2 | 36 | 3 | 37.5 | | | 223 | 222 | | 7, | 8.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 1 | 39.0 | 4 | 34.0
221 | 218 | | 8,9, | 3.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 2 | 36 | 6 | 36.5 | | | 223 | 221 | | 6, | 8.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 2 | 36.5 | 2 | 36.5
221 | 215 | | 10,11 | 3.5 | 4,5 | 36 | 0 | 38 | 6 | 36.5 | | | 223 | 220 | | 6, | 8.5 | 2, | 38.5 | 3 | 35.0 | 1 | 38.0
221 | 217 | | 9,10, | 3.5 | 2,3 | 37 | 1 | 37 | 6 | 36.5 | | | 223 | 220 | | 7, | 8.5 | 5, | 35.0 | 2 | 36.5 | 0 | 40.0
221 | 219 | | 9,10, | 3.5 | 0,1 | 38 | 1 | 37 | 8 | 35.5 | | | 223 | 223 | | 7, | 8.5 | 5, | 35.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 2 | 36.5
221 | 215 | | 10,11 | 3.5 | 2,3 | 37 | 0 | 38 | 8 | 35.5 | | | 223 | 221 | | 5,6 | 8.5 | 0,1 | 40.0 | 3 | 35.0 | 2 | 36.5
@DoyleB The only reason scores might “come down” in the high cutoff states is that College Board has artificially changed the curve by making the top score 76 per section instead of 80. If we were to measure scores from both 2014 and 2015 tests as -0, -1, -2, etc. I don’t think the cutoffs (expressed as -1, -2, etc. would come down in the higher scoring states.
If the juniors took the two tests and made the same number of errors in each section in 2014 and 2015 tests, above will be their scores.
We can see that the kids scoring above 225+ (2015) will be the same kids who score high, 227+ in 2014.
Scores fluctuate because writing errors are very costly and math errors are cheap. Perfect EBRW score kids get a boost even with math errors as many as 7-8.
In the middle, between 221 - 222 (2015) there is a crossover from the trend in which 2014 scores are higher than 2015 scores with the same # of errors.
Population of kids scoring around 221 (2015) would have scored between 215 - 221 in 2014 and not made nmsf in tippy toppy states. Their number-of-error-based “concordance” 2014 scores are lower than 2015 scores.
@Plotinus @DoyleB @Chembiodad See above table.
also here
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19191794/#Comment_19191794
@Plotinus While no state has had a cutoff over 228 in the past, if they had, that cutoff would have to fall. Somehow scores from 229-240 have to map into the new range, so there has to be some compression at the high end of the tables. The concordance tables show this as well. Thus it doesn’t seem unreasonable that at least some high cutoffs could fall a bit. No?
@Plotinus, not come down on a proportional basis or an absolute basis given that reading test was easier as a result of eliminating obscure words, there were only 4 choices instead of 5, and there wasn’t a penalty for guessing? So NJ would remain at 225 or would it be closer to a proportionally adjusted 214 or more likely somewhere in between such as 220-221 - or we can’t guess until we see National SI percentages?
@payn4ward, I agree, one of my DD’s is a EBWR kid who scored 215 (CR 78, W 69, M 68) in 2014 and 219 (R 38, W 37, M 34.5) in 2015. She is in NJ and I think she comes in a point or two short of NMSF.
@Chembiodad I think she is right on the bubble and will not know till September…
@payn4ward, fingers crossed! As a humble kid (she has a twin who is exactly the same kid), she’ll be just as happy to be in the bigger National Merit Scholar pack at her school. She’s a NE/Midwest LAC kid who wants to study Bio/Environmental Science & History (all smashed together) and wants to be a student athlete so this whole thing is just a reinforcer for her…
I was looking at the CB website to see if there was any more guidance we might find helpful & noticed this (sorry if someone else already pointed it out): It is in the section of Info for Educators –
“NMSC Selection Index
Counselors can approximate an NMSC Selection Index on the redesigned PSAT/NMSQT from pre-2015 PSAT/NMSQT scores. Use the “Section-to-Test” Concordance tables to convert the three subject test scores. Then, double the sum of the Reading, Writing and Language, and Math Test scores to calculate the approximate NMSC Selection Index.” (Concordance tables are here: https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/psat-nmsqt-preliminary-concordance-tables-2015.pdf)
As we can see there are “ranges” of possible SI’s that can be calculated this way on pg 3 but only 1 answer using pg 4 of the tables (my son’s would be 216). But each student has been assigned an SI which may be different than this calculation (my son’s actual is 218), so I wonder, what is CB’s messages to GC’s & schools by the note above?
I see many instances where kids who scored around 2100 in OLD SAT got higher PSAT (new format) scores this year than kids who scored around 2300 in OLD SAT. This is because the new PSAT emphasized less vocabulary stuff. Therefore, I do not believe a lot more kids scored well this year.
I still predict 222 for NJ and DC and 221 for CA and MA as cutoff. No way it’s going to be 218 or 219 for CA or MA. I would be shocked if LOWER than 220 score turns out to be the cutoff score for CA/MA.
I feel sorry (for the purpose of qualifying for NMSF) for students who got 38 in Reading, 38 in Math and 34 in Writing (by missing 4 questions) and got 220 SI score in CA, MA, NJ or DC. Unlucky. IMO you HAD TO get either 37 or 38 in Writing to have some chance in high cutoff states. For example, getting 35 in Writing and 38 in Reading and 38 in Math gives you 222 SI.
@Chembiodad @DoyleB Thanks! @Plotinus I am from New Mexico. My town is located fairly close to Mexico, so many students don’t even speak English. The curriculum at my high school is based on PARCC, so I guess that’s common core? Either way, most of the students failed that as well so…
@Ghandhi21 I grew up in Roswell. A lot of my family is still in Artesia, Carlsbad, and Las Cruces. I am not :-). If you scored above a 200, you’ve got that base covered. Now effort, perseverance, grit, drive, being personable, etc. take over. Stick with it and you’ll do just fine.
@DoyleB Thank you! I scored a 206, so I am really hoping the cutoff goes down just a bit. 
It was a 208 last year, so hopefully it makes that 2 point decline.
@DoyleB I don’t think I made myself clear.
Let us define a number r=the number of raw points lost in total compared to a perfect paper. This is how I usually measure the performance of students of NMSF level.
For example, according to PSAT 2014"Understanding Your Scores", on PSAT Form S
CR 2 wrong 1 blank =75
M 2 wrong 1 blank= 73
W 1 wrong= 76
For a total SI=224 with r= 7.
r=7 (obviously with this specific distribution over areas) would be NMSF in any state in 2014. However, based on the official practice material, I think in some states, many more students may get r=7 (with the same distribution over areas) on the new test than on the 2014 test. So the cutoff, expressed in terms of r, will have to be higher.
I agree but the cutoff in DC and NJ was 225 so 224 would have made it everywhere but DC and NJ.
@Plotinus, I haven’t plowed through the subsection concordance tables. Do we know that the distributions are the same?
@Plotinus Thanks for the explanation; now I understand what you are talking about. How do you account for the changes in number of questions when comparing your metric from one year to another?
@payn4ward
Yes, sorry I was wrong about highest cutoff number. For 2014 in NJ and DC it would have to be r=6 (one more question right in one area).
@Chembiodad @DoyleB My hypothesis that r will be smaller for 2015 NMSF cutoffs has nothing to do with the concordance tables. It is based on my experience with my own students and my subjective impression of the new official practice tests. These two suggest to me that there are fewer or maybe no level 5-type questions on the new test so that more students will get nearly perfect papers (in other words, the students who got just about everything right except those level 5 CR and M questions). But this opinion is not based on any statistically valid sample data. I also have not seen the real tests, which some people report were harder than the practice test (at least the CR).
My main point is that whatever happens with the cutoffs in terms of curved scores and percentiles, it is important to keep in mind what is happening with the cutoffs in terms of r. This is because if r (the maximum number of lost raw points compatible with NMSF) is smaller, then in some sense it is harder to make the cutoff, even if the cutoff in terms of scaled scores is lower. Curves are a way of fudging the data to make it look good. I think r gives a more direct measure of performance.