My state’s cutoff is always in the 3rd or 4th from the bottom of the 99 percentile ranks. This year’s SI table says the 3rd 99 rank from the bottom is a 207. Last year’s cutoff was a 218 - 11 points higher. This year’s published SI is pretty close to “sliding scale cutoff-12”
@payn4ward stated: “If it was sliding scale cutoff -12, his school alone would have ten times more NMSFs than last year’s.”
Hmmm.
Commended 201 202 202 203 200 200 201 201 202 200
AL 211 208 208 210 212 212 209 209 208 210 211 209
AK 214 211 210 211 212 ? 213 212 211 214 212 204
AZ 212 210 212 211 212 214 211 209 210 209 213 212
AR 202 201 201 202 206 206 201 204 203 203 205 202
CA 215 215 216 216 217 219 218 217 218 219 221 220
CO 210 211 211 213 214 216 213 213 213 212 215 212
CT 219 218 219 220 220 221 217 218 218 219 220 218
DE 216 216 217 220 219 <=219 219 219 219 215 217 215
FL 213 213 214 214 215 215 212 211 211 210 214 211
GA 211 213 214 217 218 218 214 215 214 215 218 214
HI 215 218 214 216 214 218 213 216 214 215 216 211
ID 203 206 204 208 207 ? 204 208 209 208 211 207
IL 213 213 214 216 216 218 213 214 214 214 216 213
IN 210 207 211 212 213 ? 213 213 211 212 214 211
IA 209 209 207 209 210 ? 209 210 209 209 210 207
KS 212 211 212 214 215 213 212 211 211 211 214 212
KY 207 208 210 210 212 212 208 209 209 208 212 208
LA 207 208 209 209 211 209 206 208 207 210 209 209
ME 214 213 211 214 212 213 211 212 213 213 212 210
MD 220 220 222 222 222 223 221 220 221 220 221 219
MA 222 221 222 222 222 224 223 221 221 223 223 221
MI 209 209 209 210 211 211 209 209 209 209 210 207
MN 214 211 212 215 213 214-15 213 214 215 213 215 213
MS 201 200 200 203 204 204 202 201 203 205 205 204
MO 211 210 212 213 213 214 211 213 211 210 213 210
MT 206 204 206 207 211 ? 207 208 204 208 209 203
NB 208 205 205 208 208 ? 207 206 207 210 209 207
NV 203 204 204 207 205 208-14 208 206 202 208 209 208
NH 213 214 213 215 217 <=216 215 211 213 214 216 211
NJ 220 219 221 221 222 223 221 220 221 221 223 221
NM 207 209 208 209 209 ? 208 209 208 206 210 208
NY 217 217 218 218 218 221 219 216 218 217 219 215
NC 212 212 213 216 216 215 214 215 214 214 217 213
ND 205 204 202 204 208 ? 202 201 202 202 204 200
OH 211 211 212 214 215 215 211 213 211 212 214 212
OK 207 208 206 208 208 207 207 208 207 206 209 206
OR 211 213 213 214 214 215 213 213 213 215 216 213
PA 214 213 215 215 215 217 214 213 214 216 215 214
RI 213 213 213 211 214 ? 212 213 217 211 213 211
SC 208 208 211 213 212 <=214 210 212 211 208 211 208
SD 204 202 206 205 206 ? 203 205 205 205 206 204
TN 212 212 213 216 216 217 213 213 213 212 214 210
TX 214 214 216 216 217 217 215 215 216 215 219 216
UT 203 204 200 204 207 ? 202 203 206 203 208 205
VT 212 213 213 213 218 ? 216 213 213 212 217 214
VA 218 218 219 219 220 220 217 219 218 218 220 217
WA 212 213 214 216 216 219 215 217 217 218 220 216
WV 203 202 201 202 206 ? 200 203 203 202 204 200
WI 210 208 209 211 211 211 208 210 207 209 209 207
WY 204 201 200 203 204 ? 200 201 201 202 204 200
DC 222 221 222 222 222 ? 223 221 221 223 223 221
'99 '01 '04 '05 '06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ‘13
Post edited by texaspg on September 2014
Found this on another thread. The commended has always matched the last 97th percentile on the understanding your scores. As you can see the cutoff scores have pretty much stayed the same from before the new test design in 2005. But that the pre-2005 and post 2005 through 2014 were all on a 240 point scale.
Make sure that you understand that the years have a 2 year gap between test year and graduation class. So the 2013 year is test year 2011.
I might have been a little wrong about the 97th and commended. For 2005, commended is 203, but the 97th percentile ends at 204. So they went into the 96th percentile.
I’m in Florida and my score is a 1360, 204 index. What do I qualify for at this point?
You are right that the new math section has much longer readings in it. However, I think the math language on the old test is trickier, It is really easy to misread the old math questions. I guess the length of the new math reading could be a problem for slower readers. It’s hard for me to judge because although I am pretty strong in math, I am stronger in verbal. (I had V 800 without much of a sweat, but only 780 in M – back in 1975. I still remember my father’s reaction: “What happened to the other 20 points?” He was a math teacher.) For this reason, I also can’t estimate so precisely how much harder the new reading passages would be for teenagers. I can tell the passages are harder, but they seem to me just a little harder. There are some hard passages also on the old SAT, and some of the questions are tricky. The CR passages in the last couple of practice tests in the Blue Book are really tough for most students. Is the Frederick Douglas passage harder than those? Anyone have a link?
If you log into the CB account of a PSAT test taker, you can see all the questions, passages, and answer explanations. I could copy and past the passage, but am not sure if it will break the forum rules.
I really want to take/see the math portion. Will they release it in due time? (My kids are all past this now so I don’t have access.) @Plotinus, with regular practice, even the “hard” problems on the old SAT became very routine. For example, the three dimensional right triangle problems were always very similar. I wish I had the “history” to make statements about the new test, but it’s too darn new at the moment. I think the brighter math student though will get bored, and clock out a bit and miss those final statements that ask for 8x instead of x at the end.
I’m also curious after reading student comments (that someone here linked?) about decimal math and long division in the non-calculator section, because there was nothing like that in all 4 practice SAT problems. I’m wondering if the PSAT was harder than projected, or if students were missing mental math shortcuts.
And Plotinus…wow, impressive scores for the 70’s!
Does anyone know what questions pertain to Frederick Douglas & Herminia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgQfbryW2qg
This (above) is a link to a CB webinar done in Nov, If you go to the time on the video at about 32.50, they discuss the info on the reports educators can access - there are school, District & state comparisons of data. If anyone can learn if that is based on “real” data (actual test-takers, then if so, the comparison to student to school to state would be useful to get a sense of where the student’s SI falls. If anyone gets that info, please share it here.
Frederick Douglass passage -> questions 29-38
My students are supposed to get their PSAT booklets back in late January.
There is a lot of really bad number math in the Khan Academy practice material, with much worse numbers than the numbers in the official practice material, especially in the statistics problems. I think the bad numbers are supposed to be more “realistic”.
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed when I told my father my scores, and I was only 16 at the time . On the other hand, the 1975 ETS study (linked earlier) says that by 1973, scores were really inflated at the top of the curve, with 1973 V 800 equivalent to only a 1963 V 766 and 1973 M 800 equivalent to 1963 M 775. The 1953 equivalents were even lower. So I guess my dad was right. 
@Plotinus, remind me never to share my own scores with your dad… (I was more of a “math only” kid, and even then I got some wrong.)
Can’t wait to see the actual test! I hope I can track one down. Maybe one of my current SAT clients will share.
@Tw1ssT – wow - my son missed 4 of the Frederick Douglass questions!
Just posted this on the big thread:
I have a big question about the Applerouth link. He was saying how current scores are concording to lower percentiles from prior years (i.e. using the concordance tables). But isn’t CB defining “concordance” to mean a relationship of one score to another given the SAME percentile?:
“The term concordance refers to establishing a relationship between scores on assessments that measure similar (but not identical) constructs. Two scores are considered concorded when the percentage of students achieving each score is the same. For example, if 75% of a group of students achieve a score of X on one test, and 75% of the same group of students achieve a score of Y on a different test, score X would be considered con corded to score Y.”
(Understanding Scores, page 20)
Note what is said: “Two scores are considered concorded when the PERCENTAGE of students achieving each score is the same.” I would take that to mean the percentiles for each score (whether it be current-to-previous or previous-to-current) have to be equivalent. So if someone is concording a current score to previous scores and ends up in a different percentile doesn’t that mean something went wrong somewhere? Either the preliminary concordance tables are off, or the method of concording is somehow wrong, or the previous percentile tables are incorrect - or something?
Maybe the concordance tables are supposed to be over a population of all students, whether or not they take the test. And furthermore, maybe the actual kids that took the test this year varied in some significant manner from the kids that took the test last year…
That’s the only thing I can think of, which could make both concordance tables and percentiles somewhat accurate - even though they disagree with each other…
I think the importance given to concordance tables is overstated due to the differences in type and scale of the earlier exams to current PSAT. Somewhere @suzyQ7 has provided apt description of how the commended (50K) and state SI cut-offs (adding upto 16K) are determined and it’s futile to concord 2015 PSAT to past tests and make predictions. For me, the pertinent information is whether or not SI %tiles presented on pg 11 of “Understanding Your Scores 2015” by CB is accurate among 11th graders or not. That would clearly give you the commended SI at appx 97%ile (from 1.6M 11th grade test takers). Add to this, the numerical conundrum presented by @Dave_N in post #793 regarding expected fat-tails is question of the day. How will NMSC manage expected large number of students positioned at the bottom of the state’s SI cutoff for SF nomination.
@suzyQ7 Thanks, I am going to get into a student’s account to look at the test and will report back.
<<maybe the="" concordance="" tables="" are="" supposed="" to="" be="" over="" a="" population="" of="" all="" students,="" whether="" or="" not="" they="" take="" test.="">>
Interesting point, @thshadow - hopefully they concord to users and not some broad general category of students. I’m really hoping they don’t have historical data on that latter group. If they do, then we really can’t use the concordance tables for anything having to do with National Merit.