EDITED: Nevermind. I need to think this through.
@dallaspiano the link is https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/college-board-guide-implementing-redesigned-sat-concordance-installment-3.pdf
Let’s be on the lookout for data from other states - GA’s high performing schools did quite well - so it may be that the cut off stays around the 218 range - hard to say of course as we are not getting full info on SIs & percentiles state-wide. Thanks to all who are examining the data - past & current & trying to glean some guidance from it!! Of course we are all speculating a bit but this does seem to confirm there are likely more students at the top of the curve from some high-performing schools & areas than in the past. So I wonder if there might be fewer communities & districts with NMSF’s as a result in some states - more “concentration” in places that really focus in on the PSAT and students tend to really prep for it.
Maybe the relationships of the number of NMSFs to the schools will change. Wheeler is a magnet school. Their mean score is around 250 points above the state mean. Walkers is almost 200 points about the state’s mean.
@MatzoBall It’s the MEAN, not AVERAGE.
I guess what I am trying to point out is that it does not matter at all whether the school is one of the highest ranked schools in the US as long as we know how many NMSFs they will produce and as long as many students actually took the test. Now, the number of NMSFs from Walton could be 20 or 30 – I have no idea. I am hoping they will produce 100 NMSFs this year so the score of 1453 will be the cutoff for GA. But this stat tells me that there is NO WAY the cutoff for GA is going to be 216. It surely is going to be higher.
Yes, but I see @MatzoBall 's point. Are these the top 100 math scorers and then the top 100 ERW scorers? But only a few students are in both?
@websensation, I messed up. Have removed my post. Need to think this through.
All I want to know is if Texas is going to stay under 221 for NMSF. Last year is was at 220 out of 240 I can’t imagine it going up more than 1 point since we are working out of 228 instead of the 240.
@micgeaux From the table, it appears they took top 100 scores – meaning they took top 100 scores total – and then looked at Math and ERW scores. That’s the normal way to do it. There is no evidence they did not do that. There is no indication that they looked for top 100 Math scores and then top 100 ERW scores; that’s not what they did. The Table 3 says “Mean PSAT scores for the top 100 scores for 11th graders at each school”.
@Pickmen, thank for responding promptly
@websensation and @Mamelot as I said in my post, I just haven’t looked at it much. All three high schools my DDs have been in (MN and NC) have had large numbers take the PSAT. The one in NC required it. I guess what I am saying is that using Walton for an across the board estimate only works if mostly high achievers took the test and very few average kids took it. From people I know, that is not the case. DD goes to one of the better schools in NC (sorry I don’t have numbers, as we haven’t lived here long) and in her asking around her 218 is by far the highest score she has found.
Just throwing out my opinion.
@disshar Your theory is correct when you are trying to figure out the average or mean score of all students, but by default, scores from a school which produces as many NMSFs is a better stats when we are trying to guess the cutoff score. Cutoff score can only be guessed well when the school produces many NMSFs. We are not trying to figure out the mean score of all who took PSAT. For example, if we had top 200 scores from a school which produces 150 NMSFs per year, that would be even better stats. Again, I am not a math person, but this seems obvious to me: When you want to figure out the cutoff score for NMSF, you need stats from a high school which produces many NMSFs.
A hypo: Let’s say a school A produces 50 NMSFs per year, and 1000 students out of 1100 students took PSAT this year. Then, if we had a MEAN score of top 100 scorers from this school A, then it would be a good guess to say this MEAN score is the cutoff score.
Let’s put it this way: averages obscure individual differences. A typical kid may not have parity between EWR and Math scores even though on average there is relative parity (ERW a little higher) between the scores. If all kids score high on one and low on the other, the average totals will make it look as if they tended to score in the middle on both. That’s why I don’t trust the Georgia stats.
@MatzoBall The Walton students are more math oriented students; that’s what the stats tell us.
@MatzoBall I was thinking along the same lines. I don’t understand why total scores are being mentioned when discussing state cutoffs. For NMSF the only number that matters is the selection index. I mean a 1453 could be a 218 or it could be a 210, right? .
@mnpapa29 Your point is valid here IMO. I don’t think 1453 could be a 210, not as low as that. But your point is valid. Given that the students are more math oriented gives me some hope that the actual SI cutoff score is lower. Lol
Let’s try this…put your state and what you think the selection index will be for your state. If nothing else…based on your gut feeling on what you have learned and read.
Class of 2017
Texas - 219
Here’s a potentially good check on Walton’s predictive strength: From Table 3, we know that the (calculated) mean SI for the top 100 is 216-217. Last year GA’s cut-off was a 218. Can we find Table Three from last year and compare the 218 to that? It might give us some guidance on what GA’s cut-off will be this year.
To the internet, everyone!
Agree. If the Walton math results are indicative of the overall, it will penalize math oriented students with a lower percentile and their resultant SI could be as low as 214 (maybe even 212) according to what @GMTplus7 had previously correlated.