My son scored 217, FL
As I started this thread - I would like to ask that we all be respectful and understanding of differing views,
experience, perspectives, background knowledge - and for some of us (me for one) - our less than perfect memories or high level statistical analysis skills. We are all learning a lot here but as we know, the âsecret sauceâ involved in figuring out who will be an NMSF based on the limited info & guidance we have, is not an easy recipe to reverse engineer. Thanks to everyone for your understanding and patience.
The speculation on this thread is simply folks trying to figure out how a Class of 2017 Selection Index score/subscores may fall in the commended or state cutoffs based on information weâve been given by CB, and historical data. I donât want new readers of this thread to think that College Board is in charge of selecting finalists, or that College Board will now change the contest to look at Total Scores instead of Selection Index Scores. That is not the case. The contest specifics are detailed here:
http://www.nationalmerit.org/student_guide.pdf
âNMSC uses PSAT/NMSQT Selection Index scores (calculated by doubling the sum of the Reading, Writing and Language, and Math Test scores) to determine 50,000 high-scoring participants who qualify for program recognition.â
This document does not describe cutoffs and does not say that total scores might be used. Page 7 of this document clearly shows how they calculate Commended, Semi Finalists and Finalists. The KEY of the contest is here (there is no speculation on this):
âNMSC designates Semifinalists in the program on a state-representational basis to ensure that academically able young people from all parts of the United States are included in this talent pool. Using the latest data available, an allocation of Semifinalists is determined for each state, based on the stateâs percentage of the national total of high
school graduating seniors. For example, the number of Semifinalists in a state that enrolls approximately two percent of the nationâs graduating seniors would be about 320 (2 percent of the 16,000 Semifinalists). NMSC then arranges the SELECTION INDEX scores of all National Merit Program participants within a state in descending order. The score at which a stateâs allocation is most closely filled becomes the Semifinalist qualifying score. Entrants with a Selection
Index at or above the qualifying score are named Semifinalists.â
The speculation of where those SI scores will fall, is what weâve been discussing. For new readers of this thread, there is not doubt that SI is what matters for this contest. I donât want this to be a point of confusion for new readers.
@dallaspiano This is not a matter of opinion and the College Board doesnât have a say. Iâm sorry if you took offense of my surprise that you still think there is flexibility on this topic. I understand you are a junior, but you should understand that the contest setup is not going to change.
You understand my post and CA1543âs opinion. Many can interpret, understand different views on issues even they read the same book. But if you said those words as an expression of surprise, idk what to say. Just let it go
I think the question of whether NMSC would cut at a certain score thus allowing some and not others at the same SI is answered in the following sentence from the Handbook:
âThe score at which a stateâs allocation is most closely filled becomes the Semifinalist qualifying score.â
I interpret that to mean that, say if a state is supposed to be allocated around 300 SFâs, and a 215 means 299 but a 214 means 350, then the qualifying score becomes 215 because 215 results in the number closest to 300 SFâs. If the 215 meant 275 and the 214 meant 310, then 214 becomes the qualifying score since that results in the number closest to 300. Likely they can go over or under a little bit.
Regarding the question of whether the qualifying scores will be SIâs or Total Score, itâs pretty clear it will be SI from the handbook. However, I would expect the state summaries will be broken down into ERW and Math - two scores, not three as they have done in previous years - in other words, similar to how the Understanding Scores report presents the data.
@Mamelot Agree. This year, with so much compression at the top- that will be a more difficult process for them.
@Mamelot wrote: âLikely they can go over or under a little bit.â
Iâm afraid their new scoring scheme is going to cause them to go over or under by a lot in the states with large population. Compressing the scores exacerbates this problem. All the scores from 228-240 have been pulled down below 228, but at the same time low scores have been raised. Lots of scores are going to be crammed into the middle. Hypothetical: What if Californiaâs allocation is 2000, a 221 results in 1500 NMSF, and a 220 results in 3000 NMSF. Does CA then have 500 too few, or 1000 too many? Either case causes real problems.
@DoyleB and @SuzyQ7, Well, thatâs the NMSCâs problem. This is their rule and Iâd be surprised if they find a way around following it. Theyâll be caught. Best to let them figure it out. BTW, guessing they have already figured out preliminary qualifying scores at this point. Now itâs just a matter of confirming the student population.
I find it hard to believe that the SI scores are not reverse engineered to provide the required outcome. The SI #s are âcreated.â The number missed that gave X SI outcome was not 1-to-1. They know the approx number needed for each state. I am pretty sure they didnât release the numbers without knowing exactly the breakdown by state. Just b/c we donât know the cut-offs and #s does not mean that they donât already know.
And I also agree 100% with @suzyQ7 There is no question how NMSFs are selected. It is by the SI score.
I also agree with @DoyleB that some states might go over their allocation by several hundred students. And some states might go under. There are 16,000 slots (approximately) and 50 states which would keep the error from recurring one way consistently. In 2014 there were 16,227 so they went over a bit on net. On average they might be over a bit on net every year for all I know and this year is not necessarily going to be different, despite the potential for big swings on a state basis.
Just summarize the prediction of NMF for last Oct 2015 PSAT. There are least 4 sites offer the cut-off
http://blog.prepscholar.com/national-merit-semifinalist
http://www.toptieradmissions.com/new-psat-scoring/
http://collegeadmissions.testmasters.com/update-psat-scores-cut-national-merit-2016/
https://2400expert.com/class-2017-national-merit-psat-cutoff-scores/
Three use SI, one uses TS.
Their estimates are different from each others, and they also said their estimate is approximate. But none of them criticize each otherâs (estimate, ways to conclusion and etcâŠ) and none of them force or want viewers to follow their views. I believe people from those sites know much more about NMF process than many of us.
It isnât a matter of differing opinions. The entire purpose of the selection index is to select the qualifying students.
From NMSC:
I believe this thread is about - National Merit Cutoff Predictions Class of 2017
@Dallaspiano Yes, it is. And they are the students who took the 2015 administration of the newly designed PSAT/NMSQT.
I also made an estimate based on total score. But that was because the data released by the school was TS. Obviously, you will need to make a(nother) guesstimate to convert TS to SI to get the actual cutoff. No on thinks the cutoff will actually be in terms of TS. Though obviously theyâre highly correlated.
I agree, but that is not what a few posters have been suggesting.
I too believe based on the amount of time the CB had the SI #s were reversed engineered. I also believe if there is a situation as @DoyleB describes in #1227, there is a way to cross reference to the TS to make the cut offs so those that say that only the SI is what is considered may not be correct in that assumption. We donât know. I found the work SLparent did to be extremely interesting because it provides SI, State and in some instances scores. My son has an SI of 223 with a TS of 1490. Someone else has a SI of 223 with a TS of 1500. If both are in the same state, with the same SI and the SI for our state were 223 or below and they had to chose between the two scores as to who becomes a finalist as the 15K finalist number seems to be a hard number, I would expect the other child to become the finalist. NMSC is a private company. Itâs their game and they write the rules. Their rules are written such that they have not guaranteed anyone anything other than releasing state cut-offs in Sept. So we wait and have fun enjoying playing with the data in the meantime. There really are no right and wrong answers here just speculation. Those with strong statistical skills happen to make this more interesting for the rest of us and for that I thank you for your efforts.
@SLparent âŠwe appreciate all your hard work on the scores. Great job!
First of all, I donât think TS will ever come into play in computing NMSF. NMSC has used the same formula for determining NMSF since 1993. That being saidâŠ
I donât understand why anyone thinks that TS should be used to distinguish who is more deserving when two kids have the same SI.
The college board gives a test with three parts - reading, writing, and math. The college board double counts the math portion of the test to come up with their total score. They count all three parts of the test equally to generate SI. So SI = R + W + M, and TotalScore = R + W + M + M.
Why would the second equation be used to break ties in the first equation. Why should math be double weighted?