Nope. Not going to happen. TS is CB. SI is NMSC.
Based on
1- Controversial SI (conflicting range - 1 TS covers many SI)
2- CB use TS in their table, why not use it
3- TS is newest data records
4- TS 1340 corresponds with 209 and top 3%
5- Concordance SI table not reliable
6- CB said we can Psat TS to predict SAT college readiness and new SAT have no SI and old SAT have no SI
7-…
@dallaspiano I feel you - no one can believe that a mega testing company would have such a disastrous rollout of a new test. But you know VW did claim to have “clean diesel” and the housing bubble did happen - so, self inflicted wounds are not unheard of.
Thankfully ACT only rolled out a new essay format.
They are different entities. You are grasping at straws. IF NMSC was going to use TS, (not that I believe they would), why wasn’t commended announced via TS?
FWIW, the reason NMSC won’t use TS is bc TS does not weight the way SI does. NMSC wants the weighting their way. 1/3+1/3+1/3, not 1/2+ 1/2
Also, concordance is irrelevant to NMSC. They are pulling the top 50,000 based on current SI. This simply returns things to the days when total score on the PSAT and SAT were 40-160 and 400-1600; SI was still weighted in favor of verbal. There would be no reason for an SI without its use by NMSC.
CB added the 4-digit score this year only to give the students guidance on how they might do on the SAT (topping out at 1520 because the number is supposed to predict a range of scores and assumes improvement). NM only uses the SI – the 4 digit score is irrelevant to them. Because the PSAT total score can correlate to such a large range of SI scores, any predictions using those scores are going to be inaccurate. @dallaspiano – you need to work your magic on the 209 number, not any concordance to the Total Score because NM definitely will not be using that number.
The best anyone can do at this point is try to make extrapolations from 209 (most people are assuming that this number marks the beginning of 97th percentile based on 1.7 M or so test-takers) and figure out what percentile your state typically falls into. The tricky part will be figuring out how the compression figures in. It seems pretty clear that 221-222 is too high for the last 99th percentile (what you get if you subtract 209 from 228 and divide by three), since the highest states tend to come in at 99+. More math-savvy people could look at how much the National Hispanic cutoff score increased (I think 9 points in some regions) as compared with Commended (7 points, indicating increasing compression)
It wouldn’t be unreasonable to guess a tightly compressed 97th and 98th percentile (maybe 213-214 for 98th cutoff and 217-219 for the first 99th percentile. That would leave the highest cutoffs at the 221-222 range that the concordance folks predicted.
Nothing new with your disagreement, same reasons last time.
NMSC and CB had history of changing their data, their definition. Why not this time
@higheredrocks, are you representing CB? I believe you are not, since if you are you would not say anything. Is there something wrong if one can hope for better (even if 1% hopeful). My advice to you is you need to work on your analysis since it seem like a reconciliation not from Math view points as you try to present
@dallaspiano – of course I’m not pretending to represent College Board but I have read the National Merit Corporation’s materials, which clearly state that they use the Selection Index for NMSF and Commended. I would say this is corroborated both by all the folks calling NM and CB being given a 209 selection index as the cutoff for Commended rather than a PSAT Total Score and that the National Hispanic Program is using only the SI and not the TS for its program.
The source of my statement about the purpose of the Total Score (i.e., intended as a tool to help predict SAT performance) is based on a presentation made by a College Board representative at my son’s school last fall. People were very confused about why they would have two very different scales and she explained that the SI number was for NM and the new number was for assessing how the student would have done on the SAT. The Understanding the PSAT Report document also is very clear about the purpose of the new TS and how it is intended to be used. So while I am not a representative of the NM Corp, I do have a real basis and sources for the statements I made about why NM will not use the TS to determine NMSF.
I wasn’t trying to be cute (or however you might have interpreted it – from your tone, it sounds like you think I was trying to insult you) when I said you should work your magic on the SI cutoffs available – I truly meant that I respected your number-crunching/statistical skills and wanted to encourage you to analyze the percentiles using the 209 cutoff. My speculations were just speculations based on all of the different things that I have read about what the score compression might look like (all of which were written before anyone knew the 209 cutoff). I’d be very interested to see where you think the percentile cutoffs will fall on the SI scale.
So there’s no analysis for me to work on – my apologies if I implied otherwise. Mostly, I was just trying to convey that the compression meant that one could not assume that the percentiles were distributed evenly among the top scores (I presume you would agree with that because it would artificially inflate predicted cutoffs and I didn’t think anyone believed the 99th percentile cutoff would be 222) I know that a lot of people have tried to pick you apart on the math stuff in the past (many very rudely and without any real basis), but I promise that I am not one of those people. I’ve worked with enough statisticians and other researchers to know that I shouldn’t try to play in that sandbox.
@higheredrocks and @dallaspiano - what is your opinion of the Testmasters 219 cut-off prediction for Texas, now that commended is confirmed at 209?
@dallaspiano is the math person; I don’t claim any special insight. Art the Compass guy said today that they will look back at their predictions in light of the 209, I hope testmasters will as well. Art did say that he didn’t think it would change their predictions too much (if any) and they have Texas at 218. I don’t have a Texas kid, but I’m hoping for big compression that would get Texas lower than that.
For the statisticians on this thread, someone on the more general thread called CB or NM and confirmed that 1.6 M qualified juniors were the pool from which the 209 Commended cutoff was calculated (so approximately the 97th percentile as some had already speculated).
We are guessers, please do guessing and most of us will be WRONG and please be courteous to each other - not like “you need to work your magic on the 209 number”. Yes, I am a junior but do not act up on me.
My belief that they (CB or whatever NMC) will use both TS and SI to decide final NMSF. Using one is not necessary and sufficient This is their game, their decision
If one has SI 209 and up AND TS 1410 up, very good chance to be in Second stage (next ~16227 NMSF)
National Merit Scholarship corporation has clearly published the rules of the competition and CLEARLY the competition is based on Selection Index not Total Score.
Many people wasted time in guessing cut off. But that’s their time.
@Dallaspiano can you tell me why you think the NM corporation (who has been very consistent following their own published rules for several years) will suddenly, without written notification, change their rules?
If 1380 was 202 last year, 1460 was 220 last year. So, the TX cutoff should be around 1460. Using @Mamelot 's logic from the other thread.
@3scoutsmom, do you know NM change rules this year. If they don’t, then many of us are not surprised with 209. Probably you are not. Thank you for suggesting me to look up definition.
@3scoutsmom, refer back #236
"Another way to hope for (not sure but for me - posted before but rejected by many CC posters)
209 may be considered as First Stage qualifiers (top 53K test takers since 209 associated with TS 1330)
Second stage, NM will use Total Score to select NMSF… cross my fingers. Hallelujah.
Is there something wrong with HOPE? I suggest maybe you need to look up the definition of “HOPE”
I just don’t get why people are muddying the waters with worrying about actual total PSAT scores and not just looking at the Selection Index Scores. Two people can have the exact same total score but very different Selection Index scores. Let’s just stick with facts MNC clearly states that they use the SI scores as their selection criteria see page 4 here:
http://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/student_guide.pdf
I suspect that the issue is this: some have just discovered that their SI is not high enough to be assured of NMSF. And that others with the same Total Score may have a better chance simply due to different section performance. Which doesn’t seem fair. No matter that Total Score is NOT the relevant statistic nor has it ever been. CB started this mess by planting the idea that Total Score was a big deal. And of course by producing ridiculously inaccurate percentile tables.
But . . . it’s time to look at what is shaping up to be Reality. If I lived in TX I’d be taking a very close look at that Houston Public School data set as well as the higher end of Compass Al’s range. 219-220 doesn’t seem out of the ballpark at all.
@Mamelot…I think that testmasters 219 MIGHT be pretty close. I hope it doesn’t go much higher than that though. In Texas at a 221 and holding on tight.