<p>NextGen, thanks for the analysis and sharing your theories. I had looked at the two year’s of AZ data and concluded there was no way it would go up, certainly not 4 points. It reminds me of the adage my stats teacher shared lo these many years ago–obviously since I apparently forgot it:</p>
<p>Statistics is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting; what is concealed is vital. C’est la vie. Onward and upward to conquering the ACT and SAT!</p>
<p>NextGen, thanks for the excellent suggestion! loldanielol, I just did the same analysis you did of the California scores, comparing 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11.</p>
<p>It looks like from 2008 to 2009, the absolute numbers of scorers in the two top ranges went up by 9%, while the total number of test takers stayed about the same. We saw a one point increase in the cutoff that year.</p>
<p>However, from 2009 to 2010, the absolute number of scorers in the top two ranges actually went down by 2%, while the total number of test takers went up by 2%. So based on NextGen’s theories and this data, my prediction for the score in CA would be 219, same as last year.</p>
<p>loldanielol seems to have come to approximately the same conclusions.</p>
<p>Here’s crossing my fingers REALLY hard that this is true, for my daughter’s score is 220!</p>
<p>Of course… as azcpamom points out, this data clearly is missing some other vital variables that go into the cutoff calculation. So I’m not counting on anything, and have told my daughter not to expect it.</p>
<p>Any time you have a large increase in test takers like Arizona without a corresponding large increase in population, the cutoff score is going to go up. So Arizona’s jump makes perfectly good sense.</p>
<p>My son was notified today as semifinalist with 215 in PA…</p>
<p>My son was notified by his GC that he is a NMSF. He scored 217. He also told him that Hawaii cut off is 216. Bank it.</p>
<p>Hawaii went up by 1 point from last year. I predicted it would actually go down. So, my theory isn’t that good after all.</p>
<p>VADAD1: “Any time you have a large increase in test takers like Arizona without a corresponding large increase in population, the cutoff score is going to go up. So Arizona’s jump makes perfectly good sense.”</p>
<p>I do not agree. If you look at the raw scores, they are about the same in Arizona. There were nearly 10% more test takers, but the top raw scores were about the same year over year. There is something else going on in AZ that we do not see in the data.</p>
<p>@Cynara</p>
<p>I also have a 220 and am from California.</p>
<p>Misery loves company. :D</p>
<p>I saw the data for CA cutoff scores for the past decade (don’t remember where the source is) but the HIGHEST jump was two points in a single year. All other years saw jumps +/- 1 point or no change at all. </p>
<p>I’m not expecting anything greater than a +1 increase in the cutoff for CA, but this could be an unlucky year for some of you and the cutoff could be +2. But I doubt it.</p>
<p>loldanielol, that’s what I had hoped for before all the news started coming out about +3 or +4 jumps in many states’ cutoffs. That has made me quite worried. It’s also frustrating because I can’t even contact our counselor, so I even have no clue when notifications are going to be made.</p>
<p>Saugus, here’s hoping for good news for both of us. :)</p>
<p>I hope that the news about PA is correct.
If so, my son is fine with a 217.
That means PA went DOWN by at least 1.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter if the raw scores are the similiar or not. The number of NMSF is based on the size of the graduating class, not the number of test takers.</p>
<p>So, if a state has population growth that is the same or less than the average for the nation, the number of NMSF will stay the same or go down.</p>
<p>If the same state has a 10% increase in test takers, as is the case with Arizona, then their cutoff score is extremely likely to go up if the average scores stay about the same.</p>
<p>19,300 people competing for 200 spots is going to be more competitive than 17,500 people competing for 200 spots.</p>
<p>I got NMSF in Illinois…Principal told us that cut-off score was 216 in IL</p>
<p>Vdad, I don’t understand your logic. Isn’t it the top .5% of all people in the state? So the number of spots should go up too, right?</p>
<p>I think they split 16,000 semifinalists among states in proportion to number of HS graduates roughly speaking.</p>
<p>VADAD, I don’t understand. If it was more competitive because there were more test takers, why the fraction scoring high in the 70-80 range didn’t go up? Most semifinalists would be in that range.</p>
<p>Did someone mention the cutoff for PA went down? Quick glance at their score distribution makes me think their cutoff would be down by more than a point or two. They had a big drop in all categories. Shall we have some fun and begin a guessing game?</p>
<p>As of 8/31/2011, 8:00 AM Central . . . .</p>
<hr>
<p>PLEASE DON’T FREAK OUT! Check the explanation of the notation in the first post. When you see, for instance, AZ <= 219, that means that Arizona’s cutoff is no higher than 219. This comes from a report like, “I live in Arizona, made a 219, and got my letter.” When you see, for instance, TX > 216, that means that Texas’ cutoff is higher than 216. This comes from a report like, “I live in Texas, made a 216, and didn’t make it.”</p>
<hr>
<p>Remaining states that need to be finalized:
AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, LA,
ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND,
OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY</p>
<p>Updating AL, HI, NV, PA</p>
<p>AL <= 219 (post #206)
AK = ?
**AZ = 213<a href=“post%20#126/#132,%20per%20GC”>/b</a>
AR = ?
CA <= 225 (post #50)
CO = ?
CT = ?
DE = ?
DC = ?
**FL = 214<a href=“post%20#107,%20per%20GC”>/b</a>
GA <= 221 (post #182)
**HI = 216<a href=“post%20#225,%20per%20GC”>/b</a>
ID = ?
**IL = 216<a href=“post%20#110,%20per%20GC”>/b</a>
**IN = 214<a href=“post%20#147,%20#193,%20established%20by%20score%20comparison”>/b</a>
IA = ?
**KS = 214<a href=“post%20#87,%20per%20principal”>/b</a>
KY > 211 (post #111)
LA <= 216 (post #101)
ME = ?
MD = ?
MA <= 228 (post #143)
MI = ?
MN = ?
**MS = 205<a href=“post%20#192,%20NMSC”>/b</a>
MO = ?
MT <= 209 (post #90)
NE <= 215 (post #10)
NV <= 212 (post #214)
NH = ?
NJ = ?
NM = ?
NY = ?
NC <= 224 (post #85)
ND = ?
**OH = 214<a href=“post%20#28,%20established%20by%20score%20comparison”>/b</a>
**OK = 209<a href=“post%20#106,%20NMSC”>/b</a>
OR = ?
PA <= 215 (post #224)
RI = ?
SC = ?
SD = ?
TN = ?
**TX = 219<a href=“post%20#46,%20per%20principal”>/b</a>
UT = ?
VT = ?
VA = ?
WA = ?
WV = ?
WI <= 209 (post #166, #191)
WY = ?</p>
<p>10(?) Boarding school regions
No scores reported yet.
These usually are set to be equal to the highest cut-off score among the individual states in the region.</p>
<p>Internationals=?
This usually is set to be equal to the highest cut-off score among all the individual states.</p>
<p>Commended (national cutoff) = 202 (Class of 2012 Notification Letters - College Confidential)
Any person with a score equal to or higher than this cutoff who is not a NMSF receives commended status. This group represents the highest 50,000 scorers.</p>
<p>NextGen, I do see your point about the raw scores now. I don’t know how easy it is to make determinations from that because you don’t know how many people scored 70 above on all 3 sections. There must have been more people doing that in 2010.</p>
<p>I also agree with your hypothesis that Arizona’s allotment of NMSF could have gone down.</p>
<p>Texas GC confirms post #46 - Texas cutoff is 219, a four-point jump from last year. </p>
<p>I have a question: If this is a NATIONAL Merit Scholar competition, and there is a NATIONAL cutoff for the Commended level, why is the semifinalst by STATE? Students (and those with careers already) compete at a NATIONAL (even INTERNATIONAL) level in ‘the real world’. Of course, this question may not have occurred to me if my son had not missed the cutoff :-)</p>
<p>So that Massachusettes doesn’t get all NMSFs! That will turn National Merit to MA regional.</p>
<p>Sure would love some word on Louisiana. Somebody give us the scoop.</p>
<p>KJB, the intentions are noble, but the system is pretty bogus. It greatly awards students from states with low percentage of students taking the test.</p>
<p>If you live in Mass or DC and you really want your kid to be a NMSF, you can improve their chances greatly by moving to Utah or Wyoming.</p>