<p>Seeing all these qualifying scores, I’m worried that a 224 won’t make it in NJ. Anyone in agreement?</p>
<p>^ I would be surprised, even with these increases.</p>
<p>I don’t think any state has ever had a cutoff higher than 223 so far, so hopefully your 224 will be OK in NJ.</p>
<p>I would like to amend my post from earlier. My columns got messed up due to DC.</p>
<p>From 2010 to 2011:</p>
<p>21 states increased
19 decreased
11 stayed the same</p>
<p>12 states have confirmed increases this year and 1 has not changed.</p>
<p>in post 359 writer states “Friends daughter made it in MA with a 223.” has anyone else received confirmation of this number. it would be nice to hear from someone who actually received the letter with this score. thanks</p>
<p>Can we get a principal or GC confirmation regarding the cut-off in PA? thx</p>
<p>jmtmom–really?? Great! We are in PA and my son got a 215, but we haven’t heard anything yet. Did your counselor notify you?</p>
<p>California mom of a student with 220: I really empathize with you. We just moved from NJ to PA a couple of years ago. My son got 215 on his PSAT, which gives him a shot at being a semifinalist in PA. If we had stayed in NJ, no way would he have had a chance, even though 215 is an excellent score. I attribute the higher scores in NJ to the fact that there is a huge percentage of Asians there, who, bless their hearts, are raised by “Tiger Moms” and get very high scores on everything. I know, because my son went to a public school that was almost 50 percent Asian in NJ. And the school’s SATs scores were through the roof because of their outstanding performance. Highly competitive. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case in parts of California, as well.</p>
<p>I’d like to correct a misconception that I’ve seen throughout this thread - that the qualifying score will go up if more people take the test. It’s simply not true. Holding the number of NMS slots constant, the answer actually depends on the score distribution of the additional test takers compared to the original group. There are three possibilities:
[ul]
[<em>]The additional test takers are a stronger group: the cutoff goes up.
[</em>]The additional test takers are a similar group: the cutoff stays the same.
[li]The additional test takers are a weaker group: the cutoff becomes easier.[/li][/ul]
To see how this is obviously true, imagine that the test taking population suddenly doubled, and look at two extreme cases: Every new test taker scored 240, vs. every new test taker scored 120 (isn’t that the minimum possible?).</p>
<p>So a lot depends on why your state has more (or fewer) test takers. For example, suppose that because of tough economic times, parents of average/weak students decide to not waste money on the PSAT, and the number of test takers goes down - but the cutoff goes up.</p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
<p>Surfer2012 (post #385) my friend’s daughter who got the 223 was notified by her high school principal that she made it. My son was also notified by his school that he made it but he got a 228 and someone else had already posted that score so I didn’t mention it. Another friend got notified with a 224 too. Hope this helps!</p>
<p>So no news from NJ yet? </p>
<p>And we get the news from guidance counselors? For some reason I thought they just sent us letters…?</p>
<p>MisterK</p>
<p>If a state has 20,000 people take the test, and a different state has 30,000 take the test, and both groups perfrom on average equally well, and both states have exactly the same number of slots, the state with 30,000 people will have a higher cutoff, correct?</p>
<p>Your notion that adding similiar performing test takers without adding more slots will not make the qualifying score increase is just kind of silly.</p>
<p>VADad - That’s not how it works. The number of slots is determined by the number of graduating seniors. The 16,000 slots are carved up among the states in proportion based on that data; the slot count is fixed before the test is given. The number of juniors who actually choose to sit for the PSAT is completely independent, and self-selecting.</p>
<p>VADad - By the way, your first paragraph from your last post was correct, but it has nothing to do with what I said - because you varied the number of slots, and because the competition is within a state anyway. So when you talk state vs. state turnout, it’s completely irrelevant. </p>
<p>The point is that given the apportioned number of slots for a state, one cannot make any claim about how the cutoff will change based on the juniors’ turnout for that year’s PSAT.</p>
<p>VAdad - Ah, I think I see the point you disagree with - where I was talking about the effects of different turnouts on cutoff, I meant to say effects on the score distributions (not the same as cutoffs, especially for very large turnout variations). That’s why you were talking about the similar groups (which I agreed with). Sorry for botching what I tried to say.</p>
<p>But I think you’ll agree with the larger point I was making, which is that the true effect of turnout on the cutoff depends on the composition, whether higher (or lower) scorers are disproportionately failing to show up. Just because a larger turnout happens, it doesn’t mean that the cutoff will necessarily be higher - it depends on who didn’t show up vs. who did. Right?</p>
<p>I think the issue for schools with rising scores is the economy…more are aware that this test can net scholarships, and students are studying more for this test.</p>
<p>Calif has been hit hard with this economy. Families used to rely on home equity to help finance college costs. Equity has all but disappeared.</p>
<p>I think mom2 is right. When my oldest was a junior I had never heard of the PSAT test before; the high school and people who had kids older than mine never really put any importance on it. Taking the test is optional, and scheduled on a day off from school. I signed S1 up for it, paid the fee, and sent him to take it WITHOUT him doing anymore than looking at the practice pamphlet. Luckily as we are from a low scoring state (as compared to our neighboring states) he was able to make NMF by the skin of his teeth. Although the school district made no fuss about it, I realized soon the importance of the test and the opportunities that it opened. I tried to tell everyone I knew, and made sure S2 took the test as a sophomore to practice, and luckily as a junior last year got a great qualifying score, one that would made him a NMSF in any state. Believe me I’m going to have S3 take the practice test this year as a sophomore, and maybe even have him study throughout the year/summer before he takes it as a junior. Other families are now discovering the importance of this test (especially in this economy) and I believe are now studying for it, which I believe is effecting the scores.</p>
<p>mom2 and phmom both make really good points, in that the economy is what’s driving the family to strive higher. In addition to that, there is a general trend of more intense competition than the previous generations in US and the world overall nowadays, since more percentage of the population is getting educated. So it’s inevitable that more people would create more competition, so more people are becoming aware of the importance of competing and succeeding in the world.</p>
<p>*I think the issue for schools with rising scores *</p>
<p>OOPS…meant to type…STATES with rising scores (cut-offs) is the economy…more are aware that this test can net scholarships, and students are studying more for this test.</p>
<p>Calif has been hit hard with this economy. Families used to rely on home equity to help finance college costs. Equity has all but disappeared.</p>
<p>I find it so odd that it is called a NATIONAL Merit when the cut-offs, at least for the SF, are by state and vary so much…</p>
<p>BTW— for the Finalist awards and the Scholar awards, is the comparison done nationally, or by state again?</p>