I’m just wondering, for the new PSAT (based off of the new 2016 SAT), do you think that the cutoff scores will be lower? I’m curious b/c 1) it was a new test (so there was less you could even study for) and 2) they added more pre-calculus into the math (which many sophomores/juniors have either not done yet/barely started to learn)
I’ve done some calculations on this, based on speculation. Last year, the highest score possible for NMS was 240 and the cutoff here in California was 222 for NMS Semifinalist. 222 is .93 percent of 240. The test given in Oct. 2015 has a possible highest score of 228. So the qualifying score will need to be (raw numbers) a number smaller, given the total possible points is now 12 points less. If you multiply 228 possible points X .93 percent, that equals 212. That’s just a speculation, because the cutoff varies a bit from year to year, but in recent years 222 is the high. Soyou could do the same guess based on the state you live in to guess what the Semi-flnalist cutoff score would be. Of course, for the “Commended” status, that is the same number across the board. If you scored in the 99th percentile in all three categories, you will likely make that nationwide cutoff and be at least a Commended student.
Two datapoints to share.
GMTson1 took PSAT in 2013.
GMTson2 took PSAT in 2015.
Both boys have identical percentiles in each of the 3 sections. And both boys have identical selection indices if I scale up S2’s index from the 228 scale to the 240 scale.
Therefore, I conclude that a reasonable rough estimate of cutoffs is to take past years’ cutoffs and multiply by 228/240.
At this point anything can go but considering 99%-across-board Selection Index leads to this prediction from the other board
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19159386/#Comment_19159386
I know for a fact that in the past it was NOT necessary to have 99th percentile in all 3 subscores, even for the highest cutoff pool (New England region boarding schools), because S1 made it w one subscore less than 99th.
Well, never mind, we are back to square zero. Apparently, the %iles in the score report are not based on ACTUAL test takers so we were comparing apples and oranges.
Here is another cutoff estimate based on “concordance table.”
But we might as well be betting on horses while enjoying G&T till September.
http://collegeadmissions.testmasters.com/update-psat-scores-cut-national-merit-2016/
While we are at comparing this year’s scores to past year’s…
now that I have 3 section percentiles, (I don’t know how I missed it before)
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19165522/#Comment_19165522
if I take these 3 “user percentiles” and go to past year’s data,
http://www.bernardsboe.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3096886/File/Jill%20Shadis/Ridge%20Counseling/Standardized%20Testing/Understanding%202014%20PSAT-NMSQT%20Scores.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2vOnl4vyKt7Mm0wYm80LUtqaW8/view?pref=2&pli=1
and find a section score (average, if there is a range) for that percentile, I expect to find corresponding past year’s score.
I think the resulting score should agree with “concordance table” score. What else can the concordance table be?
But it does not agree.
So I agree that the concordance table is funky and “preliminary” but I think the %iles they are giving us is also “preliminary.”
What do you get for your S2’s if you use %iles and 2014 data file?
I get
2015% 2014 2013 Concordance T('15)
R 92 64 64 60
W 96 67 68 63
M 99 77 77 77
SI 205 208 209 200
My thoughts on that testmasters page:
This is horribly waaaay too simplistic and reflects an inherent lack of grasp of the distribution of the data.
Here are my thoughts on the College Board’s PRELIM concordance table. Refer to the table below.
As explained in my post here:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/1850258-possible-corresponding-range-of-nm-selection-indices-vs-2015-psat-scores.html#latest
there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the 2015 PSAT score and 2015 S.I.'s, because 2015 PSAT score calculation gives twice as much weighting to the M sub-score which results in different S.I. combinations.
I’ve merged the College Boards concordance estimate (the 2 black columns on the left) with my own calculation of possible range 2015 S.I.'s for a given 2015 PSAT score (the blue columns on the right).
**CB concord GMTplus7 calculation
2014 | 2015 || 2015 PSAT & S.I. | ratio of 2015 S.I. / 2014 PSAT score **
240 | 1520 || 1520 | 228 - 228 | 0.950
239 | 1520 ||
238 | 1520 ||
237 | 1510 || 1510 | 226 - 226 | 0.954
236 | 1510 ||
235 | 1510 ||
234 | 1500 || 1500 | 224 - 226 | 0.957 - 0.966
233 | 1500 ||
232 | 1500 ||
231 | 1490 || 1490 | 222 - 224 | 0.961 - 0.970
230 | 1490 ||
229 | 1490 ||
228 | 1490 ||
227 | 1480 || 1480 | 220 - 224 | 0.969 - 0.987
226 | 1480 ||
225 | 1480 ||
224 | 1470 || 1470 | 218 - 222 | 0.973 - 0.991
223 | 1470 ||
222 | 1470 ||
221 | 1460 || 1460 | 216 - 222 | 0.977 - 1.005
220 | 1460 ||
219 | 1460 ||
218 | 1450 || 1450 | 214 - 220 | 0.982 - 1.009
217 | 1450 ||
216 | 1450 ||
215 | 1440 || 1440 | 212 - 220 | 0.986 - 1.023
214 | 1440 ||
213 | 1440 ||
212 | 1430 || 1430 | 210 - 218 | 0.991 - 1.028
211 | 1430 ||
210 | 1420 || 1420 | 208 - 218 | 0.990 - 1.038
209 | 1420 ||
208 | 1410 || 1410 | 206 - 216 | 0.990 - 1.038
207 | 1410 ||
206 | 1400 || 1400 | 204 - 216 | 0.990 - 1.049
205 | 1400 ||
204 | 1390 || 1390 | 202 - 214 | 0.990 - 1.049
203 | 1390 ||
202 | 1380 || 1380 | 200 - 214 | 0.990 - 1.059
201 | 1370 || 1370 | 198 - 212 | 0.985 - 1.055
200 | 1370 ||
199 | 1360 || 1360 | 196 - 212 | 0.985 - 1.065
198 | 1360 ||
197 | 1350 || 1350 | 194 - 210 | 0.985 - 1.066
196 | 1340 || 1340 | 192 - 210 | 0.980 - 1.071
195 | 1340 ||
194 | 1330 || 1330 | 190 - 208 | 0.979 - 1.072
193 | 1320 || 1320 | 188 - 208 | 0.974 - 1.078
192 | 1310 || 1310 | 188 - 206 | 0.979 - 1.073
191 | 1300 || 1300 | 186 - 204 | 0.974 - 1.068
190 | 1300 ||
189 | 1290 || 1290 | 186 - 202 | 0.984 - 1.069
188 | 1280 || 1280 | 184 - 200 | 0.979 - 1.064
187 | 1280 ||
186 | 1270 || 1270 | 184 - 198 | 0.989 - 1.065
185 | 1270 ||
184 | 1260 || 1260 | 182 - 196 | 0.989 - 1.065
183 | 1260 ||
182 | 1250 || 1250 | 182 - 194 | 1.000 - 1.066
181 | 1250 ||
180 | 1240 || 1240 | 180 - 192 | 1.000 - 1.067
179 | 1240 ||
178 | 1230 || 1230 | 180 - 190 | 1.011 - 1.067
177 | 1230 ||
176 | 1220 || 1220 | 178 - 188 | 1.011 - 1.068
The assumption I made in post#2 about a simple 228/240 (= 0.950) scaling (using my 2 kids’ 2013 & 2015 results as benchmarks), only holds at the far ends of the scores distribution tail. As we work towards the middle of the scores distribution, the ratio of 2015 S.I. vs. 2014 S.I. does not have a constant 0.950 ratio-- if you plot the first two columns of black-font data in Excel, you can see that the concordance correlation is not linear. This is a reflection of the 2015 test being an inherently different test than previous years’ tests due to: no guessing penalty; no obscure vocab; a different range of math topics; lack of prep resources.
What this means in less geeky terms is: if you made a bellcurve barchart showing the frequency of student scores, the 2015 bellcurve has a different shape than the 2014 bellcurve.
Awesome!
I haven’t been able to post numbers formatted like that so I had to post the table.
How do you maintain tab? All tabs change to one space and my numbers scrunch to left.
This is very helpful. Do you have enough data points to plot the bell curve you referenced? I have a DD that got a 1440/219 in NJ so curious as to whether she’ll have a shot at NMSF - yes, her CR,Writing scores were very high thus was able to achieve a 219 which speaks to weighted difference of PSAT score as compared to NMSF
You can’t maintain tabs. My table just looks that way because I made sure all the data in the columns have the same number of characters.
If i had the corresponding percentiles for all the scores (the data @payn4ward is trying to gather), then I could plot the bellcurve.
Thx - hope we can see the bell curve. Any difference in weighting of SI from prior years?
“there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the 2015 PSAT score and 2015 S.I.'s, because 2015 PSAT score calculation gives twice as much weighting to the M sub-score which results in different S.I. combinations”
How does the 2015 calculation give twice as much weight to the M sub score? The PSAT SI has ALWAYS been calculated using 1/3 CR, 1/3 E, and 1/3 Math.
Also, Testmaster REVISED their assumptions and are no longer just deducting 12 points? Did you see the updated post?
@GMTplus7 I get it - you are saying that the PSAT total score doubles the math portion (which is new), not the SI (which has always been that way).
Why do we care (for NMS purposes) what the total score is? Only SI matters… or is it because you are trying to extrapolate the total score concordance tables? Why not just use the SI component concordance table?
SuzyQ7, I was focusing on the inherent differences in the 2015 test, as @GMTplus7 noted, and the inability to apply the same correlation to the concordance tables. The evidence I am seeing with my DD’s 219 SI speaks to this - I don’t her breakdown but can provide as it is heavily skewed to CR,Writing.
Because the sum of your 2015 subscores can yield a very different 2014 correlative result, because each of the component tables are scaled differently.
Got it- thanks. What a mess
What we want is for the CB to publish a concordance table for 2014 PSAT (SI) and 2015 SI.
My head just exploded. 