As of yet this number has not been determined but it should be lower than 209.
Can you let us know where you are hearing that? Also, since there is no formal reporting of the SI on the SAT, I guess you would take each test score and added them together and multiply by 2.
Thanks for the information.
Sounds made up.
Read same info posted elsewhere. Has anyone else tried calling and asking?
Assuming its true then its like NMSC is just toying with us now.
“Hey Bob I have a hysterical idea. Lets replace the concording SAT score with a SI.”
“Even better, Mary. Lets replace it with a SI and then make them wait even longer to find out what that SI is!”
“Oh Bob, you’re evil! When’s the late registration deadline for the next SAT?”
My information comes directly from NMSC. I called them yesterday to get some clarification on the confirming score.
@Knowledgless - sorry I forgot to respond to your question. For the new SAT you compute the SI just as you would for the PSAT. So sum up the individual test scores (the ones on the 10-40 scale) and multiply by two. Or . . . you could double your EBRW, add Math, and divide that sum by 10. The result is the same.
@JBFlying What about for the old SAT? How would you get an SI from that?
@nw2this they didn’t cover that particular angle with me because D17 took the new test. Anyone with an old test should definitely contact NMSC and have them walk you through how they would concord and then compute an SI. Have your score report handy so you can use the real numbers of the SAT you are planning to submit. That is the only way to tell FOR SURE that you are submitting a confirming score. If they end up getting a ton of these types of calls, perhaps they’ll decide to save time by actually releasing a definite number! 
You can always concord it yourself but as we all know from working with the concordance tables: 1) Total Scores can result in a range of SI values depending on the test-score mix; 2) Concorded EBRW + Math does NOT always equal Total Score; 3) you have no way of knowing whether NMSC is even using the College Board Concordance Tables unless they have explicitly said they are planning to do so.
For those brave enough to try this on their own, simply take your old score report and plug the test scores (CR, M, W) into the College Board’s Score Converter application. Take the resulting EBRW and Math scores and use the formula (EBRW * 2 + Math) / 10 to arrive at an SI. If your answer is something like 223 or 215 or 211 you are probably fine but you should call NMSC to make sure they have your SAT score AND that your calculations are what they are using. If your answer is something like 209 or 205 or 207 then you’ll have to make a tough decision about whether to gamble with that score or take the new version in Oct/Nov/Dec. If it were me, I’d be signing up for one of those test dates just as insurance. Small price to pay if you are hoping for big bucks from being an NMF. BUT . . . I’d definitely be contacting NMSC as well to get their calculations because they are there to assist with these questions and they have contributed to the confusion and the worry by holding back and not releasing a number. They’ve had a couple of years now to determine the formula for computing SI’s and at least three months to work with the concordance tables.
Oh wow. I was only joking about them intentionally delaying releasing the confirming score, but apparently I wasn’t wrong. Post at another site says NMSC told a caller they wouldn’t release the actual number needed until Dec.
They are reportedly worried about setting the SI too high. A reasonable scenario (mind you this is speculation) is that they don’t want to say “209” or “208” or “207” or whatever without a LOT of analysis to understand how an “old” score of 1960 might present as a “new” SI. Also, let’s face it - while the selection index is actually a precise calculation, the concordance tables are anything but! Does NMSC even have the resource power to figure all this out?
Thanks @JBFlying. Actually, I think that makes perfect sense. I guess it will go like this, “You need a 219 to be semifinalist in your state but only need a 209 to confirm.” Otherwise there are kids from the 209 states that will have to confirm to become finalist.
Do you have to account for the scale difference? PSAT sections were out of 38, with a max SI of 228. New SAT sections are out of 40, with a max SI of 240. So it won’t likely be a direct conversion??
@11827pat I was wondering the same thing at first! But neglected to ask them and I believe the answer is actually “no”.
The scale isn’t really different with the SAT, just shifted to the right to account for some “growth”. The two tests are aligned vertically now so that your expected score is supposed to increase over time as you progress through the high school curriculum. That’s why the PSAT is supposed to be what your SAT would be on that day. However, NMSC doesn’t care about expected growth - they require the SAT in order to verify that your PSAT score isn’t a fluke. So right away they should be fine with any SAT score that is at-or-above your PSAT score. Furthermore, they don’t vary the confirming score by state or by individual - they just set one minimum standard for everyone. Therefore, it really has to be no more than the lowest qualifying score (209 in this case). From what they were telling me it sounded like they were shooting for an SI below 209. In prior years, when the commended/lowest cutoff was 200-202, the confirming SAT score was just under 2000 so it sounds as if their thinking on this subject hasn’t really changed this year.
@knowledgeless yeah the kids who made nmsf in Wyo. or WV. with a 209 will need to make sure their SAT is consistent in order to qualify as finalist. However, the “growth” aspect of the test should help them score higher hopefully, especially if they have waited till this fall to take it. Thats a whole year after PSAT 2015 so plenty of opportunity to improve scores.
@JBFlying I don’t think the formula you suggest works because if you take the resulting EBRW and Math scores and use the formula (EBRW * 2 + Math) / 10 to arrive at an SI, the SI will come out higher than what NM is saying in the instructions. According to the instructions, it’s not the writing score but the writing MC subscore.
“For SAT scores earned prior to March 2016, your converted critical reading score, mathematics score, and writing multiple-choice subscore will be the basis for determining whether you meet the confirming score requirement”.
@paveyourpath That’s a good point. EBRW is not supposed to have an essay component and I was assuming that the concordance somehow adjusts for this. But that may be a poor assumption. The CB tables use the “old” Writing score in total (including the essay component) to eventually arrive at EBRW and it’s not clear how or whether they are making any adjustments for the essay.
@paveyourpath - are you mixing old and new SAT? I thought EBRW was from the new SAT. I thought @JBFlying was talking about how to calculate the SI for the new SAT.
To restate - for the new SAT, yes, I think you can just take the “verbal” (EBRW?) score, double it, and add the math (and divide by ten). Equivalently, you can take the 3 scores that are out of 40 (one is reading, one is writing, and one is math), and add them all up. You get the same thing.
@thshadow I was referring to @JBFLying post #6 (3rd paragraph) where flying is talking about calculating the SI for the old SAT. The mixing is in terminology but not in the overall substance. EBRW = CR+W (MC subscore) for our purposes.
The point being that while the formula Flying and you are stating works for determining the SI of the new SAT, those trying to calculate a selection index for the old SAT have to remember to use the writing MC subscore not the writing score.
Then the question becomes how will NM be calculating the SI for the old SAT? Will they follow the formula as discussed above or will they convert the old SAT score to a new SAT score and then determine the SI? I posted an example elsewhere using the historical confirming score of 1960 (but used 1950 to keep all 3 subscores equal) and an SI of the “old” SAT is 195 where as when it’s converted the 1950 converts to a 2070 which is an SI of 207.
First CB and now NM just toying with us.
Actually, re-reading what it says in the NM instructions, I just noticed they used the word “converted” so it would seem they will convert old to new to determine SI. Am I interpreting that (below) correctly? I will call them on Monday to ask to be certain.
“For SAT scores earned prior to March 2016, your converted critical reading score, mathematics score, and writing multiple-choice subscore will be the basis for determining whether you meet the confirming score requirement”.
Not that logic has anything to do with it :-), but it would definitely be logical for the old SAT scores to be concorded to the new before computing the SI. The new SAT scores are slightly inflated compared to the old SAT scores, so it’s only fair.
Now, there are probably multiple ways to concord the old SAT scores, and I expect they will yield slightly different results.
But someone who got above a 2090 or above on the old SAT is clearly fine, as that will concord to something more than a 209.
@paveyourpath not sure if this adds more information, but NMSC did not say they were using a different measurement for old SAT’s vs. new ones. They said they are looking at something lower than the lowest qualifying score of 209 and so that strongly suggests a concordance of some sort to convert old SAT scores to a new SI number.
Regarding your comment in post #15: " The point being that while the formula Flying and you are stating works for determining the SI of the new SAT, those trying to calculate a selection index for the old SAT have to remember to use the writing MC subscore not the writing score." That’s true. But then what concordance formula do we use? CB hasn’t provided one that concords the non-writing subscore to an EBRW. What they HAVE provided is a concordance formula that concords MC+Writing to an EBRW. So using that may be the best approximation unless someone has a better concordance method than CB’s.
@BlueBlazer from the other thread Post #6700 answers the question of what to do with the old SAT:
“National Merit told me that to find the SI from an Old SAT you first convert the Old SAT to the new SAT using the College Board conversion tables (or app), then calculate SI from there.”
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19926154/#Comment_19926154