<p>@celesteroberts, thank you <em>so</em> much for taking the time & effort to look at the KS data. I really appreciate it. DS needs a 3 point drop & we’ve always joked that he will miss the cutoff by 1 point. So that’s probably what will happen after all, but it’s OK. For DS, he did the best he could & we’re very proud of him. I won’t pretend that it won’t be painful to miss full tuition & fee waivers at our flagship, but some things aren’t meant to be. In looking at the numbers myself…in a much more basic way ha, ha…I felt DS would probably not make the cut. We’ve talked about it & reinforced that he will still have many options so not to worry. However, I think I may set aside the college mailings that address NMSF specifically. There’s no point in fostering that hope to any extent. I will definitely stay on this thread though because it will be great to cheer for all the students who do make it. Seems like we shouldn’t have to wait quite so long. </p>
<p>See post on page 29 with NMSC page on alternate testing. If ever circumstances arise that PSAT cannot be used you have to contact NMSC as soon as possible after test date and no later than March 1 after October test dates.
It is definitely not a Mulligan type thing.</p>
<p>I will be hoping for a 3-point drop for Kansas GoAskDad. It does look like a drop is in order, but the magnitude is much trickier to predict. </p>
<p>No, I don’t need to worry about my score, because it was a lot higher than necessary to pass any state cutoff. But I know some people @ my school who are borderline for MD, and last year MD had a record high. It’s got to go down, because last year’s was too high.</p>
<p>No one can request a cancellation of PSAT score and use of an alternate SAT test after accessing the PSAT score.</p>
<p>The following is from Student Guide:</p>
<p>If you do not want your 2013 PSAT/NMSQT scores
used for participation in NMSC’s 2015 programs
due to an irregularity that occurred when you took
the test, you must contact NMSC immediately but
no later than November 15, 2013 to submit a formal
request. Requests received after November 15, 2013
will not be considered.</p>
<p>If you have not taken PSAT at all, then you can make an alternate SAT test request by March 1.</p>
<p>The following is from Student Guide:</p>
<p>If you do not take the 2013 PSAT/NMSQT because
of illness, an emergency, or other extenuating circumstance,
you may still be able to enter NMSC’s
2015 competitions. To request information about
another route of entry after the October 2013 PSAT/
NMSQT administration, WRITE to NMSC as soon
as possible but no later than March 1, 2014.</p>
<h2>1025jerseyboy, I am expecting 223 for NJ using a regression analysis. Thanks.</h2>
<p>Snowberry42 , Very logical analysis. Any prediction for NJ cutoff? I am not great with stats to make a prediction </p>
<p>Sorry, everyone, I should have said if circumstances arise that PSAT can not be TAKEN (instead of used).</p>
<p>Any thoughts about Florida? We had a high of 215 one year and a mix of 211,210, 212, and 214. Will 220 be a comfortable score for my D?</p>
<p>@1025jerseyboy, got your PM. Have to say that NJ cutoffs are not easy to predict. Maybe one of the folks running stats programs can weigh in here. In some states, these numbers line up so nicely and are easy to interpret by just looking and mentally playing around. NJ is not like that. The couple of crazy high years, like last year, and the really low years are clear. But in between, funny stuff is going on. Even though it’s a high cutoff state, sometimes have to look at 65-69 range to understand what’s going on for NJ. </p>
<p>NJ had almost 15% increase in # of test-takers from last year, 6000 more than the previous high year of 2006. Since 2006, the # of test-takers has been gradually declining,until this year. Up 10,000 from last year. Math scores in high ranges up this year both in %ages and absolute numbers, like every other state. CR/W down. </p>
<p>My best guess is NJ stays at 224. It could go down a point, but probably not more than that.
Last year: CR+M+W for 75-80/70-74/65-69 = 3356/5610/9165
This year, same numbers- 3434/5377/9613
2010, the most recent high cut score of 223: 2866/4266/9706</p>
<p>Many other years had 221 cuts and numbers clearly lower in 75-80, 70-74, or both.
Like 2011 with 2392/4789/9534.
2009 was an anomaly. Cut score 221, but 75-80 and 70-74 fairly high. However, 65-69 was unusually low. Numbers were 3137/4606/8558.</p>
<p>2005 was a 223 cut score with 2891/5819/9391.</p>
<p>Checked the census. NJ is increasing in population slowly, but the school age population was essentially flat from 2000-2010. So working with absolute numbers should be fine. Necessary because of the big one year increase in test-takers.</p>
<p>Snowberry, in your NJ analysis, did you use %ages like for CT? I don’t think that would work well given the unusual huge increase in test-takers for 2013, unless you scale all the percentages up for the 2013 test categories to account for that.Need to multiply all 2013 %ages by 1.1466.</p>
<p>Celesteroberts, I used % just to avoid the same issue that you are referring to. An increase in student population compared to the country as a whole will allocate more NMS in absolute terms, but in percentage term that will not change. If in any given year, NJ student enrolment is 2% of the national total, NJ will get 320 NMS. A 1% enrolment will yield 160 NMS. </p>
<p>Also, given the bell shaped curve of score distribution, please do not expect to see a parallel shift as the total score is bounded from 60 to 240. You will see a greater impact to the average (in the middle) values, but not a great deal of change at the extremities.</p>
<p>One thing we are missing in the dataset is the distribution by total score (210-224 and 225-240 as examples). A student may score 75-80 in one, but 70-74 in the other. We are missing that correlation component. A distribution by total score will make the predictions more accurate. Simply, adding the numbers in 75-80 group is not the correct way in my opinion. An implicit assumption using that approach is that a student always scores in the same score band. A single mistake in Math can cost someone 5 points, but none in Critical Reading. Thank you.</p>
<p>What about the percentiles? 97 vs 98… can you read into that at all?</p>
<p>The percentiles given in the “Understanding your PSAT Score” booklet and the score report are the national percentiles, not the state percentiles. The state cutoff is based on the state percentile for the PSAT Index ( or total score) to meet the allocated slots for the state.</p>
<p>“A distribution by total score will make the predictions more accurate. Simply, adding the numbers in 75-80 group is not the correct way in my opinion. An implicit assumption using that approach is that a student always scores in the same band. A single mistake in Math can cost someone 5 points, but none in Critical Reading.”</p>
<p>Yup…totally agree. But it’s really all we have at this point. Even the national percentiles won’t help us for predicting national decisions (let alone state decisions), because that’s LAST year’s data…an unfortunate change made 2 years back, 
.</p>
<p>Snowberry, I understand perfectly that adding as I am doing is not ‘reality’, but it yields insights nonetheless.The reason the total score distribution is missing is because CB/NMSC do not want people to see it. Have to make do with what we have.</p>
<p>NJ’s test-taker #s were up by almost 15%(!!!) from the previous year. AFAIK there was no corresponding increase in the population of their juniors. As I noted, the student population has been flat in NJ for many years, though I don’t know about juniors specifically. If there has been an increase, it is much more modest than 15%. Using %ages in NJ this year will yield an unrealistically optimistic forecast. Because the %ages of students in each category will be relatively low, while absolute #s are high.Though 223 is still not very hopeful for a lot of students, to tell the truth. I just wonder if you make the adjustment I suggested, if you would forecast 224. That is what it looks like, eyeballing it. An increase of 15% is likely due to some large districts starting to give PSAT on Weds during school, that previously did not offer it, not an increase in # of juniors in the state.</p>
<p>Goaskdad, I’m REALLY hoping for that 3 point drop in KS for you. I know how you feel; had one on the edge 2 years ago.</p>
<p>Bayonne: <a href=“Footing bill for students' PSAT exams is money well spent: Bayonne school officials - nj.com”>Footing bill for students' PSAT exams is money well spent: Bayonne school officials - nj.com;
<p>And scroll down here to see what Jersey City started this year to increase participation:
<a href=“http://www.jcboe.org/boe2014/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=344&Itemid=1080”>http://www.jcboe.org/boe2014/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=344&Itemid=1080</a></p>
<p>I assume there are other districts doing similar. NJ already had a high participation rate before these initiatives, part of the reason for its traditionally high cut off scores. </p>
<p>When I first saw the NJ data, I assumed the districts adding testing must be low-income, since the number of students in the top range categories are about the same as last year overall, not counting the math increase and CR/W decrease shift that seems to be widespread. Then it occurred to me that if it turns out high scores generally drop nationwide this year, NJ’s cut score could be held high by the influx of additional testers, some of them high-scoring. So some districts adding testing may be middle class. </p>
<p>WOW! you guys are good! keep up the good work for all of us non statistical minded parents!
Hoping Pa stays the same or drops a point…my son has a 218 and is on the bubble so I hope @PAmom21 is right with all of her analysis! just another thing to keep my insomnia going :)</p>
<p>Pasoccermom - I’m with you! We are waiting with a 217 in PA; praying that everyone sees that drop!</p>
<p>can anyone forecast for WA.</p>