@AJ2017 I tend to agree with your Post 2055 — it will be very interesting to see the results in September. I am beginning to think NY, TX, GA, PA, WA and some other states will not go down on their cut offs and may go up a point or so in some cases. Just still hard to believe with such a lower top score at 228 vs. 240 that states that were at 218-219 will stay there or go up. Too many kids clustered at certain points.
@micgeaus, I understand you. NONE of your son’s passages were on the real October, 2015 test.
The test with the Douglas passage given at my daughter’s school during field testing did have the Douglas passage and was on the October, 2015 test.
Don’t forget that some scores were not even possible on the 240 scale. For example, on my son’s test (Saturday 2012), if you missed two in CR, you got 238 (1 wrong kept the 240). One wrong in math cost four SI points, and one wrong in Writing cost FIVE. You aren’t seeing those types of upper end drops on the 228 scale.
@likestowrite - I haven’t responded because I can’t think of a way to respond that doesn’t sound rude… 
So apologies in advance, but suffice it to say that trying to shift percentiles by (exactly) 1 full percentage point (or whatever it is you’re trying to do) based on the change in definition makes so little sense that I can’t even figure out how to explain why!
I’ll try to restate what I said before. If you say that score X is percentile P for definition (A) (i.e. P% scored worse than X), then score (X - 1 discrete unit) is percentile P for definition (B) (i.e. P% scored worse than or equal to X). If you have a perfect score, then definition A will give you say 99.8% (clearly not 100%). If you change to definition (B), the one thing you absolutely know is that 1 less (assuming the scores can change by 1 point at a time) than a perfect score will also be 99.8%. If scores change by 10 at a time, then 10 less than a perfect score will be 99.8%.
The definition change means that if you’re trying to find scores that match up based on percentiles, you have to adjust the absolute score up (or down) by 1 discrete unit of the scale. (i.e. 1 for SI, 10 for TS, etc.).
@Speedy2019 I apologize. I didn’t mean to sound rude. That was not my intent.
I’m guessing if they used the same passage that they changed the questions.
It seems like the passages in the practice test were at a lower reading level.
@Speedy2019 – the fact that the Douglass passage was on the field test bothers me - that’s the passage my son missed 4 on. Just frustrating. Nothing to be done but it doesn’t sit right with me. 
@micgeaux, hey no problem and yes the questions were changed.
We are in the same boat, kiddos with 215 in TX. I think we are even both in Austin.
Right now, I’m still predicting 212 for TX, not changing based on data points from a small number of high schools when there are thousands of high schools in the country. I’m ignoring the concordance tables and using the SI % table. There is a consistency with that table going back many, many years. Just can’t believe CB would put that table out if it was so wrong. That table says 214 and higher is 99+. In Texas, 99+ always makes SF.
Will only change predictions after summary reports come out if data warrants.
Good luck to our kids.
@CA1543, sorry to hear it. My daughter missed 5 on Reading. Only 1 on Douglas. The others were those paired questions. Where you answer one question, then the next question is about your answer from the previous question. So if you miss the first, you miss the second. She missed 2 of those paired questions.
Still the curve on Reading was somewhat lenient. You know I’m still focused on those curves. Why have a lenient curve if scores are so high…
bye.
@Speedy2019 now you got me curious! what questions pertained to Douglas?
@SLparent, from the 10/14 test, it was Question 30.
I got an 220 SI score and I’m in VA. Will I make the cutoff score? I don’t know which sources to trust.
@Speedy2019 – My son complained too about those paired questions. The Reading was frustrating - he got a 35 but a 36 on writing (missed 2) & 38 on math - only missed 1 - lenient curve there I think & math only counts for 1/3 of the SI. I have the sense that if somehow students were more prepared for this reading portion of the test (writing was apparently similar to the past) it really helped. (On the ACT this year they changed the way the essay works and a lot of kids who did well on the other parts did not do great on this essay. We had a tutor who was all over it so my son got a 35 composite and a 35 on the essay. The ACT is what he was focusing on in October (aiming for a 1 and done) not really on the PSAT at all. In fact it was a coin toss whether to take it or not.) He just thought the reading was quite annoying - again - was not used to how it was presented but I am sure that as other students did very well, it is possible to practice and succeed. So I would not be surprised if students in schools or with a local culture that really values the PSAT may have a concentration of higher scores - will be interesting to see. It does not really matter for us much at the end of the day but what I have learned from everyone’s analysis, experiences and ability to think of so many different aspects of this has been truly amazing and inspiring! The huge role of the College Board has in so many kids’ futures is actually disconcerting in some respects - of course for those it helps that’s great but it is far from a really reliable predictor of college success for many – here is just 1 recent article: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2016/01/bias-found-in-precollege-tests.shtml I hope all our kids get into good match colleges, get great educations and graduate without huge debt or families sacrificing retirement or having to live beyond their means. 
@SLparent & @Speedy2019 – re Douglass - it was questions 29-38. That’s a lot – see this post:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19197306/#Comment_19197306
Wow @thshadow . None of us know each others profession here but I think I can guess (and pray) that you are not a teacher since “That is such a bad question I don’t even know how to answer it without being rude” just rolled off your fingertips.
- The report on the 2015 SI%chart that 205-213 comprise the 99th percentile. 9 spots comprise that 1% of scores. 98th percentile on that chart ranges from 202-204. 3 score spots comprise that 1% of scores. 200-201 is the range of 97th percentile of scores. 2 scores comprise that 1% of scores. In each of these scored units, the individual score spots represent different numbers of actual scores. Since the CB did not break there percentile scoring down into individual percentiles at every score, for these at the top that are clustered, why would not you have to move with the unit. I don’t see how it makes more sense to move the percentiles 1/2 space, then 1/3 space, then 1/9 space (and that even assumes that the number of actual scores are spread evenly across these %ile units).
I clearly do not understand what you are saying to refute this. And I won’t ask you again but hope someone with better explanatory power can explain why they would not use this method.
- If you are so sure that my method of trying to make sense of the SI% chart is so outrageous that you can not even explain it without being rude, let me ask you another question. How do you explain that the results I created parallel so closely with the SI%chart given by CB for the 2014 PSAT?
2014 PSAT SI % chart
99+ = 224-240
99 = 213-223
98 = 206-212
97 = 202-205
2015 PSAT % chart as I converted it
99+ =222-228 (most subjective part)
99 =214-221
98 =205-213
97 =202-204
You have argued, as have others, that the CB would most likely want consistency in scores with this change. In addition, they want to put out a SI % chart that is not wildly off. SO, the conclusion I came to actually makes the 2015 SI% chart look very similar to the 2014 one. It also reveals the same 97% cutoff number at 202. I did not make up the placement of these numbers (except where to start the 99+). But they seem to make sense in light of last year. They also make sense in light of the anecdotal stories from GA and IL and OK.
So, is it just coincidence that my method worked. If someone can explain to me that it is, I will happily understand.
@CA1543 Thanks for Douglas questions. And Amen to what you said " hope all our kids get into good match colleges, get great educations and graduate without huge debt or families sacrificing retirement or having to live beyond their means."
Do you think I should start a new thread and just ask for people to send in their SI scores and state? I think most people here already gave out scores.
@likestowrite I cannot see that 222-228 will be the 99+. I think that is too high. We are looking mostly at over achieving kids. But they don’t make up the entire 16,000. I think it will skew more to highest cutoffs being 222 with a few over of course. I think most mid states will stay in the mid 215 area (give or take one or two)…and that the cutoff for commended will be around 208. I think we are looking too closely at percentiles that don’t match up. You can’t just subtract 6 from top like it was before. I think there were great penalties for those first few misses…and you have most of your super high cluster around 220-222. Then the next one will be 215-18. Thoughts anyone?
I’ve heard a lot of talk about state summary reports. When do these come out and what is on them?
@griffinv989, go ahead and look at your state summary report from last year: http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/psat/data/cb-jr
That will show you what they look like. Last year, the reports were already out.
I’m expecting them in Feb., basically any day.
I think they were a bit earlier last year, but February for 2014 meant the 28th…or maybe the 27th, but pretty darn late all said and done. Hopefully any day!!!
For IL, I got the following from my daughters school (My daughter has 218 (1470) on 228 scale). Her school counselor gave me the averages, in her school they had 12 children scoring 218 exactly and 10 children scoring 219 to 228 and 33 children scoring 215 or higher. All these are Juniors numbers from my daughter’s school.
Based on the above, I feel Illinois might go with 219 cut-off this year but there is still a hope as following is the actual data of my daughter’s school of past NMSF numbers from 2011 graduating class to 2016 graduating class:
Graduating Class of 2011 - 22 NMSF
Graduating Class of 2012 - 12 NMSF
Graduating Class of 2013 - 23 NMSF
Graduating Class of 2014 - 13 NMSF
Graduating Class of 2015 - 23 NMSF
Graduating Class of 2016 - 17 NMSF
So, if my daughter who has 218 to be a NMSF then her School will have 22 NMSF’s for 2017 graduating class. (Statistics on her side from the above Table) as her school in alternate years have crossed 20’s as they had 17 in 2016. Will 2017 have 22 from her School then she would be in based on the above actual data till 2016?
But what concerns me is 12 children from her School scoring 218 exactly, so state wide how many children are in the same boat? This concern puts a negative opinion on my part that IL might be 219 cutoff this year on 228 scale! Keeping my fingers crossed!
On the brighter side for my daughter, her School had never had 12 or less NMSF since 2011. If IL cut off is 219 this year then her School will have only 10 NMSF!