You think after 24 hours of playing see-saw, wouldn’t they be sick to their stomachs by now?
@VABogart And yeah, Bill & Michael are co-authors of that bestseller.
@Speedy2019 – yes the Texas prediction of 219 is gone!! Maybe he jumped the gun.
It’s hard to imagine they’d only change one state’s prediction though as they are putting a variety of comments that make one wonder how, for example - Texas goes down only 1 pt from last year – to 219 – which is “on the bubble” now for CA & VA is at 218 - drops 4 points – see below–
They recently commented on a number of other states which is interesting to reflect on—
They think 219 is on the bubble for CA - as of Feb. 3:
Vijay says:
January 26, 2016 at 3:12 pm
I am from california with a 219 SI index. Do you think i would make it to the finalist?
Reply
Bill says: February 3, 2016 at 11:51 am
Vijay,
A score of 219 puts you on the bubble, so to speak. You are at the very edge of what we expect the cutoff score to be in California. While these are only estimations, so you won’t know for sure until the cutoffs are announced in the fall, you should be proud of your accomplishment!
And re VA:
ill says:
February 4, 2016 at 1:22 pm
CR,
The estimated cutoff score for VA 218.
Hope this helps!
That would be a drop of 4 points for VA!
And this is intesting too (sorry if already mentioned above –
lh says:
February 4, 2016 at 8:45 am
I have some questions:
This is what you said yesterday 0n 2/3/16 “Hi Lindsay, we’re publishing another post later today that seems to suggest that the projected cutoff is closer to the official than the sliding scale estimation. Check it out later tonight!”
- So, does that mean CB and NMSC have the official NMSF cutoff’s but they are not willing to release any info including state summary reports? Also, that means Testmasters has access to the cutoffs too? If not, how can you tell your projected cutoff is close to the official?
- Realistically, when will the new projection be out since it’s not posted as of 2/4/16.
- You said “We recently obtained a substantial new pool of data points.” What are these data points? Real test takers’ SI scores from your students or CB’s results?
Thanks.
Reply
Bill says:
February 4, 2016 at 5:13 pm
nlh,
- No. Also, no. Statistical analysis and extrapolation.
- The new projection will be specific to a single state; this should be available in the next day or two.
- We can assure you that this new data has been helpful in determining a new cutoff for the specific state we are updating, but the source itself is confidential.
Hope this helps!
Reply
Why is it taking them so long to explain whatever they think they know & give guidance on Texas and other states? Are they hackers who got caught? Was the data unreliable or will their source be “outed” and face consequences???
Hopefully by tomorrow they will do whatever they plan to – besides continuing to torture us!
I am wondering though if in some places that focus a lot on the PSAT that the NMSFs cut offs will be higher and be more concentrated in certain schools rather than being as sprinkled about as in the past. I understand that tends to be the case anyway in some states though.
@candjsdad Kids that excel academically get . . . great colleges, great jobs, intellectual satisfaction, and all the accruing social benefits. But I take your point about DC residents getting screwed… and it would only be by a tiny bit in your case. I really think it will be fine.
I definitely get the point about scoring but cannot imagine that CB would curve the PSAT generously enough to produce the number of 224-228 SI scores you’d need to bump your kids out. Obviously anything can happen, but most of the 0.73% you mention from the SAT got some questions wrong. I’m just not convinced that there’s anything funny with the tail of the distribution for the PSAT.
Interesting that testmasters says the source is confidential. That could have something to do with them backing off, they might be worried that too specific a prediction will make it obvious what data they have and get their source in trouble.
What are we going to do now, no more testmaster update! 
I am sorry guys/gals… too many predictions and wrongful expectations from testmasters site folks. They are not God or holding your scores. Simply their prediction is as good as yours. I have stated in other posts that only way to get a good gauge (if you are in hurry like many parents like me who are on the edge scores especially which differs from state to state - We are in IL and my daughter has 218 - Though my mind goes and back and forth between 218 and 219 cut off for Illinois based on my daughter school last 5 years of NMSF numbers, I feel, IL might be 218). My point here is only way is to get the consistent previous NMSF School records (this is public information) and score averages (you need to convince the school to give this to you. I don’t believe it violates any privacy as it only tells you how many scored better than your child.) and come to a close approximation,
Agreed, appreciate the role testmaster playing and effort they are making to be responsible source of information. Now there removal of all reference to Texas SI score projection of 219 is really intriguing. Without giving any explanation the action has added to the worries. Hope they are reading this and just simply add a note why they may not update Texas SI. Thank you Bill and Michael.
I had asked a question about CA cutoff in relation to their projected SI increase of Texas, they replied as I posted that here in CC, now that post in Testmasters is gone. So they really are not going to update the table, in a day or two at least.
“Confidential” might mean “illegal”. Or at least, if someone gave them a CSV of all PSAT scores at some school, that’s probably a violation of something… (They don’t seem to be like Applerouth and have a signed agreement in place.)
@thshadow, I doubt they are pulling back to protect their source. I think they can’t figure the data out. Looking at the data one way gives one result, looking at the data another way gives a second result.
The 205 at 99% and Texas at 219 seem contradictory. Only way I can see that is if 99% is correct in SI % table and 99+ is not. Possible, but seems unlikely.
Looking at the past several years’ history, TX has been steadily rising compared with other states. Even Testmasters joked that maybe it is catching up with the Golden state. Anyone knows why?
Hunter Stallard says:
January 9, 2016 at 12:49 am
How likely do you think these are? I scored a 215 in Texas, and assumed that I would make the cutoffs on your earlier estimates. : /
Reply
Michael says:
February 4, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Hi Hunter, we’re planning another update tonight, and based on that data, we’re expecting our projections to be in the right ballpark for national merit.
Reply
I talked with the CB about Page 11 of Understanding your Scores. They told me 1) the SI values were based off of this last PSAT and not previous psat results, 2) They are the national percentile and not user percentiles, & 3) I asked if 99+ means 99.5 and they 99+ is define as 99.1 and up by their definition. When I said 99+ says it means 99.5 at wiki. They said that wasn’t their definition. All this info was confirmed by a supervisor I asked them to verify what they had told me. Does that shed any light on anything?
@Frankmeister I don’t know. If 99+ = 99.1 then they’ve got a whole lot of inexplicable 99s… What do they all mean? 99.02, 99.04, 99.06…? That seems unlikely to me.
What CB phone # did you use?
@NathanBN Population growth mostly. National merit will only allocate so many to a state in order to keep balance across the country. Texas gets a huge number of them as does California but Texas population is growing so fast the cut off score has to increase.
Too much light @Frankmeister. Cutoffs are gonna be high.
This is self-contradictory. If the percentile tables are based off of “this last PSAT”, i.e. it’s the percentiles of the kids who took the test - then it can’t be a national percentile that covers kids that didn’t take the test. That doesn’t make any sense.
And saying that 99+ is 99.1 I find very hard to believe. Not that it really matters, if they’re consistent from year to year, as all we’re doing is matching up the 1st 99+ to the 1st 99+ last year.
I called the PSAT parent/student portion number at the college board
It seems to be like a call center out of Oklahoma. I was very specific with the questions because of ?'s at this site. I said I’ll just call them and see what they will clarify. I asked was the SI values based of this last test or as a comparison to previous test. She assured me after talking with a supervisor that it was not the previous test but this last test. I asked them specifically if the percentiles were national or user percentiles. She assured me they were national percentiles after supervisor confirmation. She challenged me about the definition of 99+ being 99.5 and asked me where I got my definition. She was a little vague about it but said I could only consider 99+ to mean 99.1% and above. When I let her go, I remembered all the 99 numbers in their chart and was of the opinion myself that 99+ was probably still 99.5 but she said that was not their definition and I should not assume that but only 99.1. What would this mean if 99+ means 99.5 like I’m thing with the other two facts being true?