The “updated” list probably accompanied the student reports that the schools were supposed to get end of January. When the schools provide the students with the reports, we will get to see if the percentiles provided on our student’s report is different than the online report, how it corresponds to p.11. The good news is it sounds like at least there will be something coming. We just don’t know what value it will have yet.
@destined4harvard and others - I wouldn’t get too excited about this if the SI’s and percentiles reported for your school is compared against a User-Research sample and is basically just rehashing details from pg 11 anyways. It’s possible your school initially didn’t receive this info and was submitted later for comparison purposes.
@Speedy2019 I’m sorry, but I really don’t know. I told you guys exactly what he told me. I thought the English was really easy and I think I only missed one on the math. The reading wasn’t too bad, but the science was a little tricky and I think I missed a couple. I don’t know what happened to me on the PSAT but I was up all of the night before. I’m really hoping that a 210 will make NMSF, but I still studied for the ACT. Have your daughter take a couple of the practice tests on ■■■■■■■■.com because the ACT asks the same stuff over and over on the English. Two of the “which doesn’t fit” questions were almost exactly the same as ones on a previous test.
The question you should be asking is if having 17 NMSF is rather unusual for your school, keeping in mind other schools in your state.
@destined4harvard, funny - daughter thought Reading/Science weren’t too bad and complained about English/Math. Just the opposite of you. I guess it varies by person. Expecting ACT scores on the 17th.
I’ll recommend ■■■■■■■■.com to her. Thanks.
Am I the only one who has a feeling that this new test is going to completely change the number that each school normally has? We know from the IMSA antidote (assuming it’s true) that they will probably have less than they used too. If one school has less, another will have more. I have a feeling the semifinalists will be even less evenly distributed than before.
@Jay12321 Because the new SAT is more like an achievement test and less like an aptitude test than was the previous SAT, it makes sense that the school has a bigger role in the results. Schools that are teaching Core Curriculum well should do better.
@Speedy2019 I’m a homeschooling parent and haven’t received any GC-like material.
I expect I’ll get the mailing (confirming students for commended) like principals do. Dd is sitting on the past-scores bubble for our mid-high state, so I’m pretty confident she’ll be at least commended.
@Tgirlfriend, my conclusion from the last couple of pages is that schools MAY have received updated information based on actual test takers. Maybe ask about that next time you see GC or principal?
@WhereIsMyKindle, thanks for the info. Sort of guessed that.
@OHToCollege, from memory (so take with a grain of Salt) I think @destined4harvard is from Kentucky and mentioned a very wide range of SF from recent years (4-23) or something like that.
@jay12321 #2885 - No, I feel that way too. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Some kids have a preference between SAT and ACT. If the new PSAT/ SAT is designed to be more like the ACT, those kids that do well on ACT would, presumably, do better on this PSAT than they might have on the old PSAT and so it could shift.
@WhereIsMyKindle . You will not get the GC info, I called the college board as a homeschool parent and found that out. You will get a letter if they are commensurate or above in April when they decide those NM’s.
@Speedy2019 “my predictions already incorporate the 3 point shift (National to User and Definition B). Could be good news.”
But if there is truly a new report with updated percentiles, they would still be using Definition B (the new definition). So, if the 99% moved 3 slots (if the report is truly new from CB), I would think you would have move 3 slots also. Hard for me to articulate this - but the only difference between one report and the other would be the fact that they adjusted their percentiles - not because of another definition change. Page 11 is definition B, and the ‘new Page 11’ (if it exists) would still be definition B.
@Jay12321 I have a feeling that this year there will be quite a bit of upheaval for the no of NMSF a school receives compared to before. For School with small #NMSF students, @DoyleB thinks 50% change is normal anyway. I am thinking may be Math heavy schools will have their numbers lower due to supposedly tougher english test. In our school with very large number of #NMSF in CA, out of 10-12 student, one is 222 I heard. Now can not depend on this much as I can not quantify where this group of 10-12 fall in the talent pool, but on top 33%. So my feeling is either this schools #NMSF ( above 60 usually) will come down quite or CA cutoff will not be more than 220. It is gut feeling at the end, just sharing.
@suzyQ7, so I adjusted my list by 3 SI points (1 for Definition B, 2 for National to User).
If there is a new SI % table, it would presumably be for actual test takers. CB wouldn’t revise the National / User percentiles. It would be a new percentile table for actuals. So I no longer need to adjust for National to User with the new table. If there is a new table, I would start over with the new table and adjust 1 SI point for Definition B.
If the research study sample of Users is equal to actual test takers, then my current predictions should be close because I attempted to convert over to Users.
For now, the concordance tables used by MastersOfTheUniverse and the SI % table used by me are both based on their research study. Numbers could be off from actuals for one or both methods.
Of course if CB has a new table for actual test takers, MastersOfTheUniverse will junk their predictions based on concordance tables and also use the new table - because its actual test takers.
Ok, I found this last night…I’ve been searching for anecdotes like this for TX…
"Melanie says:
February 4, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Hello,
My son and his classmates at a very competitive public high school in Texas have been doing a lot of comparing of PSAT scores at school, and it sounds like there are lots and lots of high scores (1480 +). They were not comparing selection indexes, but we can extrapolate pretty easily. (My son had a 1480 with a 760 in Math, and his Selection Index is 220.) So, I predict very high cutoff scores, and I am not even feeling confident about his 220. Granted, he was mainly comparing with the big brains in the class, and this is a school that tends to produce quite a few National Merit Finalists (15 last year).
Reply
Bill says:
February 4, 2016 at 5:30 pm
Melanie,
Either way a score of 220 is excellent, and your son should be very proud of his accomplishment. A score of 220 should be sufficient for National Merit Semifinalist status in Texas; although you might check back in a day or two for an update."
Idk what school Melanie is from (maybe College Park HS?) but here are some links showing schools with large amount nmsf’s for 2016 NMSF in TX.
http://www.houstonschoolsurvey.com/national-merit-scholars.html#.Vrdy_hGDDHg
http://dallas-area-schools.blogspot.com/2015/09/2016-national-merit-semifinalists.html
https://roundrockisd.org/round-rock-isd-students-named-national-merit-scholar-semifinalists/
@speed2019 Got it. Wondering if Testmasters ‘new data’ they keep eluding to is the same new SI data @destined4harvard’s GC mentioned…
Can we just put a moratorium on discussing Testmasters for the next 72 hours?
@SLparent Thanks for the links. I thought the chart in the first link showing the change in number of NMSF from year to year was particularly interesting.
Yeah, very illustrative. I would take the 50th (appx average of SF over last 6 year) student at TAMS and you have the SI cutoff for TX.St. Johns would fit the bill equally well.
Does anybody know when the commended cutoff will be revealed?