@CA1543 Actually NY might be closer to 218 than 219 on the “Texas table”. It’s hard to tell with the scores so compressed. I’m rooting for you in any case!
Since we’re throwing out predictions. I’ll stick with my concordance table analysis.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19231143/#Comment_19231143
@F1RSTrodeo No offense, but I don’t like yours 
@DoyleB I came to the same conclusion for MA.
Concordance table might look like this
Percentile 2014Score 2015Score
99.63 224 222
99.54 222 221
99.40 219 220
@suzyQ7 NJ has been around the start of the 99+, so I would guess 221. About like MA.
I am rooting for CA no more than 220 (my S’s score) 
@F1RSTrodeo - Wondering how you developed your predictions? (I have a California DD - - Her SI 221 concorded to a 225 on last year’s exam with 38 [78], 38 [79], 34.5 [68]. . . last year’s cutoff was 223 in CA.)
I like your list @firstrodeo, however, the commended score of 206 in your list does not jive well with TX data which shows SI of ~200 for the top ~3% of the commended students.
The sole purpose of the concordance tables is to compare present scores to previous scores, and vice versa. I understand that they were marked “preliminary”, but I don’t think we should be surprised when the results using those tables correspond pretty closely to the data we are getting.
@PicoLA Last year, 223 was 99.59th percentile. The TX data suggests that 221 is the 99.54th percentile.
@AnnMarie74 The TX data showing 221 as 99.54 percentile, would that mean the same for CA as well. I am thinking CA of 221 will make it, and being at CA 220 is for a slow torture till result comes out.
@replyback I think so. I am in the same boat in MA, with SI of 220 and really hoping for 220 cutoff just not finding enough evidence to support it.
The only caveat is that I calculated the 2014 percentiles based on the mean and st dev provided in the 2014 “Understanding…” table, so assuming a perfect normal distribution. The TX data, however, is all lumpy, so it’s not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. But it’s a reasonable view +/-1. Definitely discredits the 2015 SI percentiles published by CB.
@thshadow, any thoughts on why testmasters said the data was functioning weirdly at the high and low end?
Wondering if they decided to remove some schools from their analysis. Could explain why they said around 10,000 students and turned out to be 8600. They probably thought no one here would attempt to count it !
Even if some schools were removed, I don’t see how that could lower the cutoff from 219. The 59 would still be there. If anything, there could be more than 59 counting more schools.
@AnnMarie74 - - Thanks for your thoughts on California’s cutoff - - assuming the new Testmaster’s data is unbiased and analogous to California, 221 appears to be right on the edge . . . . or are you inclined to go with Testmaster’s projection of 219 for California??
The weirdness at the top end is the bump in the distribution around 218 or so. That bump is why the NMSF cutoffs are much higher than the published tables would indicate, but the commended cutoff is pretty close to the same value.
Wow, this TX data looks extremely different from the sample NMSI percentiles the College Board posted. It appears that the top 3% of test takers did better than expected, thus the NMSF cutoff scores are higher than anticipated. However, on down the list things are not looking good for the class of 2017. The CB expected the median score to be 146, but instead of 50% of students scoring a 146 or better, only 31% of the TX sample did. This sample didn’t reach the median until a score of 130. Basically the scores 200 or above meet or exceed expectations, but the scores below that are poorer than expected.
@DoyleB – Thanks! Is there any thing I can glean from this - NY has about 198,000 graduating seniors; had 1012 NMSFs the a couple of years ago (per NM Annual Report) and about 142,600 PSAT takers that year (Texas has had many more test takers) – so about .71% of NY test takers seem to get NMSF in NY. If we pretend Texas is similar (it is not but mean in NY is lower than nation and only 39% are “College Ready” last year but there are high performing public schools and a good number of privates ones too), using the Texas data table above about scores in various percentiles as a guide what do you think about NY?? I am not sure may question is a logical one to try to answer so if not just let me know!! If it is then other folks might try for their state.
I still wonder what if there is a clump of students at a certain score that if awarded NMSF, would put the state over the allotted amount - are they all out or all in or does it depends on the percentage over the allotment?
thanks!
@candjsdad - Thank you for comparing the Testmasters’ data with the CB’s expected mean/sample mean. I think @Plotinus had mentioned many pages ago that the test seemed to be easier for top-scorers but quite a bit harder for the average student.
Because the SIs are EBR/Writing-heavy I wonder how Common Core states fare in comparison to Non-CC states. And I cannot wait to see data about the first two new SATs. Fingers crossed that my child doesn’t have to take them. January SAT results will be out on Thursday.
@CA1543 I still think it indicates NY at 218-219. Plus/minus 1 for my wiggle room.
As I’ve said before, I believe NMSC is going to have a bigger problem this year than usual with cutoffs, because more kids are clustered right at the cutoff, and going up one or down one changes the numbers by a much larger amount than is typical. They have to work it out, but again - I believe more kids will miss NMSF by one point this year than ever before.
I’m not surprised by that thought (#3057), at least for the math. The problems are far more wordy than they were previously, with very few problems that most would get. I only seriously worried about a previous tutoring client if they couldn’t do those first 5 or so problems or so in any sample test (old). But now, I’m finding lots of students who can’t even begin to attempt the first one. It’s confusing to me, as these problems are not really hard at all, just not instantly straight forward like many of the early problems on the old test. It doesn’t surprise me that your typically strong math students can ace this, yet your more average student would be overwhelmed. My (granted very limited as of today) tutoring experience here seems to support that.