This was interesting from the report:
and then more specifically:
Apparently the percentile tables are actually preliminary, and will be replaced!
@theshadow They have promised final concordance tables in May, but I donât think that is what she is getting at. I think she just means that when students get their reports for the 2016 PSAT it will give their percentiles based on the 2015 exam. This is the way they have calculated percentiles in the recent past.
I think I just sent Ms. Schmeiser an e-mail. At least it bounced the first time but not the second time. I doubt Iâll hear back but Iâll be sure to let you all know if I do!
@candjsdad thanks for the link.
@pickmen totally agreed with your post #3239.
Why does CB not have any common sense? Whenever you have a major conversion of a system, of a major test, or an engine, you will have kinks and until the kinks are ironed out, just simply mark âPRELIMINARYâ on charts, graphs, data, ect., etc⊠They marked âpreliminaryâ all over the concordance tables, didnât they?
Did they not have any in-house legal counsel/accountants look at these things?
With that plunge of the knife, I believe CB has vanquished the remaining true believers.
@candjsdad - read the section that I quoted carefully:
Unless Iâve misunderstood something, CB is saying that they are going to re-release the percentiles for us in 2016, based on people that actually took the test. (Not sure what theyâre waiting for, but whateverâŠ)
@LivinProof - I canât figure out if I should mark your post as âHelpfulâ or âLikeâ⊠:((
CB had all the scores from those who took the PSAT â itâs not rocket science to simply place them on a spreadsheet and readily have the true percentiles in place. This makes the âresearch studyâ look like a ruse, and a front to simply get students to feel that they did better on the PSAT than was actually the case. As Trump would say, âWhat they did was disgraceful.â
Yes, I donât understand why the percentiles ever should be based on the previous yearâs class. The previous yearâs class did not take this yearâs test. The only reason I can think of to do it this way is to introduce some noise into the data so that National Merit can string everyone along for another year.
Agreed, can anyone think of any logical or technical reason to not publish the actual percentiles when you have all of the scores?
If we ever get an advocate into the college board, the very simple question is âWhy do you choose to not publish the actual percentiles for the selection index when you have all of the data?â
Itâs not a difficult question.
@thshadow our daughtersâ 217s are still an amazingly great score and they are going to thrive in college. My oldest daughter (a better student/test taker) only made commended as well, but went on to score a 2320 on the SAT and is now enjoying her freshman year at Cal as A Regent Scholar. With the guaranteed meeting of full need the Regents scholarship ended up being full tuition for us. So thereâs always other doors that may open.
There are many things about this process that do not make sense. Why donât they just announce semi-finalist when they announce Commended in the spring? The calculation is done by a computer, so they must already know the cutoff scores. That would give semi-finalist all summer to fill out the application & take the SAT. Some people actually need to apply & choose schools based on how much NFM scholarship money they offer. Why wait until after all the college application deadlines to tell kids if they made finalist?
Because for finalist they are waiting for the senior grades, but there is no excuse for not releasing the semifinalists once the scores are back.
@TxMum2 I said this a long time ago⊠as soon as those tests were done gradedâŠthe highest 50,000 highest scores could very easily be spit out by a simple sort.
The only reason why they can not announce the NMSFâs for each state is because the allotment is based on high school graduates for each state. These numbers are not known until Sept of each year⊠I guess NMSC wanted to make sure everyone is done relocating during summer before finalizing #of graduating seniors for each state. They probably get a projection of graduates from each state.
Example of allotment for TX:
TX graduating seniors/Total graduating Seniors X 16,000 = TX allotment
I suspect they want to make the announcements in the kidsâ senior year of high school rather than junior year.
I understand waiting until their senior year to announce Finalist, but November instead of February would be much more convenient as far as filling out college applications. I guess they wait for 1st semester senior grades, but I imagine the % of NMSF who bomb their senior year is very small.
Well, about 1000 donât qualify. Some may not bother to finish the application process, but you can certainly see posts from anxious seniors who received Câs in the NM forum here.
@LivinProof - Yeah, if the CA cutoff is 99.4%, the 217 will probably be 99.1% or 99.2%. Which is terrific!! (Actually in the case of my daughter and where she came from, âamazingâ is the most appropriate adjective⊠
)
I actually went to Cal (as a grad student), and now I work at Google, so Cal did good by me!
I think the timing of the September release of SF has to do with logistics⊠The same people that are dealing with the Class of 2016 now - sending letters, cutting checks to colleges, etc⊠are the same people who will âclose the booksâ on that class, and turn to Class of 2017 come May. I bet they are thinly staffed. Sure, its easy to just sort the spreadsheet, but they need to crunch the number of high school students from every state, produce the annual report, answer the phone for the 50,000 SFs who call etc⊠Letâs not diminish the amount of work it is to implement this contest fairly.
And I believe there are still people without scores.
Is 225 enough for washington state?
Yes *-