@suzyQ7 - thanks for that explaination - how does it then magically work out that all states have commended and NMSF? http://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/annual_report.pdf – if you look at pg. 29 of this annual report for example - WVA had only 0 and Wyoming had 1 – all other states were more represented in Commended pool. Pushing the number up to 209 and just taking the top 50,000 - no matter what state they are from (just a cut based on numbers) & yet still having NMSFs from every state is interesting – somehow even states that only had a few at the old lower cut off will still make it. And Testmasters predicted lowest NMSF score at 210: http://collegeadmissions.testmasters.com/update-psat-scores-cut-national-merit-2016/ Must be the way it is curved.
Calculating Commended IS a piece of cake but historically at least they did have to tweak a bit - or rather, dip into some lower SI’s in order to get enough NMSF’s in the lowest cut-off states (and those really didn’t have any Commendeds as a result - their cut-off WAS the commended #). Wonder how it will be this year. Ruminating a bit rather than thinking it through but I suppose it’s possible that the 50,000 this year will actually include some commended in WV and WYO due to lack of penalty. Betting that’s helped push up scores overall - I think I back-of-the-envelope calculated that it would raise everyone’s score by 2 - 4% over last year. Can’t remember how I arrived at that but I’m sure it was quite rigorously determined LOL.
That’s a good point. I bet they do take into account Wyoming or WVA when deciding if the 50K students falls in the lower 50k number or a bit higher. The commmended score needs to be low enough that the proportional number of students allocated to Wyoming meets that cutoff.
Those testmasters predictions (with the exception of Texas) were before they had the sample data.
so is a 214 for Illinois for sure out for semi-finalist
Nothing is for sure except death and taxes. 214 for Illinois is not likely according to compass.
So I asked Art at CompassPrep (http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/national-merit-semifinalist-cutoffs/)
a question about NY as did Earl about IL – he is suggesting some state estimates will go up:- Excerpts–
“I will probably revisit all 50 states next week, but it seems likely that states in the 210-218 range will go up 1 to 2 points for my estimates or, at least, see a skewing of the range to the high side [I say this because our Commended estimate of 207 was apparently 2 points low.]. The difference with Illinois is that I have already made that bump. Did I go too high with Illinois? Quite possibly for “most likely,” but I still like the 216-219 range. If pressed, I’d narrow it to 216-218. Illinois has also been more consistent than most of the other states at 215 for the class of 2016 — i.e. no down years.”
Re NY - it was predicted at 217 - Art now says:
" it’s likely that the NY estimate will move up from 217. See my response to Earl above for a windier explanation of why it will go up and why it’s still best to think about an estimated range rather than a single value.
So – here we go again - the higher commended score will cause somewhat f a rethink - not sure if the higher tier states in the range of 218-220 in the last few years will come down much if at all. :-<
"Here’s what I’m thinking…not super scientific:
209-211 @ 97%ile, 212-214 @ 98%ile, 215-220 @ 99%ile, 221-228 @ 99+%ile"
@itsgettingreal17 that seems about right. It’ll helpful if some of our CC statisticians cranked out some new tables.
@suzyQ7 I’m fairly certain that in years past the cutoff score for a couple of states has been lower than the Commended score. So a few years back there were some states where a score in the 96th percentile was good enough for NMSF. So they don’t have to set the Commended score low enough to give these states their numbers. They can go below the Commended cutoff if needed.
I’m not sure how that can happen since the rules specifically say that the top 50,000 move forward in the contest and that is determined by the commended cutoff.
@suzyQ7 3788 I think that’s correct. As I understand it, it work like this: all SFs are by definition also "commended " they just move to the next level and “lose” their commended status depending on their state allocation if their SI is high enough within that allocated group. If not, and their SI is within the top 50k or so of scorers they stay commended. I think it’s mostly a function of state population and resources. The fewer the testers who don’t have access to prep companies or schools that specialize in grooming top scorers, the harder it’s going to be to get within a defined pool, testers who will be in the 1%. Hence Wyo and WVA only get their allocation of top scorers spread across 97-99+% range, whereas other states have no problem filling their quotas at 99%. What’s interesting is that statistically these low scoring states seem to accomplish this year after year without dipping into the 95% range. That said, I don’t think it’s possible to have a state where an SF can be below national commended.
I looked back to 2014, and the lowest states equal the commended score. None are lower.
Does anyone know if they are sending out commended letters to the school or to the student? Also, is is an actual letter or an email? Our Principal is asking me questions and I have no idea. I was hoping someone on here would know otherwise I will have to call NM.
To the school. I’m not sure of the format of the communication, but I bet it would be an actual letter.
@itsgettingreal17 @Pickmen @suzyQ7 the lowest states and commended are all 203 for the class of 2014 (fall 2012 PSAT). What’s interesting is that from the NMSC 2014 annual report there is one commended in WYO (the rest are SF’s). Doesn’t that suggest that WYO’s cut-off should have been higher than 203?
@itsgettingreal17 …thank you. I will let our Principal know to keep an eye out for it.
@Mamelot I agree that that doesn’t make sense. Maybe it is a mistake in the report?
Thanks for verifying @itsgettingreal17. I thought I might be looking at the wrong year or something.
BTW, did anyone catch was Art on Compass posted about MI? Very interesting and it explains IL in part. Both MI and IL switched their grad requirement from ACT to SAT this year resulting in a huge number of new PSAT takers. Both states are relatively high ACT states and apparently those kids historically haven’t been sitting the PsAT. Now they are and he expects the cut-offs to jump as a result. Looks like he factored this effect in for IL already due to the anecdotal data - but he has yet to adjust MI. Pasted the conversation:
Diane says:
April 6, 2016 at 7:10 pm
Hi Art,
Wondering what your thoughts are regarding Michigan’s cut offs in light of the fact that the state switched over from the ACT to the SAT this year and therefore considerably more students took the PSAT than ever before. Thanks!
Reply
Art Sawyer says:
April 6, 2016 at 10:18 pm
Diane,
I’ve prepared this response quickly, so I apologize if it jumps around. This is a fascinating question because, as far as I know, the shift we are seeing in states such as Michigan and Illinois is unprecedented. Prior wins for College Board involved states where it already had a dominant presence. Some of the analysis into the impact is stymied by the lack of data from the College Board. Typically, we would have state-by-state breakdowns that would at least give the number of students by subject in each 50 point score range. However, College Board is in crisis mode preparing for New SAT results, and all non-essential reporting has been delayed. [Conspiracy theorists might see other reasons for the delay.]
Historically, only about 1 in 4 Michigan students took the PSAT. What is the potential impact of statewide testing? An important thing to bear in mind is that the cutoffs only depend on the number of top scoring students taking the exam. Statewide testing may increase the number of overall testers without increasing the number of top scoring students — we know, for example, that full testing is more likely to include students not on traditional college-bound tracks. In looking at a number of indicators, though, it does appear that Michigan could be looking at a substantial increase in NMSF cutoff. Two things I’ve examined quickly are the historical % of PSAT testers in Michigan qualifying as Semifinalists and the number of high scoring ACT testers.
A given is that the number of Semifinalists in Michigan will not increase, since the slots are apportioned by student population. Historically, a bit over 2% of Michigan PSAT testers achieved Semifinalist honors [I am using NMSC’s 2014 Annual Report.] This is double the national rate. The difference makes sense given less competition for those honors. I plotted the ratio of Semifinalists to PSAT testers for all 50 states and found a distinct inverse relationship between that ratio and Selection Index cutoff. [I may be able to post the chart at a later point.] States with the lowest ratio of SFs to testers such as New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut tend to have the highest (or higher) cutoffs. States with the highest ratio of SF to testers such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa tend to have lower cutoffs. The 11 states with 2% or more of testers achieving NMSF honors had cutoffs ranging from 203-213 (old PSAT). The 14 states with 1% or fewer testers achieving NMSF honors had cutoffs ranging from 214-224. Why is all of this math important? If Michigan tripled or quadrupled its PSAT testers in Oct 2015, it would move from the first group to the second.
A quick reality check is the number of high scoring ACT testers Michigan has. Was there a large untapped reservoir of top testers who weren’t taking the PSAT in previous years and now are? A cursory look says “yes.” Michigan’s SF cutoff has remained consistent (until now) at 210, and the state has approximately 600 Semifinalists. VERY roughly, I estimate that students scoring a 33 or higher on the ACT would compare to students scoring 210 or higher on the junior year PSAT. Michigan has about 1,000 students each year scoring 34 or better on the ACT and 2,000 students each year scoring 33 or better.
The bottom line is that Michigan is getting more competitive. As I said at the outset, the scope of the change is unprecedented and somewhat unpredictable. And I’d really like some hard data from Michigan. Based on comparable states, though, I can see Michigan’s cutoff increasing by as many as 5-10 points! Will it increase that much this year? Did all those high achievers show up for the PSAT? Will any of this speculation pan out? It will be interesting to see. At minimum, I need to factor in at least a dampened version of this into my estimates. I suspect this is also why we may be seeing upward pressure in Illinois.
Sorry not sure why some of my previous post is in italics.
@Mamelot – Italics was inflicted on me too - when I copied from Art’s blog. Thanks for all the info you are sharing - this whole PSAT saga is pretty interesting.
@Mamelot – I was wondering just how much more interest there was in IL this year. I know that IL is switching to the SAT going forward. This year, at least at my sons’ HS, the ACT is still being given to Juniors later this month. The switch to the SAT has not been very well publicized (at least to my knowledge) and I heard about it only while attending a seminar at his HS regarding college applications where the presenters were discussing the indecision about whether the ACT would be given this year.
Now, my sons’ HS could be in the minority in sticking with the ACT this spring, but I don’t see why there would be a lot of extra interest in the PSAT for Juniors last fall if they were not taking the SAT this spring.
Was our school a holdout in sticking with the ACT while most of the state is switching to the SAT this spring?
Anyone have data for the number of participants for the PSAT in Illinois for 2015 vs. 2014?
My interest in this is that my son scored a couple of points above last year’s cutoff and the estimates that I am seeing put him on the hairy edge.
Thanks.