What people should remember is that the powers that be first allocates the number of Semifinalists for each state based on the state’s percentage of the national total of high school graduating seniors. Once they do that, they come up with the SI score that results in the nearest number of Semifinalists to the allocated number by counting all SI scores in the descending order from 228. As an example, let’s say CA is allocated 100 Semifinalists, and the numbers of students with SI scores are as follows:
Under the above scenario, the cutoff SI will be 221 because that gives 103 Semifinalists which is very close to the allocated number of 100. Therefore, if we assume CA has an allocated number of 2,200, and approximately 2,200 students got SI scores of 221 or above, then 221 will be the cutoff for CA. But if approximately 2,200 students in CA got 222 or above, then 222 will be the cutoff SI.
“Using the latest data available, an allocation of
Semifinalists is determined for each state, based on
the state’s percentage of the national total of high
school graduating seniors. For example, the number
of Semifinalists in a state that enrolls approximately
two percent of the nation’s graduating seniors would
be about 320 (2 percent of the 16,000 Semifinalists).”
What this means is that if in the above example, there were 50 students who received SI score of 221, then the SI cutoff score for CA will be 222 instead of 221 because the cutoff score of 222 will give a closer number to 100 students than SI score of 221, even though the cutoff score of 222 will result in less than 100 allocated number.
“119” above should be “219”. Therefore, I am posting an edited version in its entirety below.
What people should remember is that the powers that be first allocates the number of Semifinalists for each state based on the state’s percentage of the national total of high school graduating seniors. Once they do that, they come up with the SI score that results in the nearest number of Semifinalists to the allocated number by counting all SI scores in the descending order from 228. As an example, let’s say CA is allocated 100 Semifinalists, and the numbers of students with SI scores are as follows:
Under the above scenario, the cutoff SI will be 221 because that gives 103 Semifinalists which is very close to the allocated number of 100. Therefore, if we assume CA has an allocated number of 2,200, and approximately 2,200 students got SI scores of 221 or above, then 221 will be the cutoff for CA. But if approximately 2,200 students in CA got 222 or above, then 222 will be the cutoff SI.
“Using the latest data available, an allocation of
Semifinalists is determined for each state, based on
the state’s percentage of the national total of high
school graduating seniors. For example, the number
of Semifinalists in a state that enrolls approximately
two percent of the nation’s graduating seniors would
be about 320 (2 percent of the 16,000 Semifinalists).”
What this means is that if in the above example, there were 50 students who received SI score of 221, then the SI cutoff score for CA will be 222 instead of 221 because the cutoff score of 222 will give a closer number to the allocated number of 100 students than SI score of 221, even though the cutoff score of 222 will result in less than 100 allocated number.
FYI - I got the letter today as well in DC for my homeschooled sons who scored a 223. The 209 number is the only one that appears in the letter. It seems like they only want a response to the letter if something is spelled incorrectly.
@VABogart I think 99+ starts higher. I’m going with Testmasters Tex prediction of 219 (for selfish reasons) and the Texas cutoff has never been at 99+.
@VABogart I also think the 99+ will start higher. If predictions from @thshadow are on track, then WI would be 214 (which seems plausible to me). I believe WI has been 98% in past years. So I think 98% may go to 214. Unfortunately, I think these higher numbers are likely. My D has a 216 in WI and I haven’t been comfortable since day one calling it a done deal. I think there will be more numbers in the 220s this year. But that’s just a hunch. I predict 99+ is at 221/222 I know that seems crazy but my D thought the test was pretty easy compared to the ACT. She left the test thinking a good number of kids would score at or near perfect I hope that’s wrong.
Ugh. This is so sad. DS had a score of 204 and based on the (bad) percentile score we thought he might make commended, but turns out NMSC is 209. Still don’t understand how the commended went up when the max score has come down, but I guess the test was so much easier that a lot of kids scored high?
He’s taking the ACT right now. I’m glad he insisted on prepping for and taking the ACT. I had thought he might be better off prepping for the SAT based on the misleading percentile score.
@halfmoon22 - Our school has one perfect score. Our school (CA) produces around 10 NMFs each year. I haven’t heard more than 10 getting above 220 so far. Seems like above 218, scores dropped off.
@auntyi the test certainly was more straightforward than the previous SAT. Even if it hadn’t been there are two reasons why the commended cut-off could be higher: 1) the scaling has changed and CB can pretty much change this to whatever it wants, including making the top percentiles very tight; and 2) elimination of the penalty for wrong answer which is going to shift everything upward, even if the scaling hadn’t changed.
Regardless of ease of test, all that matters is how well the tester did compared to everyone else. But of course everyone realizes that - the bugaboo was that CB misrepresented how everyone did by releasing that completely off-base SI percentile table. Of all the bad decisions they have made regarding this new test, that one was the worst.
Your son made the right decision to focus on one test so good luck to him - is he taking the ACT this month?
@srk2017, sounds like based on your school’s anecdotal evidence a 220 or 221 might make sense for CA?
I think an argument can be made that a strict concordance at the tippy top overestimates those cut-offs by a point or two. Very hard to know especially when you are dealing with a point estimate.
@HalfMoon22 and @itsgettingreal17 Grudgingly, I have to agree with both of you. I think S’s 218 isn’t going to cut it for Virginia. The upside is S really likes UCF, which gives scholarships even if you’re not NMF.
Shadow, Doyle, and others – do you think that DC and NJ really will go as high as 223? That really seems like a reach, even with an easy PSAT. I haven’t heard from that many of the board who have matched or exceeded that score. That would be so disappointing to get a 222 – a truly phenomenal score – and still fall short of NMSF.
I still battle my emotions where the math being high and the english side being lower with 710 made my son have a 216 instead of 220. Big difference it seems this year. And to top it off…when we got his ACT back he scored a 36 in reading. go figure. ugh. Just have to wait and hope that Indiana isn’t just a point away from Illinois.
@thshadow I was wondering about Ohio and Indiana. You put Indiana at 217 and Ohio at a 216 when Ohio has been consistently higher than IN every year. I didn’t know if you knew something that put Indiana so close to Illinois…which I think may be a point too low…but, just wanted to brace myself. Our school has over 5000 kids and usually have over 40 NMSF every year. We have heard of only 3 perfect scores, and maybe 10 more above 218. I really don’t know how this is going down. Wish our SI was flipped for the higher end of 220 then I would be celebrating. What a nail biter. Just wanted to see if you knew anything from IN to make that score?
@VABogart , I had sent you a private message about schools and Florida a few weeks ago. I’m not sure if you saw it or not. Most of the year it’s great, but that August move in was a bit toasty.
I know that seems crazy but my D thought the test was pretty easy compared to the ACT. She left the test thinking a good number of kids would score at or near perfect