I believe a 24 in math equates to 480 (raw x 20) and a 24.5 equates to 490. I think what they are saying is that benchmark for math is higher than they thought, which means that the math percentiles were off? Not sure.
Note this is dated 5/18. When is the college board planning on sharing this publicly??? Unreal!
@destined4harvard I think the chances for this are slim to none. But I do think there is a slight chance that there will be more than 16,000 Semifinalists, who will then be winnowed down to 15,000. They made the test so tight and clumpy that they are going to have a hard time setting cutoffs.
The 24 they are referring to would be the scaled test score (8 - 38), isnāt it? They must have adopted ā24ā for both sections because that number con corded on a preliminary basis to their old standard. Now because final concordance tables are slightly different, they need to update the standard.
On the preliminary tables, 24 concorded to 44 on reading, and 45 on Math. Sounds like that 45 now concords to a 24.5. 44 and 45 must have been their (old) standard.
But yeah, it looks like CB released these final concordances to state education departments. I wonder if that means the state reports have also been released (but not published on the website)?
Update to my previous comment #4602:
Here is the āmissing linkā. Check out the PDF (table) that they refer to: the old standard WAS 44 for reading and 45 for Math.
http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?ID=13596&TypeID=6
So the new FINAL standard for the State of OR is now 24 for reading and 24.5 for Math based on FINAL concordance tables. Their preliminary new standard for Math was 24. The final Math tables are bumped up a bit: .5, to be exact. What we donāt know is what happened to the tables for the Writing section, since that section isnāt included in these Oregon dept. of Education standards.
Someone should tip off Art at CompassPrep to see if he thinks his predictions should increase at all. Guessing heāll say they shouldnāt. Even if Math concordance should have been bumped up at the higher percentiles as well, the actual 209 commended number already reflects that fact. So anything based off the 209 is probably still the most accurate prediction.
I want to see the new percentiles so that I can see where the new 99% starts so I can better predict the top cutoff. Why has CB not published these? SO SO annoying.
I donāt know what the numbers mean, but a similar document is also posted for NJ. Interestingly, these are lower than OR. You would expect these numbers to be higher in NJ as their cutoffs are typically the highest in the country.
NJ is more diverse a student population than Oregon. While the top might be higher, the average may well be lower.
Does that NJ document reference any changes in the standard from a āpreliminaryā (based on concordance)? Because thatās what is valuable about the Oregon information. Their standard isnāt so important to this conversation. But how their standard changed due to the finalized concordance tables IS important.
Update: just perused it quickly. Looks like they based everything on the SAT concordance? Not sure. Wording isnāt so clear.
Right, the NJ document seems to be based on SAT - but they do reference PSAT too.
Does anyone here have a good relationship with their childās GC where they can ask if they received the updated PSAT concordance tables? My feeling is that the CB will not publish them online. If Oregon has them, then other schools must have them too.
I have the final PSAT concordance tables!! I donāt know if itās right for me to post the whole thing (as it was mailed to me privately).
But some highlights:
Total score:
99+ user percentile for 11th grade starts at 1440.
99 starts at 13998 starts at 1360
Selection index:
99+ starts at 214
99 starts at 205
This is ā¦ bizarreā¦ These seem in agreement with the previously released tableā¦ Which we pretty much know canāt be rightā¦
???
@thshadow those percentiles havenāt changed from what was originally released in the Understanding Scores Report. You are sure your contact sent you something finalized from CB?
It specifically says āUpdated May 2016ā, and for the Selection Index it says āupdated January 2016āā¦
Iāll have to look more closely to see if there are any changesā¦
The selection index seems ā¦ identical?? Other than the fact that the mean score in the lower right has been corrected to 148, and sdev to 26ā¦
Iām very confusedā¦
Ah, buried deep in the report, hereās something that changed (significantly). The 2015 PSAT to 2014 concordance.
In the prelim report, my Dās 1450 -> 217.
In the new report, 1450 -> 208.
It doesnāt have selection index -> selection index, but total score -> selection index. And it somewhat shows what we suspectedā¦ Though this is extreme in the other direction. The equivalent of the old 221 needed for NMSF in CA? Now you need a 1520!!! I kid you notā¦ Iāll post an image shortlyā¦
Here is the imgur image:
imgur com/HVkwlgk
FYI, the person that emailed me the file says that theyāre working on posting it, but needed to work through some accessibility issueā¦ So presumably it will be up shortlyā¦
The section->section concordance also changed a lot.
For my D (with a 217 selection index), 720 ERW -> 137, and her 730M -> 70. 137 + 70 = 207 (in 2014 PSAT units). Which is enough to be commended, but not close to making NMSF in CA. Which matches what we all expect.
@thshadow can you please tell me what a 1480 concords to?
So remember that these concordances now seem crazy-HARSH. Like youāll need a perfect score for NMSF in CA/NJ/DC???
But to answer your question: in this table, 1480 -> 213.
No spelling around the filter
ED
The revised makes even less sense than the old.
Thatās crazy.