OK. These don’t seem to make sense. If you make a perfect 1520, that is still not equivalent to a 240 on the old.
Is it because the old PSAT was 240, which equated to an SAT scale of 2400 (240*10)? And the new PSAT is 1520 MAX out of 1600?
Thanks @thshadow. I’m thinking this will create at least another 10 pages of comments. 
Maybe I’m wrong, but that suggests that far fewer than 16,000 will make NMSF and that can’t be right.
I knew they were lying when they told me they were not ready yet (today). They said they wouldn’t be ready until the end of JUNE. But Oregon has it already - so they are lying, of course. What a cluster.
That concordance table is insane! What in the world is CB doing?
They need to fire their statisticians and get new ones. The current ones obviously have no idea what they are doing.
I bet they are never going to update the SI page and are only updating the other pages. They do not want us to figure out NMS.
According to that table, a perfect 1520 only concords to an old 222. That is illogical. That means in 2014 students in states with 224 cutoffs could not qualify even with perfect scores.
I am not a statistics expert but I thought that concordance was used to give equivalents between two sets that are similar (but not necessarily the same). Is it possible that the old/new PSAT are so different that they really can’t be concorded?
I agree these new tables look brutal.
If you really need a perfect score (which concords to only a 222) to get NMSF in CA/NJ/DC, I feel terrible for all the times I mocked people (in my head) for being concerned if their 225 would be good enough… 
(Again, the best link to look at is http://imgur com/YQTDzXZ )
@thshadow Those tables say they concording to 2014 scores. A 222 wouldn’t even qualify in CA in 2014.
@theshadow But that is impossible. The perfect score of 1520 concords to a 2014 SI of 222 (according to the page you just linked). A 222 is not even close to a perfect score on the 2014 SIs A perfect score was 240.
I think they are going to say they cannot be equated.
Do you have the reverse concordance page - 2014 to 2015 (section to section)?
I agree with @suzyQ7 and I think that is true about the tests.
I think that there is a reason that that table isn’t published.
@thshadow are you able to post the individual test concordances (on the 8-38 scale)?
1 Like
It may have something to do with the change in definition of percentile “AT-OR-BELOW” in 2015 PSAT as opposed to “BELOW” in 2014?
It makes more sense if you multiply by 95%. So 760/800 = .95. If you multiply .9580 = 76. But remember, the new PSAT is people who scored lower than you, not the same as OR lower than you. So, maybe that accounts for the 74 as the top total score, and 148 (742) as the top total score for ERW combined.
is this what you are referring to @theshadow? Still marked prelimnary
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/psat-nmsqt-preliminary-concordance-tables-2015.pdf
@suzyQ7 - yes, they have 2014 → 2015
Image below:
http://imgur com/qV3vQlF
On the math, a (new) 760 matches everything from 80 all the way down to 73.
Similarly, a (new) 760 on ERW matches (CR + W) from 160 down to 147.