if the concordance is the same, couldn’t we use the SAT percentiles to figure out how the PSAT scores fall from a percentile perspective (since we know the PSAT percentiles are bogus?)
@robincorn - for the study, did he take both tests in December, like on the same day? (Sounds like a long day!!) Was he not getting either results before May, so he had no incentive for either test? Or was there incentive for one and not the other?
Just saw all this flurry about the “final” concordance tables. Seems like they skew to the high end. I guess though it cannot affect the 209 commended cutoff since NMSC has already sent out the announcement/confirmation letters to the principals and I guess 209+ basically was where the top 50,000 scorers fell anyway so there would be no need to change the commended.
A bit off topic from the concordance table conversation, my D just got an invitation to a National Scholar weekend at Texas A&M. This was the wording on the link connected to the invite:
“This program is invite only for potential National Scholars who we have invited based on information we received from College Board.”
Curious to know what cutoff score A&M is using to base their invite list on. My D’s score was 221 in TX.
Took me a while to figure out what their definition of “National Scholar” was. After looking at several of their scholarship info pages, I concluded they meant National Merit, National Achievement, and National Hispanic Scholars.
@TxMum2 My belief, based on who has received these invites already, is that they are targeting those that scored at or above last year’s cutoff.
As a Florida resident, I scored 214 on PSAT. Do I have any chance for national merit? Will not being national merit affect me during applications if I got a 1570 on SAT?
@thshadow at #4698: would a tester want to be stacked up against all the other kids who took that same test? What if that one test date happened to have a larger-than-average number of STEM kids? Wouldn’t that possibly skew the math percentiles?
Seems the best way to conduct these tests is to have all the kids for a given year reference the same percentiles - say, the previous year’s test - in order to keep weird stuff from affecting the percentile curves from test to test. Of course, reality generally has to match up with the reference group, else problems there be.
@Mamelot - I think the logical thing to do this time would have been to make the percentiles based off of the March test - and then use that across all future tests. I suspect the differences between the March sitting and other sittings would have been a lot less than the differences from whatever reference study they did…
@thshadow - again, why one test? What if there was a greater-than-average number of NM hopefuls taking that test, for instance, and skewing the curve?
I think the historical Standard Operating Procedure was to take a year’s worth of tests and use that percentile chart for the following year. Not possible this time; hence, the controversial “research study”. But as long as it mimicked reality there shouldn’t be a problem. The question is whether it mimicked reality or not. That’s an easy check. Only CB knows for sure; however, the fact that they issued just one set of concordance tables for the SAT as well as some very scant anecdotal evidence that the User Group percentiles might be more representative this time tells me that maybe CB learned it’s lesson from the PSAT and cleaned up its problems with that Dec. 2015 concordance study.
Anyway, it really doesn’t matter as long as they use the same percentile table for everyone this year (so that college admissions decisions are based off the same percentile rankings). It’s only your relative position that matters. If the research study erred on one side, everyone is affected. Same with erring the other way. If everyone is affected, then no one is affected. Except for Sophomores or Freshmen taking the exam this year. Which is probably NOT a good idea. They should prudently wait a year or two :-h
@TxMum2 My S also got the same invite from Texas A & M and this is the first one he got that says National Merit Scholar 
His score is 226 in CA
@TxMum2 And on the other side, S did not receive an invitation from Texas A&M – he got an SI 218 in Virginia. S, however, was accepted into Texas A&M’s Camp SOAR this summer (Summer Opportunities in Aerospace Research). It was a rather involved application process – S had to provide a formal transcript, teacher recommendation, PSAT/SAT scores, and a 500-word essay. He’s looking forward to it!
Boo. I don’t think we got the TAMU thing. We did just get a weird mailing from Rose-Hulman that’s all cryptic about “you may wonder how we found out about you” or something. That had my hopes up.
@flatKansas D3 got the same mailer from RH. Has been getting stuff from Olin too. Not from Harvey Mudd, however :-w
@Mamelot - I’m just saying that it seems better to take percentiles from one (real) sitting, compared to one research study. And in fact for the PSAT - there’s really only one sitting. I have no idea why they didn’t just use that data for percentiles.
As far as whether they messed up or not - I think there’s strong proof they did. Because the concordance tables disagree with the percentile tables (for the PSAT). Your concorded score is a much lower percentile than the percentile given in the research study. And this has only gotten worse with the official table as they got more data. That’s strong evidence that their research study is whacked, because it did not correctly predict the concordances they saw.
Furthermore, because they seem to have locked themselves in to the scale based on the PSATs, now the SAT scores are inflated too.
Yes, we’re all using the same scaled scores (for the SAT), and only relative position matters. The big problem is - there’s a lot of uncertainty around our relative position. Maybe even in admissions offices. This could directly hurt my D, whose test scores will be better than her grades. If admissions officers are unsure what a (new) 1470 means, they might give it less weight than they would have in years past…
^^ Which is why I’ve been preaching to everyone who would listen since I found out about the test change that all juniors should take the ACT as their primary test, with the SAT as the “extra” if they want to (as opposed to the the typical mindset around here that SAT is primary and ACT is the add-on). Given how badly things have gone so far with the new PSAT and SAT, I think that advice should carry over for the class of 2018 as well. CB may have messed things up exponentially worse than anyone anticipated, but it wasn’t hard to anticipate that such a major change in the test would introduce uncertainty into the SAT scores for admissions officers. At least the ACT hasn’t changed and is a “constant”. Do well on the ACT and you’re done, unless you find out you are borderline for NMSF … at which point you plan to take the SAT in June for a confirming score. This is what DD is doing. It has been a very low-stress experience because she did the ACT in December, did really well, and figured she was done until she got her PSAT score. Now she knows she’s borderline, so she’s taking the SAT, but the goal is a confirming score; she’s got all she needs for admissions and decent scholarships with her ACT as it is. Anything beyond confirming score on the SAT is gravy.
@thshadow your concern about how adcoms will view this test is totally on point. One can only ask them and go with that answer and hope for the best. Does your D have another test such as an old SAT or ACT? That’s going to help.
Obviously the scaled scores on the new test concord to lower old scores. Hence everyone is saying that the new test is “inflated”. But what I’ve noticed is that the User Group percentile reported on my D3’s report DOES generally match the concorded score percentile - is even a bit conservative. If anything that speaks to percentile DEFLATION not inflation. What matters is the percentiles matching, rather than the scaled scores, because the new scale maps to a higher percentile this time.
So what’s different this time? Well, could be that the December study gave them additional information (as did the first administration of the new PSAT!) so that they were able to correct what went wrong in October. BTW, whoever recommended that College Board should roll out a radically different test with the NMSQT ought to be fired.
And I believe there was another administration of the PSAT - the PSAT 10 this spring. They have that data as well.
@ailinsh1 I think the reason that so many are discussing the new SAT here is because they need to take the exam to verify a high PSAT score for National Merit purposes. That’s why D3 took the exam. She already had a high ACT so didn’t need another test for admissions purposes. In fact, even if the old test were still being administered, she wouldn’t have taken it unless there was a need. Kids should really avoid over-taking these tests.
Finally, just a general comment: yes, a lot of parents and prep experts believe that CB has messed up. And w/o a doubt they did when it came to the October PSAT. The big question is: do colleges share that assessment for the SAT? Seems to me that the Admissions Offices do respond when something loses credibility, such as the essays on the ACT and SAT. In fact, they seem to act swiftly. If they AREN’T changing their policies this year, other than saying that they accept both versions of the test, and they ARE telling families that they are planning to use the concordance tables on the SAT, then why are so many assuming/fearing differently? Why not just take the Admissions people at their word?
^^ I don’t disagree at all … I know all the interest here is because of the confirming score. But the population in general isn’t as attuned to these things. That’s who I’ve been preaching to; and I’ve found that most people hadn’t given the impact of the test change on score validity or how admissions would deal with it a second thought. And like I said I think these issues will continue to introduce uncertainty for the class of 2018 … so the advice to choose the ACT as their primary still holds, I believe.
@TxMum2 and @StressedinCA - was the Texas invite in snail mail or email? We’re at 220 SI so maybe the cutoff is there.
DD has only sat for the one new SAT in March. No other tests. She’s taking it again next week. Whether she should take the ACT is an open question. I mean, clearly it can’t hurt - except I don’t want to bother her to take it unless the expected benefit is non-trivial. My wife can’t even figure out why I want her to retake her 1470…
And I was just looking, and yes, the new percentiles seem more optimistic than the concorded scores. But do we have any reason to put any credence in the percentiles?