@SoccerMomGenie thank you so much! You are wonderful!
@SoccerMomGenie. Your D would not have to take the new SAT if she got a high enough score on the old SAT. In the past a qualifying score has been 1960 or higher.
@SoccerMomGenie NMSC will require that the SAT be taken within something like a two year window that straddles the PSAT test date. For the previous competition (just completed) it was Oct. 2013 - Dec. 2015 (see below). Presumably it will be something like Oct. 2014 - Dec. 2016 for the current competition.
So if your D took the old SAT in Jan. 2016 thatâs fine. They told me on the phone (and others have reported this as well) that either test can suffice as long as a confirming score (or higher) is achieved. The confirming score was 1960 for the old test - they havenât released the confirming score for the new test yet.
http://nationalmerit.imodules.com/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/merit_r_i_leaflet.pdf
<<7. Take the SATÂź and earn scores that confirm your 2014 PSAT/NMSQT performance. You must take (or have taken) a national administration of the SAT between October 2013 and December 2015. Also, it is your responsibility to file a request with the College Board SAT Program to have an official report of your SAT scores sent to NMSC (code 0085).>>
@CA1543 you should get an award for starting longest running active thread.
Yes, but will it become inactive sometime between now and the beginning of September?
Is a 224 index safe for pretty much anywhere? Also, is a 1530 on the New SAT likely good enough for NMSF?
@liveonlife According to Compass Prep, probably. http://www.â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â /national-merit-semifinalist-cutoffs/
And yes. Confirming scores used to be sub-2k on the 2400 format.
SAT subject test scores were out a day early. Were SAT scores released as well today?
I donât think they were early. Yes, SATs were released too
Ah maybe not. For some reason I was thinking the 16th.
Heaven forbid the CB deliver stuff early to the class of 2017! Normally, subject tests come out 2 weeks later, but this year, 6 weeks, even though there were no changes. Nice CB
5 1/2 weeks for May test seems like a bargain when compared to 7 weeks for June test results. :-&
Yeah, there was no reason for the subject tests to be delayed. Makes no sense. Itâs like the olden days (i.e. when I was a tester) getting stuff in the mail several weeks after the test. Pretty lame.
@payn4ward one can always hope that the June results come âearlyâ as well! (i.e. before 7 weeks). :-w
I agree, but compared to waiting from October to January for PSAT results and then until September for cutoffsâŠ
^^ and then until February for Finalist notification.
hi everyone â yeah weâll keep our thread going through and likely a bit past the announcement in September - any new thoughts from Testmasters, Art or others? Any word when the State reports are coming out?
Why does CB site not have final Concordance Tables posted - I still see this:
"Since the redesigned PSAT/NMSQT is different from the previous test, numerical scores on the two tests are not equivalent. Concordance tables help educators understand how pre-2015 and redesigned PSAT/NMSQT scores relate to each other.
Preliminary concordance tables are available now. Look for final tables in May 2016.
Download preliminary PSAT/NMSQT concordance tables (.pdf/2.15MB)."
Really looks bad â âLook for final tables in May 2016â â we did & they seem to be out there somewhere-- why not on CB website??
Because the concordance charts are off and everyone is realizing that, which is why they havenât published them and probably wonât at all.
So do we think that Texas is still safe with a 221? That is my big question.
Have been out for a while. @Mamelot 4887. Thanks for the explanation. I guess I was confused between # of testers who take the actual test and # of graduating seniors per state. The latter will drive will the quotas/allocations each state gets for how many SFs they are entitled to (i.e. the more graduating seniors they have, the greater their SF quota). What Iâm not sure of is if both the number of testers increases and graduating seniors increases, then I would think that the approx 3.3% number corresponding to the 50k SF/Commended pool of 1.5 mill takers would increase as well. My sense is 50k number (or 3.3% of 1.5mill testers) is not arbitrary, but rather an historical stable value derived from the need to meet the quota of SFs in low scoring states. If NMSC wanted only to recognize the top 1or 2% of scorers, testers from NJ, TX and CA would take all the prizes. But maybe Iâm not seeing this correctly or maybe the # of testers and graduating seniors has remained relatively stable so that there has not been any real statical significant increase over the 50k # and the slight increase from year before has to do with the lumping issues the 2015 test seemed to create at the top.
@Pickmen - while the 50,000 number of âadvancersâ, the 16,000 number of SFâs, and 15,000 number of actual finalists are going to be approximate from year to year, it appears that NMSC has been targeting something around those numbers. Any increase or decrease would be the result of a change in the rules of the competition. At the end of the day there is only so much scholarship money available and that amount is going to drive the numbers.
The fastest change we would see would be if the number of eligible junior (or equivalent) testers were to increase dramatically over the next few years due to factors such as savvy marketing on the part of College Board. How that would impact NMSCâs competition rules is an unknown - would they increase the number of commended? Would they terminate their partnership with College Board and use another test? Who knows?
I suspect that part of the reason CB was so willing to make such drastic changes to the test is that they could project their future cash flow pretty well and clearly saw that they had to find revenue from sources other than NMSC-related events. Itâs fairly apparent that the National Merit competition took a back seat to other goals in the redesign. What that might indicate for NMSCâs long-term planning doesnât exactly shout growth and an increase in the number of SFâs or commendeds.