TX cutoff is actually 220.
Thanks @JBFlying for the correction. My bad.
Perhaps this was already answered, but how can there be odd numbered cutoffs if the SI is calculated by adding 3 scores from subsections and then multiplying the sum by 2 (e.g. SI=(33+33+33)*2)? Presuming there are no decimals in the sections scores (e.g. 33.5, which, I think, is a sure bet), there cannot therefore be cutoffs that are odd numbers.Also, I believe the commended SI cutoff was reported as not higher than 209 (odd number again), rather than at least 209. With the above âquotedâ NMSF cutoffs, the NMSF selection percentile is upwards of 99.5 and in some states can be as high as 99.8.
Math section scores include decimals. 38.0, 37.5, 37.0, etc.
@janara, regarding the second part of your post #6722, are you looking at the percentile table in the Understanding Scores report (Table 11)? If so, those percentiles are 1) wildly inaccurate; and 2) irrelevant to the National Merit competition. NMSC chooses the cut-off for each state by ranking the SIâs in descending order, then choosing that SI which allows the number of qualifiers to most closely match the stateâs allocation (which is a percentage based on the number of class of 2017 graduates who reside in that state).
In our state there are just under 300 nmsfâs each year. The stateâs cut-off was way higher than both last year and predicted; however, there will still be just under 300 nmsfâs. A new test with new score scales canât be compared to the old test (and, as it turns out, it canât really be compared to College Boardâs sample study as the real percentiles for each Selection Index are actually lower - in some cases much lower - than Table 11 shows).
The cut-offs that have been quoted in this tread are accurate. Numerous sources have confirmed that.
Historically the states with high cutoffs have been at or above 99.5 percentile. Close to 99.8 percentile is a reasonable expectation for the highest cutoff states.
At my school, they already announced the cut-offs. In Texas, the cutoff score is 220.
The counselor at my school asked my daughter to list the teacher she would like a reference from. I am pretty sure counselors are allowed to provide recommendation letters, right? She has a very good relationship with her counselor and wanted her to give the letter. Can someone clarify if they have (or are planning to) approach their school counselor for the finalist application?
I believe NMSC targets certain %ile of takers to be recognized, which in turn translates into some approximate number they mentioned in the booklet: 1.5M entrants, 50K high scorers (~3.3ile), 34K commended (~2.3%ile), 16K SFs (~1.1ile). To me, these numbers drive the %iles, including at state level, which I presume is score and to some extent population proportional (at least that what can be surmised based on low SIs in certain states). I believe with these quoted cutoffs these numbers are going to be substantially lower, unless I am missing something (which can certainly be the case). Another way this could have happened is that number of entrants was much higher (several fold) than 1.5M mentioned, which is not very likely. Or substantially higher number of takers scored very high, which again probably not plausible. I should be able to compile the data for the state I live in once the formal announcement is made.
NMSC does not target certain %iles. I posted the following on the other thread where you are posting:
Also, notice that the numbers per state are based on number of high school graduates, not on the number of students who take the PSAT.
@kesari at #6727 - the school should be given some pretty good instructions from NMSC on this issue. In the materials my D17 received the Requirements for Finalist Standing include the following wording (and the identical document should be available on the website once you login to give the parent permission):
- Be fully endorsed for Finalist standing and recommended for a National Merit Scholarship by your high school principal (or school official designated by the principal).
While technically that could include a teacher, perhaps, it really sounds more like the recommendation should come from the principal or at the very least a guidance counselor or someone very familiar with all the studentâs academic progress who can speak for the principal.
For your analysis (like mine), a few [not so simple] stats at state level are needed: number of high school juniors (if you claim that the cutoffs are dependent on that), number of PSAT takers in the junior year (this is what I think cutoffs depend on), number of Commended (I believe this to be top 2%ile across the board/states), number of NMSF (I believe this to be top 1% across the board/states). I have some of the stats for the state I am in. % of young population in a state does not matter, unless you think that t is directly proportional (can be presumed to be the case, I guess) to the number of juniors. One other factor at play could be unusually high number of high scorers, which to me is also not likely because CB would realize that easing the test would make the %iles to jump substantially.
@janara Iâm also planning to count up the sfâs in our state - our local paper has published all of them every year so the info. is very easy to retrieve. Iâd be shocked if the number were different for reasons other than rounding (which results in variations every year). One really should view these higher SIâs in the context of this test this year. As much as we are still disconcerted by how close our D came to NOT getting sf (she squeaked by with a +1 when we thought she was a shoe-in based on the predicted and prior year scores), the fact is that there are going to be quite a lot of kids in our state who scored higher - even significantly higher - than she did.
NMSC has published their selection procedure and how many sfâs and finalists will result. Those numbers havenât changed from prior years - approximately 16,000 semifinalists, and approximately 15,000 finalists. The only way a state can have significantly fewer SFâs in a given year is if the percent of graduators suddenly dropped. And thereâs no reason to even consider percentiles when you can easily sort the selection indexes in descending order and choose the cut-score from that.
So we are going to see approximately 16,000 semifinalists when the numbers are published (whether it be in the annual report or another documents available earlier). If there is a variation it will be consistent with what weâve seen in prior years.
(I also predict the direction of the variation will be on the plus side. Thereâs no way NMSC is ever going to select anything less than 16,000 sfâs or 15,000 finalists. It would cause too much bad publicity).
of SF in a state is easy to get (for many states it is listed online), the harder stats are number of juniors in the state and # PSAT takers among them. CB would only know # of PSAT takers in each state.
of PSAT takers in a state is not relevant to the National Merit organization, but yes, they can easily get that from CB. People who have that number from CB can compute percentiles if they like. NMC does not want the popularity of the PSAT in particular states to affect the cutoffs more than can be avoided.
National Merit Scholarship Corporation has been obtaining the approximate number of high school graduates per state since the 1970s. I suppose they have good contacts with each stateâs education department to get this data over the summer. The accuracy probably varies a bit because different states have different rules about private schools and homeschools reporting graduates to the state.
They do not go by # of juniors, because that is not reported by schools to their states.
Commended is not a percentile. It is as close as they can come to 50,000 kids by setting a nationwide cutoff. The population of the US has changed since the 1970s; the 50,000 number has not.
CB knows number of graduators for a given class. This information was available in the PsAT state summary reports. They donât publish these anymore online (which is a shame) but they make this data available to state educators.
Numbers of graduators also easily attainable by going on your state education board website.
Again, the selection procedure is clearly spelled out and thereâs no reason to suspect NMSC will somehow deviate. CA has had a little more than 2000 sfâs in the past and barring weird demo. shifts there is no reason to expect that number to change this year regardless of how high or low the resulting cutoff happens to be.
OK, my point or question is really a simple one: what %ile of PSAT takers in a given state these cutoffs correspond to? Can anyone give more or less reliable historical data for any state in any past year: e.g. 10000 PSAT takers, 100 SFs (1%ile) in the state of XX in 20YY?
What state do you want to know? The answer is going to range from 99.5+%ile to about 97%ile.
Edit: Actually, if you do it out of PSAT takers vs. # of students, the percentiles will be lower.
@janara check out page 21 of the NMSC report that I linked either here or another thread - you should be able to compute those percentages for every state.
Edit: Hereâs the link again and sorry itâs page 23 not 21:
http://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/annual_report.pdf
Also, prior to fall 2015 College Board published state summary reports for each state so you can easily get the number of PSAT takers from that. Keep in mind that NMSCâs numbers are a bit different because they are focused only on those eligible for the NMSQT competition (not all junior class testers are eligible). So if you want number of NMSFâs as a percentage of ELIGIBLE competitors stick just with the NMSC annual reports. If you want NMSFâs as a percentage of ALL college-bound junior PSAT testers youâll need to grab the State summary reports for your denominator and be very cognizant of the testing year (i.e. class of 20XX took the test in fall of 20XX-2).