According to Applerouth, we might have accurate percentile tables after the second new SAT test in May has been scored. So perhaps by the summer we’ll know a little more.
Your guess is likely closer than the concordance table, which appears not to factor in the fewer questions on the new test
Why do you think Finalists will need a substantially higher percent correct this year than in the past?
@DoyleB - thanks for that info - CB has said they’ll be revising the concordance tables in May. At the end of the prelim tables it says:“The College Board will release final concordance tables for each of the redesigned
assessments after the first administration of each assessment in May 2016.” Perhaps not 100% clear they’ll revise PSAT tables after that SAT. https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/psat-nmsqt-preliminary-concordance-tables-2015.pdf
"
They will be adjusted downward, otherwise it would imply that the average question is easier this year than in the past, which makes no sense. It all comes down to whether you want to believe something that makes sense, or a concordance table that appears to have been developed a while ago.
The problem with your 2015 concordance table is that your kid took the 2017 test.
@CA1543 wrote: "Perhaps not 100% clear they’ll revise PSAT tables after that SAT. ". Right. I can see where the SAT results might help with total score tables and possibly concordance. I don’t see any connection between the SAT and the SI percentile table. They have everything they need to generate a 100% accurate SI percentile table today. I don’t get it.
@Mom2aphysicsgeek “1 in 5 of Atlanta’s NMSF (I think 86 in total) did test prep through Applerouth? 20% is a pretty significant #.” Not really. Applerouth is good at marketing. Their tutors aren’t that great. They probably include really smart kids who use their mock tests.
Not that there aren’t going to be kids in districts in GA that scored higher than 1,124 but if Cobb outperformed the rest of the state and the highest score in the district is 1,124, wouldn’t that be down around 95% SI? The commended will be the lowest of the lower SI states always or is that not how it works? trying to figure out if there is some base assumption that can be made as to what the commended cut off is since it’s going to take longer to find out what the NMSF state cut-offs will be.
@paveyourpath – I believe that is incorrect information - the article was not clear but see this post:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19203385/#Comment_19203385
See stats for Walton, Wheeler, etc. – very high scores. Report is here: http://www.cobbk12.org/news/2016/PSAT2015.p
Share your thoughts after you take a look.
It looks to me like the concordance table didn’t do a good job of estimating. In 2014 99th percentile was 213 and this year 205. So, it seems certain that, for most states, the required selection index will be several points less than last year. The fewer questions turned out to be more important than the fewer alternative answers and lack of guessing penalty.
Would a 222 in CA be enough?
Slow news today. Thanks to @dboyle for the Applerouth link. But not much new there as well. Was thinking about the school that he reported had 42% of its juniors scored in 99%. This must have been the school in which 100 of its 140 PSAT testers had a mean of 1378. Out of this 42% Applerouth got it down to about 15% realistic NM contenders when concording their scores on the 2014 prelim scale. My guess is that there was a large cluster of kids in the 1380-1420 range with SIs of 205-212 from this school. But the point is that based on this school there might be about 20k kids sitting in the reported 99% user and SI index who shouldn’t be there. In other words about 30k kids are sitting in the slot normally dedicated to about 16k kids. This leads me to believe that the user percentiles are off by 1% iat the extreme end. I think kids with 1480s + are mostly ok except for CA MA DC and NJ. Between 1480 and 1390 it’s still unknown. I think 1390 or SI 206-208 will be commended. Of course these schools Applerouth is talking about could be outliers or aberrations but if we can news of several more that report these kinds of numbers, i I think we are looking at a range of 222–208/6. CB is going to have to do some explaining…
@CA1543 Okay ~1,450 makes much more sense! Thanks for pointing that out. A lot of interesting information while we wait 8 months.
@TallyMom2017 if you look at the section percentile charts for students in NMSF range you can see that sophomores required a 720 to make 99+ whereas juniors required only 700. Makes me think their are not too many schools where only NMSF contenders are taking the test as juniors.
Our school has a much lower dropout rate, forces all soph and Jr to take the PSAT and there is even a poster on this site who keeps insisting it is an “elite” school. Yet at the end of the day we have about the same number of NMSF as yours.
@slparent, my daughter was pressed for time with reading even on the math and would have liked more time. More of a problem on the practice test so now I am not sure what to think. But she’s not a fast reader.
my guess is 219-220 for CA.
Isn’t the new PSAT is supposed to use the same scale as the new SAT? That is, according to my understanding, a 690 on the new SAT is supposed to mean that the same student would score 690 on the new PSAT, or maybe a little higher because he or she is a few months older? In any case, I thought the percentiles of the new SAT are supposed to line up with the percentiles of the same numerical scores on the new PSAT.
The equating procedure used by CB requires 2 tests of each kind (old and new). To establish a concordance between the 2005-2015 SAT and the redesigned SAT, College Board needs the data from the real administrations of two distinct SAT tests. This is the reason why March scores won’t be available until after May 2016.
Suppose we are in late May 2016, and CB has established a concordance table between old SAT and new SAT scores, based on actual percentiles. Suppose 680 old CR= 690 new R/W = 95th percentile (these numbers are invented for the sake of illustration).
But what if 690 R/W is not the 95th percentile on the new PSAT?
I am not sure what CB is going to do if there are disparities between the Old SAT-new SAT percentile concordances and the new PSAT-new SAT percentile concordances. I don’t see how this could be fixed by just altering the new SAT scoring curve. It seems to me that the new PSAT scoring curve would also have to be adjusted. Of course, the PSAT scores themselves can’t be changed at this point, but the percentiles can be changed since they are “preliminary”. Does that mean that the final percentiles will just be invented to concord with the new SAT, and not be the real percentiles based on the test-taking population? Am I missing something here? Any stats experts out there have some insights?
@mom2aphysicsgeek, 20% seems high to me as well, considering that surely some of the others used different tutors. I have never heard of that company and I don’t know what their market share might be. Still, 80% of the kids were not tutored by them. And with 30 tutors, they must have prepped a awful lot of students who did not make NMSF. For those who insist this is all about expensive tutoring, I ask, what happened with all the clients other than the 3 or so per tutor who made the cut? Did they not pay enough money?
@Plotinus, I don’t see how the percentiles on the new PSAT can be lined up with new SAT percentiles . They are not on the same scale. But I also cannot understand why the PSAT concordance would be adjusted after the SAT tests are done. They are different exams graded on different scales. The SAT is supposed to be a little harder. I assume this is still the case.
From the PSAT 2015 score report:
“Keep in mind, the PSAT/NMSQT® and SAT are on the same scale. Your score shows you how you would have scored that day on the SAT®.”
PSAT 690=SAT 690 for the redesigned test, so the percentiles should be the same for the same age group.