@GMTplus7 did a breakdown by state of # of NMSF and # of graduating seniors. If you look at his data, the numbers are all pretty close to 1%. (majority close to 0.9, 1.0, 1.1 with DC+boarding schools the outlier at 1.7 and Nevada at 0.6)
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19176013#Comment_19176013
yes ā sorry - I think thatās right ā based on graduating seniors!!
I doubt it that in any state, cut off is going to be higher than 220 when SI only goes upto 228 and there arenāt many reports of 228ās and we already know that historically only rare and super high IQ students score perfect PSATās. Itās not like ACT or SAT. Probably many high scorers are merely freshman or sophomore so they wonāt even count. If you have a score of 210 in Texas then hopefully youāll make it.
@Speedy2019 #1436. I HOPE you are right but the posts coming in seem to point the other way. On your side you do have the percentile argument @dallaspiano has presented, which I think has some merit. In addition, your point about the curving is correct. This is a big indicator that CB was perhaps looking at real scores or data and not just their research sample. Also, there was the month delay. What was that about? Lastly, why on earth would they publish SI and TS and user percentiles if they knew they were wrong or would have to be revised? It makes no sense. So, yes, I am not totally convinced but news coming in is not encouraging about low cutoffs.
@Pickmen, can not say u r wrong, by the same time can not say I am right (assumptions, speculations, bias, subjective and etc.) but thank you for showing me another way to see and to interpret data. Good for me as a junior
@Pickmen, you would think there would be a CB employee sitting in a cubicle somewhere who would say, āwe canāt release the SI% table, it is totally wrongā if it was indeed so wrong. Iām one of those people who think most people ādo the right thingā.
But is the above data by GMTplus7 - graduating seniors or all population - SF slots (number of SFs allowed) is based on the number of graduating seniors. Does that affect the percentages being reported? From NMorg āThe Selection Index scores of students who met program participation requirements were used to designate a pool of about 16,000 Semifinalists on a state allocation basis. Semifinalists are the highest scorers in each of the 50 states and represent less than one percent of each stateās high school seniors.ā http://www.nationalmerit.org/Merit_About_Leaflet.pdf
It is based on the ratio of the entire population with the assumption that the ratios are fairly equal. It may not be a perfect representation, but it does appear fairly consistent. I think the point being made was that it was truly approx 1%/state and not that some states had 2+% of the awards.
ETA: I see that in my OP posting his info I stated # of graduating seniors. Oops. Multitasking. Too late to edit it, but his post clearly states how he generated the percentages.
Total population can be misleading as a stand-in for number of graduating seniors for states like, say, Utah (population skews young) or Florida (bimodal population distribution, with separate quite young and quite old peaks).
http://www.wiche.edu/info/publications/knocking-8th/ch2.pdf
If you go to pg 24 it shows some trends in graduation populations for certain years ā there is likely state by state census data but not sure if there is any actual combined state by state report.
Everyone is talking about high scoresā¦my post #1370 has CCās data and #1373 has 2 other websitesā data. Looking at the 2 tables, it feels that scores that are not from CC are a little lower. I wish I had more data to compile but even with a small sample, scores look lower. I guess CC people are just such high achievers 
There maybe more lower scores out there that we donāt know about.
CC scores are skewed. High achievers and scores reported of their friends and classmates (i.e., AP/honors), also typically high achievers.
Oh gosh - hope those state summary reports come out soon - not sure we can productively estimate more without some real data from the states. The actual GA data we got seemed to skew high too but not conclusive about any ācut offā point. GC reports could help too but they do not seem to be flooding for some reason - guess folks are are busy and not as obsessed as some of us.
I found this on testmaster.
Ethan says:
January 8, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Thanks for the update. I think this is more helpful than the last post. I do want to contradict you somewhere though. The cutoff is not defined as the top 1/2% from each state. It is more complicated than that. I have a letter in front of me from one of the Executive Vice Presidents of the NMSC. Here is his statement about the process:
āThe number of Semifinalists named in each state is allocated based on the stateās percentage of the national total of graduating high school seniors. For example, the Semifinalist allocation for a state that enrolls approximately 2% of the nationās high school graduates would be about 320 (2 percent of the 16,000 Semifinalists). . . . The score at which the stateās allocation is most closely filled becomes the Semifinalist qualifying score for that state.ā Now in reality that might work out to about 1/2% of each state. (16,000 does equal about 1/2 % of the expected 3.3 million graduates every year), but it is important to realize that the NMSC bases its estimates on the number of expected graduates, not the number of people taking the PSAT in a given state. There are some states where so few people in the state take the exam that 4% of the test takers make qualify as Semifinalists.
Reply
Bill says:
January 8, 2016 at 5:31 pm
Ethan,
That is a very good point! Thank you for your feedback.
@Speedy2019 wrote: you would think there would be a CB employee sitting in a cubicle somewhere who would say, āwe canāt release the SI% table, it is totally wrongā if it was indeed so wrong. Iām one of those people who think most people ādo the right thingā.
I was in this boat from the start but must admit Iām now wavering. One anecdote to add, my dd has a CB report telling her she is in the 12th of 15 levels of 99+% (SI %). We have reason to believe she has the 10-12th highest score at her school and her school typically gets about 10 sf/yr. I suspect she is more likely in the 98th %. She is CA and I donāt think she will get sf.
@LivinProof, so your daughter probably has an SI of 217.
Historically your school takes 10 a year, your daughter is 10-12 on the list.
If your daughter is 10 and makes SF, that means CAās cutoff would fall from 223 down to at least 217. 6 point fall.
To be honest, I think your anecdote is positive not negative! Have a drink on me, that cup is half full!
But history would tell us that at 99.6% she should be 5th or 6th highest at her school. The folks in front of her doubled and if that happens all across CA then she really isnāt a 99+ and the percentile tables are wrong.
Given the anecdotal evidence, I expect a number of bottom danglers (number of students on the lowest SI cutoff for each state) to inflate the 16K number and perhaps the criterion for semi-finalist to become finalist will become stringent. The 16K number isnāt written in stone, and can vary from year to year.
@LivinProof Where did you get the percentiles ("12th of 15 levels) of 99+%? I feel like Iāve seen that somewhere but now I cannot remember where?! (crazy AND old)! Best of luck to your dd!
@LivinProof (post #1454) "she is in the 12th of 15 levels of 99+% (SI %)? So her SI is 217 or 218?
@addgap (post #1261)
Score Min Max Score Min Max
1520 228 228 1370 198 213
1510 226 227 1360 196 212
1500 224 226 1350 194 211
1490 222 225 1340 192 210
1480 220 224 1330 190 209
1470 218 223 1320 188 208
1460 216 222 1310 186 207
1450 214 221 1300 184 206
1440 212 220 1290 182 205
1430 210 219 1280 180 204
1420 208 218 1270 178 203
1410 206 217 1260 176 202
Then @LivinProof 's daughter may have a score of 1410 or 1420 or 1430 up to max 1470. That is a long spread of TS for one SI.
How do we reconcile this? Finger point to CB: screw up