I had previously replied with an SI of 189. We are in Texas in a large school district. All sophomore and juniors in the district and at some high schools, all freshmen take the October PSAT, paid for by the school district. In March, all juniors will take the SAT, also paid by the school district. All costs to take AP exams are also paid for.
@mphill1tx what district? How did kids at your school do comparing to past years?
Funny stories away from discussions
At my HS, Male to Female ratio always around 1:1
2013, we had 2 boys in top 10
2014, we had 3 boys in top 10
2015, weâll have 2 boys in top 10
2016, just find out we will have 2 boys in top 10
Look like history repeats itself
@dallaspiano you mean 2 boys have the highest scores among the top 10 scores? Do you know their scores?
Just top 10 in ranking. None of them beat me this 2015 PSAT. I am sure that I am not number 5. All girls - top 5
@SLparent We have many kids score in the 99% this year. We typically average about a dozen NMSF at our school. But I donât have any more specific information
Iâm rooting for you @dallaspiano
@livingproof 1456 - I see what you are saying but I think you are assuming a uniform distribution which I am not sure you can do. You might get big clumps of high scores in one school and small clumps in another that used to have big clumps. This of course could just be as unlikely, as there seem to be too many reports of too many big clumps. As has been noted before the SI index is the key here and can encompass a wide range of TSs. That, along with the harsh penalty of 2 index points on the reading is going to cause a lot of heartache for kids who would have otherwise have made it but for that one wrong answer.
@LivinProof - Iâm not sure I follow. I think the cutoff for CA has historically been right around the 99.5% percentile. So if your CA school typically has 10-12 NMSF, then 99.5% in your school should be the 10-12th best score⊠Put another way, the cutoff should be around 99.5%. So if you got a 216 or 217 (which is say 99.6%), then based on percentiles, you should make the cut. If you have the 10th highest score, and you just barely make the cut, then your school will have 10 NMSF. This is all mutually consistent, and doesnât disprove the percentile tables.
If you had the 20th highest score with your 217, then the 99.6% SI would imply that 20 would make NMSF. Which would be surprising / suspicious (though certainly anything is possible).
Am I misunderstanding something?
As a kid, I just see what report to me. But my head spins out of control due many logical reasonings by adults :)) :)) in this thread. Yes, I learn a lot but more headache
@LivinProof, I concede that the cutoff must get to 214 to represent 99+ instead of 217.
Even if the cut is âonlyâ 217 instead of 214, it still means cutoff are likely to fall for the high end states. CA at 223 was on the very high end last year. Most people on CC are not expecting CAâs cutoff to fall by 6 points, while I consider it possible and maybe even likely.
I wouldnât consider the SI % Table to be âcorrectâ unless 214 and above fit into 99+.
Still, I donât consider your anecdote to be terrible. Terrible is when someone scored 223 at a school and says a dozen students scored higher and only 10 SF are common each year. That would mean cutoffs are going up. Your anecdote says to me, cutoffs are going down in CA.
I have emailed our GC several times to just see what it looks like with my score. She says that the head of counseling is on the phone all the time and can get NO info. I find that hard to believe of a school our size (5000+). Our school usually has 40+ in Indiana. Every one I ask has lower scores than me but I could just not be asking the right people. My score is not super highâŠbut maybe high for this state. I am sad my TS of 1450 is 216 when I see some on here with a 220 of same TS. Oh well. Que sera sera. 
Iâm in Oklahoma, my daughter got a 214(1430). I just talked with the GC at her school. She stated that there are 30 students in the 99% this year.
Last year this school had 9 NMSF and the cutoff for OK was 208 which is in the middle of the 98%. I agree that the CB percentiles are unfortunately way off.
@hopefulmomof6âŠHow many in the school are in the 99+ percentile?
Here is Texas we are just hoping the SI comes in at 221 or belowâŠ
Every year you measure the kids at school. One year you get a new ruler, and find out that a dozen of your kids are over 7 feet tall. Some here are wondering about what might have been added to the water. Some wonder if they added a stretching machine to the gym. A few of us suspect something is fishy with the new ruler.
@DoyleB, funny. But maybe the 7 feet tall threshold is measuring kids who donât exist (National) and the kids who are really measured (User) is similar to the previous year.
Relax, higher than 220 in Texas isnât going to happen.
The 99th national percentile goes down to a total score of 1370. If an âaverageâ 1370 is 720M / 650V (?), thatâs an SI of 202. (If M and V are closer, the SI would be higher.)
From the percentile-based conversion chart I posted in:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/1852040-psat-nmsf-cutoffs-concordance-tables-vs-percentiles-p1.html
the percentiles imply that about a 203 this year is equivalent to a 208 last year (and hence the cutoff in OK this year would be 203). That seems like it would yield a lot more than 9 from your school. But I bet if the cutoff is in the 206 to 208 range, youâd be back down to about 10 from your school.
So Iâd say that your data argues that the percentiles are off, but I wouldnât say theyâre way offâŠ
@Speedy2019 The âNationalâ and âUserâ TotalScore tables are almost identical at the high end. And who knows what the SI table is supposed to refer to. They all smell funny to me. @thshadow I agree that if you shift the SI table up 7 or 8 points, then it doesnât smell quite as bad