Very interesting reading here … Let’s keep in mind that CB and NM Corporation are two different entities, with CB being the more important one. They do have the real data and they do want to get credibility and market share vs. the ACT back. Also, they are closely aligned with Common Core (see my prior posts) and want to sell/use the whole PSAT 8/9/10 and Junior edition/NMQualifier as a tool for states/schools/GCs to succeed in AP classes. They have the resources to hire top notch statisticians and double-, triple- and quadruple-check their research and October results. If they didn’t do that, they would loose credibility and market share and open themselves up to lawsuits.
Also, while I do believe that the new PSAT was easier for strong readers in Common Core-aligned states, it was probably a lot more difficult for most everybody else. Evidence-based reading is hard for teenagers; it is hard for most adults.
I seriously doubt that CB would put out ANY numbers that have not been seriously vetted by more than one in-house as well as out-of-house consulting firms/statisticians. Too much hinges on it for them, and our NMSF musings are chum change in comparison.
I am not defending anybody since it’s within the right for some CC posters not to believe anything (numbers, analysis, assumptions and etc…) discussed in this thread. But by the same time, that same poster used official records either from CB or other school documents to explain many issues to other CC viewers.
OK @Speedy2019 , I understand what you are saying. I reviewed the report again. Talk about semantics. So SI says National Percentile. Then they give total score, total ERW, and total math in nationaLLY representative sample percentile. Then they give total score, total ERW, and total math in User Percentile - National.
So, upon further review, maybe the SI is the user percentile - National.
Thanks for the clarification. I am really rooting for the percentile table on page 11 to being accurate or close to accurate for actual test takers
“I am in Oklahoma and my son got 1450 and SI 216. I talked with GC at his school and she said that there are 27 juniors scored over 1400. We usually have 6-8 NMSF every year. Also she mentioned you have to be in 99.5%, top 0.5% not 1% to be eligible for NMSF. I don’t know this is just in Oklahoma or every states. I’m just wondering and if my son’s score is good enough.”
27 over 1400 eh? Assuming 700 math, 700 verbal, that’s 27 kids with SI over 210. Assuming 720 math, 680 verbal, that’s 27 with SI over 208. Etc.
Let’s look at Oklahoma:
OK cutoff from 1 years ago - 208. No place to look that up.
OK cutoff from 2 years ago - 206. That was the bottom of the 98s.
OK cutoff from 3 years ago - 210. That was the 3rd from bottom of the 98s.
OK cutoff from 4 years ago - 206. That was the 2nd from bottom of the 98s.
Hmm - the middle of this year’s 98s in the published SI table is a 203. So, if you believe that table - congrats! Not only will all 27 of those kids likely be a NMSF, but several more of your kids who scored below a 1400 will also be NMSF! Hooray!
If however, you fall more into the testmasters cutoff camp - they’re predicting a 212. Which would likely reduce your 27 hopefuls down to 6-8, which is about how many you typically have. Rats!
In either case, though, your son looks to be in good shape. Nothing is certain, but there you go.
@tallymom2017 Their reputation is actual in shambles right now, because of the mismanagement of score releases that were severely delayed, the June SAT fiasco, rolling out website changes that cause their site (and access to info that was paid for) for hours and hours every day, delaying the release of PSAT scores which really affected the study plans of many students, missing (STILL!) PSAT scores - tons of them, and the fact that they are making these changes to SAT and PSAT in the middle of Junior year. This is a company, run by people, not a machine. People/leaders make mistakes and are motivated by what they perceive is good for the future of the company. I believe they didn’t show real percentile scores this year because they hadn’t in the past, and they hadn’t in the past because they didn’t want to preemptively reveal too much info on NMS.
I don’t think a lot hinges on these %'iles. The national ones are clearly inflated, and the user ones are likely inflated too. As long as they footnote - they are not deceiving. The %'les are based on a study. The study just happened to differ from real results by a material amount. Oh well. PSAT scores are not used for college admissions AND %iles are not even used for NMS. SI Index is. So the %'iles don’t really matter and wouldn’t hurt their reputation as much as the rest of the shenanigans they are pulling right now.
Edited to say - this is coming from someone who WANTS to believe the percentiles. My kid has a 221 in the highest cutoff. The %'s say he likely made it. But, I’m not confident in the CB right now and all the info we’ve seen from these great parents and GC’s are making me doubt those numbers.
Just back from a meeting - wow so many hard at work!! Thanks to all - @Mamelot your post at 1551 is amazing - thank you very much! I see several references to an “SI percent table” - what is that referring to exactly - past years?? I agree that this year the percentiles in the CB publication for the total scores seem too generous though am hoping the info for the “User” percentiles is somewhat accurate - no idea since it also is not based on real PSAT takers, and there are a range of SI’s for each “Total score”. I think knowing where a state’s cut off is though in the range of percentiles is very helpful & once the state reports come out we’ll have a better idea - how many students (or percent) are in the top “bands” of scores per area (R, W, M).
Thanks also to @DoyleB & @Dallaspiano & @ThShadow for your work & contributions to help us make better sense of the info we have to work with ! I will try to look at a few facts we have gathered and compare to the predictions - are we thinking though the Test Masters estimates seem likely to be in the right ballpark for most states or do not really know yet?
Thanks to all — I agree about learning so much about any aspects of this whole process and other related topics through this thread - who knew it could be such font of information and feed our Type A curiosity to this degree!!!
I do think the CB i purposely not giving out info it clearly has about the SI actual percentiles of a student as compared to the state & nation - the waiting till September and then having a fixed number of about 16,0000 NMSFs to share among all states plus the differences in SIs for the same total score and other things leaves quite a distaste in my mouth. For many students & families this REALLY matters and while CB seems to have some good intentions, how much of their focus is on generating more SAT & AP test takers & thus more profits?
My S doesn’t remember filling out anything for the PSAT to send his scores to colleges. Did he just forget doing this? Does anyone else remember sending their PSAT scores to any colleges?
@dDallaspiano – please do what’s important to you as a student! You should get some independent study credit for all you have done on this thread (and others?).
Let’s give ourselves a break - a little time to decompress & take CB out from under our skin!! Maybe we can get Test Masters, Prep Scholar &/or Applerouth to review what we come up with - worth a try - in a few days perhaps? Thanks everyone - good night for now. I-)
“Look at boxes 732 and 734. Also page 10, it says selection index - NATIONAL percentile. So, I’m wondering if the SI percentile table is based on NATIONAL numbers.”
I like most everyone here really want to believe the SI% table, but DoyleB’s post #1563 is pretty damning. I guess I should be worrying if dd’s 217 can hang on for commended. I think the nmsf train has left the station. It’s cruel of CB to get the girl’s hopes up with a fraudulent report.
Could any of you who have been analyzing the data give me some input on a 214 in Oregon? I know that it is the bottom of the 99+. Does 99+ mean 99.5? So if Oregon is usually 99% and the SI table is accurate, then it would make it. But if SI table is off- then 214 would be on the bubble?? I haven’t been able to ask the school counselor yet for any additional info. This is from a school where it looks like there is the occasional SF or F- but not a lot every year.
I’ll just point out that the “user” and “national” numbers are inarguably pretty darn close at the high end. Look at the report: https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/2015-psat-nmsqt-understanding-scores.pdf
Page 7 clearly shows both the national and user percentiles for (total) scores. You can see that National 99+ starts at 1430, while User 99+ starts at 1440. National 99 starts at 1370, while User 99 starts at 1390. It’s clear that going from user to national does not do anything drastic like approximately double your distance from 100.
I agree that the selection index percentiles do not say what the percentiles mean. But even if they’re “National”, converting the highest scores to “User” would likely only make a very small difference (e.g. maybe 99+ starts at 215 instead of 214).
How about we take a different approach - a good old fashioned wager? I propose we start a thread with an Over/Under strike for each state and we collect bets that the cutoff will be equal to or below X (that’s the UNDER). If you believe the cutoff will be HIGHER than the first strike posted for that state you add your bet thereby increasing the count for the OVERS. If you think the cutoff will be equal to or lower than the strike you add your bet to the cumulative count of the UNDERS. I will start this in the next post.
