If your SI is 216 and up, associated %tile is 99.64 - more than top half of ONE percent.=> 90% make NMF. Very very extreme top end
Disclaimer:
I am still a junior. My numbers were crunched two weeks ago, they were based on PSAT data tables (2012-2014). The numbers were expressed in a subjective, a speculative way, a biased angle or many assumptions and etc⊠Make it short, there are many flaws, missing points⊠do not take my numbers seriously or personally. I mean no harm at all. Just like the guessing games of NMF cut off based on calculated and logical reasoning.
@SLparent, @Lea111 and anyone else interested in the purpose of the concordance tables:
From the CB website, itâs pretty clear that you donât need the concordance tables in order to assess progress from one redesigned test to another - you use the redesigned test for that (see the last point which is about the new SAT but would obviously apply to the new PSAT from year-to-year as well). The only way a sophomore would need the concordance tables would be if he/she had an old SAT to compare to the new PSAT (point 4). If thatâs what the NMSC public. info. gal meant then that makes sense - otherwise she was speaking gobbledygook (and doesnât understand what the concordance tables are). Anyone who took the current PSAT would use the scaled scores and percentile tables associated with that new test to prepare for next yearâs.
Here are CBâs reasons for using the concordance tables and - surprise, surprise! - they DO include getting a better understanding of SI scores. See point 3.
<<Key Uses for Concordance Tables
Students and educators compare scores so they can:
Assess progress for students who took the PSAT/NMSQT before 2015 and then took the redesigned PSAT/NMSQT. (Concord PSAT/NMSQT from 2014 and earlier to the redesigned PSAT/NMSQT.)
Translate scores on the previous and redesigned assessments when some students have taken one and some have taken the other. (Consistently concord scores in one direction, preferably PSAT/NMSQT from 2014 and earlier to redesigned PSAT/NMSQT.)
Understand approximate NMSC Selection Index scores on the redesigned PSAT/NMSQT for students who took the PSAT/NMSQT before 2015. (Concord NMSC Selection Index scores from the PSAT/NMSQT from 2014 and earlier to the redesigned PSAT/NMSQT.)
Understand a redesigned PSAT/NMSQT score in relation to a current SAT score. (Concord redesigned PSAT/NMSQT to PSAT/NMSQT from 2014 and earlier, then add a zero to derive the SAT score.)
Concordance is not necessary to understand potential progress from the redesigned PSAT/NMSQT to the redesigned SAT. You can view a studentâs projected SAT score on the integrated reporting portal.>>
Guys, guys. I donât understand how we got from the Compass Report to such lowered scores again. If the cutoff in Georgia and OK are as low as some of yâall are predicting, we have anecdotal evidence that some schools will TRIPLE the number of NMSF from years past. I really think this has to hold some weight in our thinkingâat least some⊠Why are so many people suddenly believing the SI% charts are correct if you simply move your percentile down one number. (BTW, why move it down I score number (214 to 213)âwhy not move it down one percentile number, say from 99.5 to 98.5??)
While we await for more anecdotes and state reports some musings: the test prep companies seem mostly to be leaning to concorded. Applerouth based this on both school GC reports he was hearing about and the prelim table. Testmasters ditto (although I think they just went by the table). I emailed Testmasters 2x to ask them how their 210 cutoff made sense against the p11 SI percentiles. No reply. PrepScholar basically cut and pasted Testmasterâs predictions, which I found disappointing because these companies have (I would think) the ability to conduct their own sampling from the kids they prep, unless they donât do much PSAT prep or they couldnât be bothered. In other words, If Testmasters and Prep Scholar tutored several hundred or even over a 1,000 kids for this test and over 50% of those testers reported receiving 99% user or SIs over 210, this would be a good indicator that something is seriously amiss. But Iâm not getting the sense thatâs the case. In any event, I looked at Prep Scholarâs comments section on their PSAT page and itâs quite different from what you see on this thread. Some very high scorerâs with questions but a fair amount too of kids in the low 90% and 80% range FWIWâŠ
Just thinking out loud here. Compare SI% from 2014 Understanding and 2015 Understanding. If 2015 99s have to be renamed 98s to bring them to the 2014 definition of percentiles, you get the SI range of 205-213 for the 98s. In 2014 Understanding, the 98s range was 206 - 212, pretty close to the translated 2015 ones. This would suggest that 2015 SI should be comparable to 2014. Am I wildly off here?
Translate scores on the previous and redesigned assessments when some students have taken one and some have taken the other. (Consistently concord scores in one direction, preferably PSAT/NMSQT from 2014 and earlier to redesigned PSAT/NMSQT.)
If I am reading this right, CB is saying to students, GCs, interested parties, when doing concordance it is PREFERABLE (i.e more RELIABLE) to go in one direction: from scores in 2014 to the new test. Perhaps I am wrong, but I interpret this as (1) CB has studied this issue closely (2) the lower PSAT numbers on the 2014 test ARE the right numbers to go by when compared against the 2015 numbers. In other words, an SI of 209 2015 is in reality anywhere from a 201-206: That is to say a 209 might just make commended but maybe not.
@Pickmen I also e-mailed Testmasters about the SI percentile table relative to the 210 commended score and no response to me either. Makes me wonder if they all put those predictions out there in order to drum up business ("hey, these guys are predicting cut-offs so they must really be into the PSAT - think Iâll hire them . . . "). Itâs disappointing that they didnât do a better job - their predictions arenât bad per se but they arenât any more accurate and by no means more rigorous than what students and parents here have been coming up with.
@Mamelot#1746 I saw the Testmasters predictions differently: (1) I think they just went by the tables (2) making a very high prediction cutoff is a better business bet: (1) if they are right, they look like geniuses, and (2) if they are wrong, no one would hold it against them, which would not be the case if they predicted low cutoffs that turned out to be high.
@Pickmen I think what #2 means is that if a GC is translating a whole bunch of old scores to new, or new scores to old, to go the same way for all of them to get a more accurate ranking of students. I think they like old-to-new because it provides a range of values whereas New-to-old is just one so less accurate.
Not all concorded scores turn out to be lower. It depends on the 2015 SI. My D3âs concorded to a higher 2014 score, as it turns out.
@Mamelot â Yes, that makes more sense. I was thinking in general concording would yield lower results b/c of the percentile inflation on the 2015 test. I suppose you will see a trend toward lowering if the math was higher than the reading but maybe the other way if the reading was higher. Not sure, I suppose others on this thread have done all the permutations.
@likestowrite wrote: âGuys, guys. I donât understand how we got from the Compass Report to such lowered scores again. If the cutoff in Georgia and OK are as low as some of yâall are predicting, we have anecdotal evidence that some schools will TRIPLE the number of NMSF from years past.â
I agree. My musings:
I believe the only results that pass the sniff test are based on the concordance tables.
I believe most of the predictions here are a good bit too low.
I have no idea where the SI percentile table came from, and I believe it is way off.
I believe the testmasters predictions are the most reasonable Iâve seen, and might be a tad low.
Notice the word âbelieveâ as opposed to âknowâ. Now I wait for more informationâŠ
Things to ponder. Kids are getting smarter every years. Parents donât do well as they used to do.Colleges have tougher budgets for scholarship so they raise the bars. (I m in TX)
Last year 2015, @UTD in order to get Full Tutitions, $1000 and some perks: all you do is SAT 1405
This year, they rephrase their words. In order to get âFull Tutitions, $1000 and some perksâ: need avg SAT 1436
Few years back (may be 2 or 3) @UTD in order to get Full Tutitions, $1000 and some perks: all you do is SAT 1380
Too much pressure for HS graduates and their parents. What a life
@Pickmen I think we canât ignore those permutations. This is where the misuse of the concordance tables can get weird results. Iâm wondering if Testmasters actually tried to figure out, for instance, how a 225 in NJ could be broken down because the concordance will depend on the individual test scores. If they just split it three ways at 750 each, that may not be as accurate as other combination of numbers. Itâs some work! But if everyone did that for his/her state and then submitted the answers to put in a table here, youâd probably get a pretty good set of predictions. It would be on a âlast year equivalentâ basis so doesnât account for natural increases or declines that would have occurred, but it would probably be the best predictions we can come up with barring lack of state-specific data.
In coming up with a prediction of 216 for MN I actually did the permutations (not an exhaustive set because super high/super low combinations of subscores donât make much sense here) and cranked out the results which are pretty normally distributed. The range is 213 - 218 which isnât very helpful of course but a whole bunch of permutations resulted in 215âs and 216âs. So there you have it. It could be wildly off due to the underlying population or inaccuracies surrounding the preliminary concordance tables - or maybe I should have included some of those wild combinations of subscores. Predictions are typically incorrect, in retrospect
