Will a 214/228 get me in from NJ??
This is what my D gets when she logs into her account:
When she clicks the button it asks for an Access Code but no email with access codes have arrived. I called the CB they are playing a message that says they have a high call volume and to call back tomorrow.
How do you see your selection index?
trying to check my daughter score but it’s only showing last year
As a group I think we could figure out two things that would be interesting.
First, what is the lowest NMI that still gives a 99% ranking. That would give some idea of the 1% mark at the National Level which is loosely connected to NMSF. Somebody might even be able to find this number from previous years to see how it compares.
Second, what is the lowest NMI score that got a 95% mark. That might give some idea of the Commended Cutoff as well.
I saw in an earlier post that a 211 = 99%. I don’t have any numbers for 95%. If you have a lower number that hits these marks, please post
Best so far:
99% = 211
95% = ??
I still don’t find it fair how verbal kids are given an advantage in this whole process. Even if you get the same total score, your SI could differ as much as 3-5 points.
@jsweets17 No. Cutoff for NJ will probably be 221+ or even 222+. Harsh.
I think the class of 2017 is going to be a mess this year and just wait until everybody realizes that kids with lower scores can and will have higher SIs and therefore some with lower scores will make NM. And it will become abundantly clear that it is very biased against the math kids.
Obviously the math was hard, so they cover it under a rug and make it worth less. Notice how there are barely any 760’s in math cause its super hard to get. But getting a 760 in verbal and at least a decent score in math basically guarentees you semi-finals.
@TheGFG when I called CB, the message said to check that website, and when I did, I login, and saw the score.
@SammieB I knew this going in. Better to be good in reading and grammar than be a wizard in math. That’s life, not fair.
That’s somewhat flip flopped from previous years. Used to be math was so easy, tons of kids got 80’s. Yet the real solid math kids were penalized by lack of headroom, or worse…losing 5 or 6 points for missing ONE question, probably from boredom, because the questions were so far beneath them. I do like that there might be more headroom in math.
It has always been biased against kids who score higher in math–even in the 1980s when I took it. It’s to get a reasonable gender balance between males and females (she says as a female who always scored higher on math).
I really don’t think NM is worth much anyway, especially at top schools. And I especially don’t know how they’ll view these new PSAT scores. I don’t understand why CB doesn’t just use the total-score for the selection index.
I hate to rain on everyone’s parade, but there is not enough data available to determine the NMSF cutoffs. You cannot do this with national percentile data.
Here is what you need:
- The number of graduating seniors in the US in 2016.
- The number of graduating seniors in a given state in 2016.
- Divide 2) by 1) to get the fraction of graduating seniors that come from your state, and multiply this by 16,000.
This gives the number of NMSF awards available for your state. - Suppose, just as an example, you come up with 200 NMSF awards available for your state.
- At this point, you line up all the SI’s of juniors in the state received from highest to lowest. The 200th SI from the top is the cutoff SI. The 200 people with the highest SI’s will be NMSF.
You might be able roughly to estimate the number of awards available for your state using last year’s data. You can find that data for 2014 here on page 31:
http://www.nationalmerit.org/annual_report.pdf
For example, in 2014, California had 2027 NMSF awards. It might be reasonable to assume that CA will again have around 2027 awards available. But we do not know what the 2027th scorer in California scored this year. You cannot determine this number from the national percentile of your score. No one knows how the changes in the new test have affected the geographical variations in scores. If many CA students did super well on the new test, it will not be easy to get into the top 2027. If not so many students did super well, it will be easier to get into the top 2027. My best guess is that for states that have some schools that are teaching common core well, it will be harder to get into the top scoring range, but for states that have few schools that are teaching common core well, it will be easier. Just a guess though.
When S1 went thru this 2 years ago, the max SI for NM was 240.
Am I reading it correctly that for the new PSAT, the max SI is only 228?
38 max/section x 3 sections x 2 = 228
211 for Maine is the cutoff, and I got 211. Does that count as NMS semifinalist?
@moshot, @ynotgo, yes, you need to look at the range. Because there are now only 24 possible scores instead of 61 possible scores, each new score corresponds to a range of old scores. It’s only a small range, but it’s substantial in comparison to the higher cutoffs. Which is why I have said that reducing the number of possible scores was a very poor decision by college board.
Consider the full range of old scores your new score is equivalent to. If that’s anywhere close to the cutoff for your state, then most likely it will be a matter of pure luck whether you qualify. There will be a large group of students with a new score whose old equivalent range straddles the old cut-off. So, if you are lucky, college board will include that group. If not, then too bad for you, even if you were on the higher end of that range–college board simply decided to give you the same score as students with insufficient correct questions to qualify.
Hmm, actually has no one thought that maybe the order of which states usually score higher or lower may change? States which have implemented common core will obviously have higher scores, so I guess we should just wait until September because there are too many unknowns.
@Ynotgo, I too was shortchanged in the 80’s by my own math/verbal unbalance. But at least the math had headroom back in those days! Fortunately my son is strong enough verbally, that even with a considerable gap from his math, he did manage to eek out the NMS.
@JuicyMango is right thought, it’s not worth much in the more prestigious schools. However, if you do opt for one of the free ride schools, it’s hard to deny those benefits.