yes - sorry to be late – I saw that 207 was on a GC spreadsheet saying it was 99%ile - we just are not yet sure though that the GC info is based on the actual test taker data yet are we? Could it be based on some national sample or other info by CB that is not yet reliable? I will ask our GC next week if she has that chart and what the GC Dept understands about it. Would be nice if there is clarity around a 207 SI - 99%ile. thanks!
According to this Washington Post article today,
"Because the PSAT scale has changed, so too will National Merit cutoff scores.
I just received a panicked email from a parent that her daughter’s PSAT scores weren’t high enough for National Merit, since her index score didn’t hit last year’s cutoff score. Well, that was then. This is now. Since the highest possible index score is no longer 240 but 228, expect cutoff scores to be lower."
This reporter is usually very knowledgeable and thorough. However, her suggestion that we should “expect cutoff scores to be lower” this year seems to contradict the general consensus on the message board.
Any thoughts?
My twins were in the sample testers last January for the new PSAT. College Board gave them a gift card for sitting through the test. It would be hard to imagine that this is part of the comparison group for calculating percentiles because while they probably tried and didn’t blow it off, they probably weren’t too worried about the test either. And, they had no prep whatsoever. And that data would probably be skewed because the gift card was for a nominal amount and taking the test was on a volunteer basis (and I think on a Saturday). So, my point is the kids who would sign up for this test would have to be interested in more practice or just gluttons for punishment.
I am slightly encouraged that the SI data may be from the real data.
I think it’s important to consider whether a 220 last year corresponds to a 220 this year, or at least if that is the intent. Reading the new SAT prep book seems to indicate that is maybe the case. You still have those issues from stupid errors, but I’m wondering if the levels really aren’t at least designed to be the same.
I’m confused by how little the scores drop for wrong answers. While reading was fairly kind, math and writing would drop 5 points or more (each!) for ONE wrong answer in previous years. I think we need to take that into consideration when comparing the two tests as well. A 230 last year really was just about perfect. One wrong in math and writing could drop you to 230, and today that might not drop you any.
So:
Will a 1470, 221 SI make semifinalist in California?
Okay, wanted to make sure my numbers were correct (going from the painful memories of sophomore year testing), and in 2012, you could have 2 wrong in writing, and 1 wrong in math, and lose the entire 12 point differential between the two tests. For what that’s worth.
I am looking at my kid’s report and it seems that it has 2 percentiles one for a sample that actually took the test and one form a representative sample that might or might not take the test.
The english percentile is the same but the math percentile is lower for the actual sample.
There is only one percentile for the total though (as far as I can see).
Someone posted on another thread, that 9 wrong in math earned a 35. With the double weighting, that’s 6 points lost, right? In years past, 9 wrong in math would have taken the 80 score down to about 60. That’s huge! How does this factor in to the proposed cuts?
@Pamom Some thoughts. Someone posted the 2005 “understanding your PSAT scores”. I believe that was the first year of the new test (for that time). If you look at the scores for each section, the penalties are not nearly as harsh. For example in Reading -1 = 78; -2 = 75; -3 = 73; -4 = 72; -5 = 70. Writing was -1=78;-2=76;-3=74;-4=73. This makes some sense because we are multiplying our scores by 2. I realize -1 in Reading is not 37, or 37 * 2= 74 for 2015, so our curves in Reading are more generous, while the 10/14 writing curve is similar to this 2005 curve.
Maybe the test scores drifted higher and the curves became harsher as more test materials surfaced over the years.
Have those “double whammy” evidence questions in reading always existed?
The math curve in the old SAT was very harsh. My kid made a lot of mistakes in math and still got a decent score. I was very surprised.
Yep. And I believe that one percentile is the only one that truly matters @am9799
For those of us who didn’t receive scores, when will we get them? UGH… I’m tired of waiting since Wednesday night lmao.
@PAMom21
So are you saying that the curves this year will be HARSHER? Are you forgetting to understand that was out of 240?
That’s a valid point. My son didn’t prep at all, and that stupid error in math sophomore year was costly. Thankfully he didn’t make on junior year, as that would have made the difference between the yes and the no. He could have done the math, with just as much accuracy, quite a few years before he actually tested.
THE BEST THING TO DO: RESEARCH what a 220 (old test) as an example, would correspond with on this new PSAT.
A lot of people are getting results identical to the Test Masters curve: yes, -12 is the new cap (228) but this test is: easier + more people taking it + concordance tables are preliminary… etc. a ton of factors… we will just have to see. for now, Test Masters is the BEST GUESS
@premiumsalt - I think the reading might have been different this year on the PSAT – my son complained about the linking of several questions - it certainly was my son’s worst section of the PSAT. Missed 7 for a 35. Ironically on the recent ACT he got a 36 in reading - think it was more straightforward and comfortable text as well.
Yes I felt that those questions were difficult in being like a matching test. You either got both right or both wrong.
Another thought. While the test is out of a lower score - 228, about 10 questions were added to reading; writing stayed the same and math is about the same.
I mean math - 10 questions were added; 5 were added in writing; and reading minus one, I believe.