These scores are all over the place and that is no surprise. I don’t see the point of this–what are you hoping to learn?
231, 225, -6, foosondaughter
200, 221, +21, merething
178, 214, +36, icantsleep
191, 218, +27, mtrosemom
219, 219, +0, mtrosemom
194, 209, +15, Pannaga
200, 208, +8, Pannaga
199, 216, +17, kikidee9
187, 212, +25, phoenixmomof2
206, 218, +12, CA1543
193, 218, +25, knowledgeless
211, 213, +2, Stlmo62
190, 215, +25, engineur
218, 217, -1 aron
173, 210, +37, 123field
195, 211, +16 amyandscott
192, 225, +33 collegefreak
168, 189, +21, mphill1tx
190, 224, +34, SincererLove
183, 220, +37 ananyadoodles
198, 218, +20 disshar
220, 223, +3 flashk
229, 226, -3 lovesmath
I think we have about 30 scores that someone earlier in the posts had wanted to predict the cut offs- Some have not been included in the list. Do you need more scores?
There are a lot of big increases - not sure what CB would have projected. am sure eliminated of the penalty for wrong answers helped some. I see only 6 scores over 220 though – this list is not showing some of the reports we saw on various threads of scores very high (though some are here). Helpful to see - not everyone went up & some who went up did so by a predictable increment but I wonder what CB says is the norm from sophomore to junior year? Thanks!.
2014 - 176
2015 - 200 +24
Arkansas
I called the NMSC and was told that you are allowed to use either the old or new SAT to validate the PSAT score. They will not share what the new validation score will be, however he guessed it would be right around the 1960 range again.
Updating to incorporate everyone’s input. I am the OP. I will explain/discuss further in next post.
Sophomore (2014), Junior (2015), Change, Poster
231, 225, -6, foosondaughter
200, 221, +21, merething
178, 214, +36, icantsleep
191, 218, +27, mtrosemom
219, 219, +0, mtrosemom
194, 209, +15, Pannaga
200, 208, +8, Pannaga
199, 216, +17, kikidee9
187, 212, +25, phoenixmomof2
206, 218, +12, CA1543
193, 218, +25, knowledgeless
211, 213, +2, Stlmo62
190, 215, +25, engineur
206, 216, +6, delilahxc
215, 226, +11, eragon314
173, 206, +33, classof2017
188, 220, +32, TimEnchanter
195, 221, +26, micgeaux
212, 215, +3, micgeaux
188, 217, +29, Chew97083
199, 216, +17, wvuhopeful
191, 210, +19, nwmom2boys
193, 220, +27, LAD2266
206, 222, +16, Studious99
237, 228, -9, m139pl
218, 217, -1, aron
190, 224, +34, SincererLove
183, 200, +17, Eminem99
173, 210, +37, 123field
183, 220, +37, ananyadoodles
195, 211, +16, amyandscott
168, 189, +21, mphill1tx
192, 225, +33, collgefreak
178, 222, +44, likestowrite
198, 218, +20, disshar
181, 218, +37, fisisk
198, 210, +12, destined4harvard
220, 223, +3, flashk
229, 226, -3, lovesmath
176, 200, +24, szgardengirl
For background, here is the content from my original post 3814. I’ll discuss what we’ve collected so far after this.
Just as a experiment, I’d like to try a very different, independent mechanism of estimating the cutoffs. Many students who took the PSAT as a junior also took it as a sophomore. As it turns out, the relationship between sophomore and junior scores has been studied (see https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchnote-2010-41-score-change-2007-psat.pdf), and sophomore-to-junior scores are highly correlated, with scores generally showing just a slight 3-4 point increase on average per section (see Table 2 on page 11 in that document). However, for sophomores who already had high scores (such as those who are in the range of NMSF), this increase is actually reduced or even negative (both because of limited headroom and “regression to the mean”). See Figure 4 on page 10 of the document how the increase from sophomore to juniors scores is equal to zero for PSAT scores around 70 – which happens to correspond to the region we are most concerned with in estimating the cutoff.
My hypothesis, then, is simple. If people are willing to share sophomore and junior scores, we can estimate the deviation between the old test and the new test. The average difference could then be applied to the old cutoffs to estimate the new cutoffs. To keep it simple, I think it is reasonable to use just the selection index rather than look at the individual breakouts. I figure we’ll need at least 30 or so scores before we have meaningful data.
Sophomore (2014), Junior (2015), Change, Poster
231, 225, -6, foosondaughter
200, 221, +21, merething
178, 214, +36, icantsleep
191, 218, +27, mtrosemom
219, 219, +0, mtrosemom
194, 209, +15, Pannaga
200, 208, +8, Pannaga
199, 216, +17, kikidee9
187, 212, +25, phoenixmomof2
206, 218, +12, CA1543
193, 218, +25, knowledgeless
211, 213, +2, Stlmo62
190, 215, +25, engineur
206, 216, +6, delilahxc
215, 226, +11, eragon314
173, 206, +33, classof2017
188, 220, +32, TimEnchanter
195, 221, +26, micgeaux
212, 215, +3, micgeaux
188, 217, +29, Chew97083
199, 216, +17, wvuhopeful
191, 210, +19, nwmom2boys
193, 220, +27, LAD2266
206, 222, +16, Studious99
237, 228, -9, m139pl
218, 217, -1, aron
190, 224, +34, SincererLove
183, 200, +17, Eminem99
173, 210, +37, 123field
183, 220, +37, ananyadoodles
195, 211, +16, amyandscott
168, 189, +21, mphill1tx
192, 225, +33, collgefreak
178, 222, +44, likestowrite
198, 218, +20, disshar
181, 218, +37, fisisk
198, 210, +12, destined4harvard
220, 223, +3, flashk
229, 226, -3, lovesmath
176, 200, +24, szgardengirl
196, 221, +25, jjlundy
This still doesn’t make sense to me and even if it did, I think you would need way, way more than 30 scores to conclude anything.
Initial thoughts on the data collected:
For the old test, sophomore-to-junior increases are expected to equal zero for students scoring in the range of 210 (as predicted by Figure 4 on page 10 of the document in post #3894). The new Selection Index range (48-228) is exactly 12 points less than the old range (60-240). Thus, IF the new test’s curve was identical to the old one’s, typically students with scores in that range would be expected to have an average -12 decrease. Clearly, this is not the case. Instead, most data reported here is showing an increase of a similar magnitude.
This is potentially bad news for those hoping for lower cutoffs, because it implies that the curve is much more generous than in the past. I was among those who expected that the new cutoffs (for more competitive states like NJ, DC, CA, MD, etc.) would be at least 4 points less than in previous years. Based on this reported data, that would not be predicted.
Having said that, it is very possible that the self-reported data here is not representative. Perhaps people only like to report increases in their scores, or possibly those with increased scores (in the range of NMSF) are more likely to be reading this thread. This suggests caution in interpreting the data reported so far.
@mathyone Most people are surprised to find out how much information can be gleaned from a relative small number of representative cases. It is a rule of thumb that the number of records to be analyzed should be greater or equal to 30, which is why I specified that number initially. I’m actually far less worried about the number of records than I am about the fact that our reported data is not random – it is from a self-selected group of individuals reading this thread on CC. This may introduce large biases.
@foosondaughter I agree that the bias is extremely high. Everyone on CC is a high-achieving, self-motivated student who scores higher than the usual American student. The whole point we are on here is to get NMSF, so of course there’s going to be huge increases in score from last year to this year. This is not a representation at all of the common student student, at a random school, where he/she is likely to be less motivated as the students here on CC. Taking a poll here is almost like taking a poll at a high-achieving school district in an affluent neighborhood. But if it helps you, here is my data:
Sophomore (2014) - 212
Junior (2015) - 220, +8
For my friend:
Sophomore year: 144
Junior year: 221, 1470. (+77!).
Also, most sophomores undergo rigorous ACT/SAT prep between soph and junior years, raising scores TREMENDOUSLY!
That is an interesting question @garyasho2. I.e., Two students who both scored 210 on the PSAT as sophomores. One hangs out on CC, the other doesn’t. Would the CC student be expected to perform better the next time around? I’m not sure…
What is a gc?
@kyrieIrving2 Guidance Counselor
Sophomore (2014), Junior (2015), Change, Poster
231, 225, -6, foosondaughter
200, 221, +21, merething
178, 214, +36, icantsleep
191, 218, +27, mtrosemom
219, 219, +0, mtrosemom
194, 209, +15, Pannaga
200, 208, +8, Pannaga
199, 216, +17, kikidee9
187, 212, +25, phoenixmomof2
206, 218, +12, CA1543
193, 218, +25, knowledgeless
211, 213, +2, Stlmo62
190, 215, +25, engineur
206, 216, +6, delilahxc
215, 226, +11, eragon314
173, 206, +33, classof2017
188, 220, +32, TimEnchanter
195, 221, +26, micgeaux
212, 215, +3, micgeaux
188, 217, +29, Chew97083
199, 216, +17, wvuhopeful
191, 210, +19, nwmom2boys
193, 220, +27, LAD2266
206, 222, +16, Studious99
237, 228, -9, m139pl
218, 217, -1, aron
190, 224, +34, SincererLove
183, 200, +17, Eminem99
173, 210, +37, 123field
183, 220, +37, ananyadoodles
195, 211, +16, amyandscott
168, 189, +21, mphill1tx
192, 225, +33, collgefreak
178, 222, +44, likestowrite
198, 218, +20, disshar
181, 218, +37, fisisk
198, 210, +12, destined4harvard
220, 223, +3, flashk
229, 226, -3, lovesmath
176, 200, +24, szgardengirl
196, 221, +25, jjlundy
212, 220, +8, garyasho2
144, 221, +71, appgodxoxo
197, 223, +26, Dave_N
Soph…214
Junior…226
+12