Earlier in this thread when scores first started to come in two or three people posted 228 scores. I do not remember the post number though.
No offense taken. I assumed correctly that you said it in jest. We’ve all thought the same thing including myself at one time or another. Thanks for your kind response though. It’s much appreciated.
@mathyone. I’m not going to argue with you any longer. A rude, sexist remark? LOL. Your lack of maturity is startling.
“I am shocked by the outrageous insulting comments about residents of states like Wyoming and West Virginia. Really, Wyomingites and West Virginians don’t support their kids, they are all poor and homeless and single parents, drug addicts, whatever else you all said.”
Really? Your reading skills are sorely lacking if that is how you interpreted what I said. You are a minor so I will just assume that is the reason behind your immature, juvenile attitude and move on.
Your responses exhibit a truly smug attitude mired in a stench of rudeness. You really need some lessons in humility. No point debating anything with such an individual.
@Mamelot I have an interesting question for you. I reviewed the link you posted about the 2013-2014 report. Am I correct in assuming that these were students that took the 2012 test? In addition to the data you posted, the report also lists the Total number tested at 1,476,770. What is interesting is that in the “Understanding 2012 PSAT Scores” bulletin where they provide the SI score/percentile chart they list the number of juniors at the bottom of the chart as 1,557,057. That’s a discrepancy of 80,287 students. Am I safe in assuming that those 80,287, although juniors who took the test, were determined to be ineligible for the NM competition? That’s a little over 5% of the total 11th grade test takers.
I don’t really know how it really correlates to anything in regards to cutoffs but I found it quite interesting.
@mozaart2023 that is interesting, indeed. You are correct that they must have taken the PSAT in Oct. 2012 because it’s the 2014 scholarship program. That’s the most recent annual report available online, for some reason. The Understanding Scores report used to publish percentiles from the prior year (this year is different of course) but do we know whether the total would be current year or prior year? Not sure. Nevertheless, it does seem that those totals are all junior test takers, not students who are “eligible” for the competition. 5% seems like a big percentage.
@mathyone No, I didn’t misspeak. My daughter got a 226, and her friend got between 224 and 226, depending on math/verbal breakdown. I haven’t heard of anything else in the 220s at her school. I thought someone here asked about 226s as well, which is why I finally answered. I’ve been following these threads forever, but didn’t post this data before because I didn’t think it showed much; these girls were high scoring before the new PSAT.
I agree that the relatively easy curves for reading and math at the top suggest that there probably isn’t going to be an unexpectedly huge number of 228s.
I also remember a couple of people saying that they got 228s here when the scores first came out, but even if those posts are credited, one or two perfect scores wouldn’t be unexpected on CC (nor would it be surprising that students with 228 don’t continue to follow this thread).
Speaking of curves, since missing just one in language gives you 226, missing two in language gives you 224, all the way down to missing six in language gives you 216, and since the writing section on the old PSAT was created to make more girls NMSF, I wonder what this harsh curve in language, in combination with the relatively generous curves in math and reading in the top scores, will do to the boy/girl ratios for NMSF in various states. During the weeks that the PSAT score distributions were being delayed, someone on this list said she called CB and was initially told that the delay was due to National Merit Corporation. The language section is very different from the old writing section, so maybe the skewing toward girls won’t be the same on this one. But if some states have really high cut scores, and if the raw language scores at the top do skew toward girls, this could equalize the number of girls and boys overall, perhaps making weird skews in specific states.
I didn’t hear about even one 228 and my area is a high NMSF producer, every other kid is in KD Prep Academy since 7th grade. Interestingly enough one nearly perfect score and another 218 that I know of, never did any prep program.
One perfect score @ My S’s school [sacramento] and 6 or 7 scores 220 and above.
How many NMSF’s does the school usually have, @srk2017?
It seems like there are at least 3 errors on the Understanding Scores document, all still uncorrected this many days later:
- 38 raw score in reading on 10/28 test = 38 scaled score - wonder if that error by any chance was actually incorporated in the score reports students got?
- Mean and standard deviation on the SI, as others have pointed out
- The maximum raw math score on the 10/14 test is listed as 47. But weren't there 48 math questions? The 10/28 test had a question thrown out, but there is no indication that the 10/14 test did. Am I mistaken?
To post #4489. I thought of that too. My son missed two on R, 3 on W and zero on M and got only 220 SI. I can’t find the table someone put together identifying SIs for the various combinations of wrong answers, but I imagine his SI would be a lot higher if he missed five on M and zero on W and R.
48 questions on the 10/14 test, per my daughter’s score report.
@suzyQ7 Regarding your post #4329 about how NMSC picks their commended and semi’s… I have 2 questions…maybe you can help me understand the process better.
-
Scenario 1:Let’s say if they first sort the highest 50,000 scores and it only yields the high cutoff states such as CA, NY, NJ (it’s not gonna happen like that but for the purpose of my question), then wouldn’t they have to go back to the database and draw more names to make sure they have all states?
-
Scenario 2: Let’s say they have the highest 50,000 scores spread across all states, then they go on to pick the top 16,000 and of those 16,000 scores, CA has 5,000 instead of what they are allotted, let’s say 3,000. TX has only 500 high scores from the 16,000, but TX is allowed 1,300… Does that mean NMSC would have to go back to the database and play with the numbers in order to get the desired results?
I’m sure when they first draw the 50,000 highest scores from the database, things would not fit perfectly in a jigsaw puzzle.
@SLparent I personally do not believe that scenario is likely. CB and NMSC know the outcomes they need in terms of # of students per state and the 16,000 cutoff for NMSF. They also know there should be approx 50,000 in the commended up category. The scores are weighted. It is not as if all questions have a specific value with a preset outcome like a normal classroom exam. (For example, 50 MC questions worth 2 pts each is not at all how the scores are generated.) It is incredibly unlikely that CB released the scores and index #s without making sure the numbers worked out.
From that POV the only real question is what those cut-off scores are.
@Lea111 – I see 48 answered math questions on the 10/14 test - don’t see any questions tossed out.
If per @suzyQ7 the lowest national SI cutoff for commended list is also the lowest SI cutoff score from a reporting state, the 50K student list must only expand to a higher (possibly much) number to account for large number of students performing at much higher level of SI’s than lower performing states. With the format of the new test, this will only keep getting worse unless participation rates from lower performing states improves significantly in future years. OR NMSC will have to start reporting commended SI cutoffs at a level possibly higher than the lowest SI cutoff for a state’s SF nominees.
@SLparent Scenario 1 has not happened, but in theory, NMS would like grow that 50,000 commended pool a bit hirer to get the number by states that they need. For scenario 2 - that is what the cutoff is for - they can drop the cutoff in Texas until they get the allocation amount and jack up the cutoff in CA until they get the allocation they need.
My belief is that the test was easier, period. They will not be in a scenario (in any state) where they don’t have enough kids from the commended pool to meet each states allocation. I think very likely will be in a situation where the cutoffs are higher EVERYWHERE (more at the bottom, than the top). My opinion only, from what I’ve gather from reading 500 threads over the last 2 weeks.
Around same number 7-10.
NMSF in Sacramento last year:
Mira Loma- 9
Country Day- 2
Rio Americano- 1
Christian Brothers- 1
Bradshaw Christian- 1
close to Sacramento, Davis HS had 11