Gifted Issues Discussion homepage
Posted By: Quantum2003 Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 11/25/17 01:15 AM
Has anyone else notice any additional ceilings effects of the new PSAT/NMSQT?

I am not sure whether that was even a cause but the number of National Semi-Finalists for our district and particularly for our school dropped significantly for the class of 2017 (first year) and while it has risen for the class of 2018, those numbers are still lower compared to the numbers under the old PSAT/NMSQT.

After researching a bit, I realized how easy it is to miss the cut if you are in a state with one of the highest cut-offs. Keeping in mind that the maximum score is 760 instead of 800, this means that the maximum index is 228 (76 + 2(38+ 38)). On an easy/moderate difficulty test, you need a perfect raw score to get 228 and perhaps minus one in each section to get 222-225. If you live in a state with a cut higher than 222, missing even one in each section may knock you out of the running on an easier test.

I seem to recall that the old SAT/PSAT had a slightly higher ceiling so that there was a bit more room for a few careless mistakes. It would be interesting to see if the new PSAT/NMSQT is capturing the same category of students as far as ability or achievement, particularly in the states with the highest indices.

I had previously assumed that National Merit Semi-Finalist shouldn't be difficult for DS/DD but I now realize that it is much easier to get a 1520 (i.e.,760+760) on the SAT than a 228 index (1520 equivalent) on the PSAT/NMSQT since you could miss quite a few questions on the SAT even on an easy version versus a perfect raw score on the PSAT/NMSQT for an easy version.
Posted By: cricket3 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 11/25/17 12:25 PM
I don’t have enough exposure to the exams to analyze why, but our school had a steep drop,off in NMSF this year as well. I was quite surprised that a couple of DDs friends didn’t hit the cutoff. The cutoff did rise here, but I don’t know the answer. DD cleared it with a cushion, despite taking zero practice exams and bringing the wrong calculator, but she is skilled at that type of exam, time management, and was probably lucky as well. She thought the math was straightforward, and that a couple of the reading passages were odd or tricky-seeming. I remember she was irritated that one passage was a text many of her classmates who take Latin had previously analyzed in class (it was new to her, and one of the passages whose questions she found weird for some reason).
Posted By: nicoledad Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 11/25/17 08:02 PM
I don't if this has anything to do with it but I heard SAT scores on average have gone down for girls since the SAT switched from 2400 to 1600. The reason is because math is now worth 50 percent of the score instead of 33 percent. Thats because boys on average do better on the math part and girls do better on the other two parts.
Posted By: puffin Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 11/26/17 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by nicoledad
I don't if this has anything to do with it but I heard SAT scores on average have gone down for girls since the SAT switched from 2400 to 1600. The reason is because math is now worth 50 percent of the score instead of 33 percent. Thats because boys on average do better on the math part and girls do better on the other two parts.

Was this an intended consequence do you think?
Posted By: Thomas Percy Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 11/26/17 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by nicoledad
I don't if this has anything to do with it but I heard SAT scores on average have gone down for girls since the SAT switched from 2400 to 1600. The reason is because math is now worth 50 percent of the score instead of 33 percent. Thats because boys on average do better on the math part and girls do better on the other two parts.

Was there a up trend for girls when they first moved SAT to 2400 from 1600 then?
Posted By: nicoledad Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 11/26/17 09:07 PM
There was an article written by Art Sawyer about the change from 2400 to 1600. If I knew out to link I would.. I'm guessing it wasn't intended but no was from SAT has supposedly commented on this. As to when it changed from 1600 to 2400 I don't know if it did benefits girls or not but you would it would. Ironically on my daughters PSAT 8/9 she did better on the math.
Posted By: nicoledad Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/13/17 03:09 PM
Well the numbers dropped supposedly for the class of 2019 but not to the levels of the class of 2017
Posted By: knute974 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/13/17 09:56 PM
Our state is now using the PSAT as the state standardized test in sophomore year. I wonder if the increase in our state NM cutoff might be related to prior exposure to the test material. My DD's score went up 3 points between her sophomore test and the NM qualifying test her junior year. She didn't cover any significant new material related to the test in the interim. I have to think that familiarity played a role.
Posted By: Quantum2003 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/23/17 02:49 AM
Congrats to your DD on a comfortable cushion!

The problem is the lower hard ceiling (1520 vs. 1600) and a lower soft ceiling (easier test so no room for careless errors). I still remember when you can miss a few and still hit perfect scale score on the verbal section of the old SAT. These days, you need to be strong enough in both math and verbal to hit a almost perfect score (for competitive states) but not necessarily the strongest in either one. In the old days, a number of the lopsided kids made it, especially top verbal kids who are good but not great in math. On the higher Selection Index states, there is almost no cushion - unless my kids hit at least 224 or 225(1500 out of 1520), they can't be confident they will qualify. It is possibly for the SI to rise so perhaps even 224 or 225 may not be enough in two years.
Posted By: Quantum2003 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/23/17 02:52 AM
Actually, the PSAT/NMSQT selection index is still 1/3 math and 2/3 verbal (EBRW) so should favor girls. The new SAT may now favor boys as compared to the old one that it replaced.
Posted By: Quantum2003 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/23/17 02:59 AM
I think these changes can be explained by the simple fact that the ceiling is lower across the board. The ceiling on the verbal side dropped more. Interestingly, the new math is "harder" for younger kids in that it requires more classroom instruction time but it is easier in the sense that it is a question of just learning the material.The SAT us far more about achievement than aptitude at this point.
Posted By: Quantum2003 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/23/17 03:01 AM
I don't think they dropped at the upper end - selection indices for the competitive states.
Posted By: Quantum2003 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/23/17 03:02 AM
That is what I am hearing as well. If/when the SI rises to 224-226, it will be even more of a crapshoot to make NMSQT.
Posted By: Quantum2003 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/23/17 03:07 AM
3 points can be exposure. Of course, the higher ceiling from 1440 to 1520 can translate to an increase of 12 points on the selection index (216 max vs. 228).
Posted By: cricket3 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/23/17 11:56 AM
Thanks. Surprisingly (to us, anyway), our younger DS15 just took it as a sophomore (new school policy, where they now suggest it for sophomores), and he outscored DDs junior year score. Not that it matters as a sophomore, but we were a bit surprised as he is our stealth kid, not very interested in school academics and knew absolutely nothing about the test going in; on top of that he got a major nosebleed on the way out of the house and almost didn’t make it...lol.

But I agree with your assessment, the super-mathy kids here who are less interested (or less capable) in literature or humanities didn’t make the cut, which is a bit jarring, since they seem to be the kids garnering the most attention from the school district. I suspect this is probably because that subject matter (high school math) is just easier for them to measure and accelerate. I second your observation that the math is pretty straightforward, time management and avoiding silly mistakes seem to be the key, at least to me. The reading and writing section is thought to be more “tricky”- I suspect good classroom instruction and generally just lots of reading helped my kids in this area. (By good instruction I don’t mean test prep, which they thankfully don’t do here, but lots of close reading, annotations, literary analysis, etc, in English, but also history and other humanities areas.
Posted By: Quantum2003 Re: Ceiling Effects of new PSAT/NMSQT - 12/24/17 01:14 AM
I think the writing section is more tricky while the reading section is easier in most ways for many kids like mine. DS and DD took the old and new SAT back to back (Jan & March) in 7th grade and their reading and writing scores went up a decent amount on the new SAT. The vocabulary on the old SAT held DD back while the literary emphasis on the old SAT made DS' practice score extremely variable with his "real" Jan 2016 score coming in at the extreme low end of his range.
© Gifted Issues Discussion Forum