PSAT scores/National Merit
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Congrats to our kids! I think they have good chances for NMSF! |
Anonymous
Would be surprising if they didn't get it. The highest cutoff in the past was a 224, and that was an anomalous year. MD always a little harder than VA though. |
Anonymous
Nope. The logic implies that based on those test scores alone the child is more likely to be a boy. The parent has more information than that and can therefore determine it's a girl. Not that complicated unless you don't want to understand. |
Anonymous
I don’t understand why there isn't a single national cutoff score for a test that calls itself National Merit. This. 100%. Actually make it a cool 110%! |
Anonymous
"My kid ended up with a 221 in VA. Scores are high this year is what we hear. Maybe in VA this year you need to be at 222?" I believe the current point estimate is 219 with a range of 218-222, so close but a good chance if these Compass guys know what they're doing. |
Anonymous
Because they want to ensure state distribution and take into account that kids in South Dakota or Alabama do not have the same educational opportUnities as kids in NJ and MD. |
Anonymous
This is less relevant with on-line resources widely available. I think national merit should be a national standard. Because there are plenty of kids in Baltimore who have fewer resources than a kid in Sioux Falls. |
Anonymous
So, that's a flat out lie. For starters, they have different cutoffs for different states. |
Anonymous
Good grades are box checking with a large premium for cognitive capacity. Box checking is not that great, comparatively. for actually improving academic / analytical capacity from what I understand from research. So, results not that surprising and would not read much into it. And, some research suggest getting good grades and doing what it takes to getting into selective colleges signals the person is a desirable hire for attractive employers. The kids will be allright. |
Anonymous
What? You make no sense. |
Anonymous
It would be helpful if those using amorphic terms like "good grades" or "bad test results" would add a parenthetical to help the reader understand the writer's perspective. Are "good grades" (1) 4.00 unweighted only, (2) 3.90 - 4.00, (3) 3.80 - 4.00, (4) 3.70 - 4.00, etc.? Does rigor influence it? Is a 4.00 unweighted / 4.24 weighted better or worse than a 3.86 unweighted, 4.43 weighted? Is a pattern of better and better grades over time viewed more favorably than consistent grades that end at the same final GPA? Is 3.70 freshman, 3.85 sophomore, 4.00 junior better than 3.85 across the board? Same with standardized tests? Can we add a parenthetical with our view of what constitutes good or bad or whatever results? I understand that it varies from college to college. But when I read someone's post and it states "Don't bother applying to Georgetown with bad grades", or "Unless your test scores are tippy top, you really should consider an SEC school instead" ... I'm basically left feeling that the poster provided 1/2 the relevant information, or at least 1/2 of what they think. |
Anonymous
How so? You're acting as if what I italicized and what you bolded are somehow incongruous. They're not. |
Anonymous
State-level differences seems like such a broad-brush approach as to be pretty inequitable... kids in a poor part of a state generally don't have the same educational opportunities as kids in a rich part of the state, doesn't really matter so much how rich or poor the state is "as a whole". If the goal is to better account for those differences in opportunity, why not do it based on some broader set of measures (e.g. median income, $ spent per student in public schools, with locality adjustments perhaps, median home value, etc.) and at some more granular area of geography (e.g. census tracts) which can then be grouped with similar high/mid/low opportunity census tracts across the nation? Sure, it's a bit more complicated, but not that much so really, at least on the calculation side. It might be harder for the average person who doesn't pay attention to these topics regularly to understand the "why" behind it, but that seems a poor argument against. If you're going to try and do it (account for the differences in opportunity), at least do a good job of it. |
Anonymous
I don't have an answer to your questions and I don't disagree with any of your points. What I meant to say is that if you have two non-identical twins. It's not that surprising if the one with lower grades than the other (and I have to assume same "rigor", while fully acknowledging your points about what "good grades" mean) would do better in the PSAT/SAT as grades in my view is a lot of box checking, albeit greatly helped by academic talent / high cognitive capacity, and the SAT/PSAT is a bit less so. Furthermore, some research suggest that box-checking studying is not that great for gaining lasting academic abilities. Bottomline is, I'm just not that surprised if someone with a tad lower (comparable) grades get meaningfully better PSAT/SAT scores. |
Anonymous
Thank you for replying! I wasn't the poster who had expressed confusion re: your post, but I think I understand exactly what you mean now anyway. If I can restate ... Attaining good grades often requires sustaining engagement to be able to check boxes throughout the academic term. Some meaningful portion of the grade doesn't actually involve mastery of the subject matter, or raw cognitive abilities. Attaining good test scores requires less sustained engagement, but almost all of the score results from mastery of the subject matter, or raw cognitive abilities. Maybe I got it wrong, but that's my restatement. Makes sense to me ... |