My daughter goes to an Ivy and she was not a NMSF either. Many students are elite prep schools don't prep for the PSATs -- so they may not get as high of scores as they could. But, they do prepare for the SATS and that is how they get high enough scores to enter the Ivies. People are really splitting hairs on this thread. Who cares about the NMSF if it doesn't result in a good college acceptance? Not me

.

Is your implication by your daughter's remarks that students at elite prep schools (like STA) will have higher SAT scores than those from Blair magnet or TJ? ...higher AP scores?

My daughter goes to an Ivy and she was not a NMSF either. Many students are elite prep schools don't prep for the PSATs -- so they may not get as high of scores as they could. But, they do prepare for the SATS and that is how they get high enough scores to enter the Ivies. People are really splitting hairs on this thread. Who cares about the NMSF if it doesn't result in a good college acceptance? Not me.

I always take this stuff with a grain of salt. It's one indicator of academic success. But as you say, you have no idea how close some of the kids were to making NMSF. It could be (not saying it is, but just as an example) that TJ has 35% NMSFs and the other 65% are far below the cut off, while at STA 15% are but 50% are within 1 or 2 percentage points of the cutoff. You really can't go only by that, but I also agree TJ has impressive numbers by most counts, and that I think speaks more about TJ than it does STA

.

This rationalization suggests solid elementary course in statistics and probabilty was not part of your academic transcript.

NMSFs are the top 1% of PSAT takers. So having 15% of students as NMSFs seems like a good performance. I suspect a very high percentage of the class at most of these schools is in the 90th percentile and above. Also for those of you who have kids this age - the difference between 95 and 99th percentiles on the PSATs can literally be a question or two.

And for you supercritical people - how many of you were NMSFs? I wasn't and I went to one of the big 3. In fact 90% of my class wasnt either including many kids who went to ivy league schools. NMSFs don't seem to be the only predictor of success.

Precisely, admission to Ivy league was never purely based on these tests or even academic performance. There are other attractive qualities to the Ivy league including crew, lacrosse, squash, debating, feeding elite private institutions, social registry status, money, pedigree and legacy. Your story prooves the point. I am not so sure present day STA graduates will have as easier a time entering Ivy as you and your friends may have had.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NMSFs are the top 1% of PSAT takers. ... the difference between 95 and 99th percentiles on the PSATs can literally be a question or two ....

... you have no idea how close some of the kids were to making NMSF. It could be (not saying it is, but just as an example) that TJ has 35% NMSFs and the other 65% are far below the cut off, while at STA 15% are but 50% are within 1 or 2 percentage points of the cutoff.

Out of curiosity, I just looked at some Nat'l Merit info. NMSFs are the top 1% of scores (16,000 out of 1.5 million). There is another category of "Commended" students that represent the top 2.3% of scores (34,000 of 1.5 million). I think you're both correct that a school having 15% of its seniors in the top 1% likely has many others in the top 2%. It's certainly a bell-curve of some sort. For example, according to StA (http://www.stalbansschool.org/newsStory.aspx?pageId=60295), although only five 2010 seniors are NMSFs, another 23 are Commended. That would mean that about 35% of the 2010 class scored in the top 2% in the country on the PSAT.

Of course, I suspect a similar bell-curve holds true for other schools as well.

Anonymous wrote:NMSFs are the top 1% of PSAT takers. So having 15% of students as NMSFs seems like a good performance. I suspect a very high percentage of the class at most of these schools is in the 90th percentile and above. Also for those of you who have kids this age - the difference between 95 and 99th percentiles on the PSATs can literally be a question or two.

And for you supercritical people - how many of you were NMSFs? I wasn't and I went to one of the big 3. In fact 90% of my class wasnt either including many kids who went to ivy league schools. NMSFs don't seem to be the only predictor of success.

I went to an Ivy League school as well, and not only was I never an NMSF, I didn't even know what one was. All my sisters went to Ivys (neither of parents went to elite colleges), and none of us were NMSFs.

I always take this stuff with a grain of salt. It's one indicator of academic success. But as you say, you have no idea how close some of the kids were to making NMSF. It could be (not saying it is, but just as an example) that TJ has 35% NMSFs and the other 65% are far below the cut off, while at STA 15% are but 50% are within 1 or 2 percentage points of the cutoff. You really can't go only by that, but I also agree TJ has impressive numbers by most counts, and that I think speaks more about TJ than it does STA.

NMSFs are the top 1% of PSAT takers. So having 15% of students as NMSFs seems like a good performance. I suspect a very high percentage of the class at most of these schools is in the 90th percentile and above. Also for those of you who have kids this age - the difference between 95 and 99th percentiles on the PSATs can literally be a question or two.

And for you supercritical people - how many of you were NMSFs? I wasn't and I went to one of the big 3. In fact 90% of my class wasnt either including many kids who went to ivy league schools. NMSFs don't seem to be the only predictor of success.

Anonymous wrote:I think 14:01 was just answering my question. I was positing a different cutoff as part of the explanation for part of the difference. I don't think anyone has enough data to determine if it is the prime driver. We would have to know what percentage of students at STA score within that 5 point range.

14:01 here. I agree it's hard to estimate what impact that small cut-off difference has on the number of NMSFs, but it's probably not much. Also the sample sizes are small. If you assume that StA and other schools in DC would add 1 extra NMSF per year on average if they were following the VA/MD cut-off, that might boost their NMSF percentages to 14-16%. But what difference does that make? None that I can see.

I think 14:01 was just answering my question. I was positing a different cutoff as part of the explanation for part of the difference. I don't think anyone has enough data to determine if it is the prime driver. We would have to know what percentage of students at STA score within that 5 point range.

Anonymous wrote:With the small class sizes over a decade of fine education, big time outside tutoring and fancy summer camps at universities, colleges and other sites, big time bucks at home, 99.9 percentile entering WPPSI scores this is what 1/2 million dollars gets? Only 10 to 15 percent can achieve the cut-off scores on a PSAT exam? I am shocked.

How does STA stack up on scores of 4 and 5 on AP exams compared to TJ and Blair magnets? Given the higher caliber of teachers (with masters and doctorate degrees) and the richer and deeper curriculum, smaller classes, more teacher student interaction, one would expect them to beat the pants off schools like TJ and Blair magnet? These are largely "non bubble" exams!

Glad that I'm not the only outraged parent. AP score averages should be included on STA's secondary school profile that should also include SAT I & II averages, not sure if a copy is posted on the website.

Someone from TJ has hijacked this thread. We got the message the first time. Start a TJ thread if you want -- this one is about STA

There you go again. I am not from TJ, Blair. But, I'm sure you all prefer the warm comfort zones of STA bias when discussing any issue.

Are you therefore making the point this fact explains and is the prime driver for the difference -or not?

Anonymous wrote:Is it a national cut off score or scoring within the top scorers in your state? From the website, it seems like there is a jurisdictional element to the seminfinalist designation: "To ensure that academically able young people from all parts of the United States are included in this talent pool, Semifinalists are designated on a state representational basis. They are the highest scoring entrants in each state." I read that to mean that the cutoff scores in each state could be different, and I think your state is the state where your school is located, so maybe the cutoff is higher in DC?

My understanding is that DC's cut-off is always pegged at the highest cut-off from all other states (usually Massachusetts). Thus, DC students do face a tougher battle for NMSF status than VA or MD. However, I think the difference is not huge. I seem to recall that in one recent year, DC's cut-off was 221, while VA & MD were in the 216-17 range.

I'd actually be willing to bet that many of the kids at TJ and Blair magnets had lots of the same advantages as the kids at StA and other private schools. It's not as if TJ is getting kids from Section 8 housing and turning them into Rhodes Scholars. Indeed, one might ask why 2/3 of TJ's class is failing to test as NMSF, since they're picking the cream-of-the-cream-of-the-crop in terms of testing.

But I agree all this is getting off-topic.

Is it a national cut off score or scoring within the top scorers in your state? From the website, it seems like there is a jurisdictional element to the seminfinalist designation: "To ensure that academically able young people from all parts of the United States are included in this talent pool, Semifinalists are designated on a state representational basis. They are the highest scoring entrants in each state." I read that to mean that the cutoff scores in each state could be different, and I think your state is the state where your school is located, so maybe the cutoff is higher in DC?