April 8 Update:
The Commended cutoff — the minimum score to be considered for National Merit honors — for the class of 2025 is 208. This is the highest cutoff in 4 years. Compass’s analysis of the results from the first digital PSAT showed that the Commended cutoff would fall in the 208 – 210 range, so the 208 is in line with expectations.
Compass has incorporated the Commended cutoff into its projections for the Semifinalist cutoffs, which will begin filtering out around Labor Day.
Why haven’t I been told anything by my school?
The April announcement is to schools only and is not an official notification of a student’s status. Honored students are not notified until September.
Why aren’t Semifinalist cutoffs announced at the same time?
National Merit must receive student eligibility information from schools and then calculate the separate Semifinalist cutoffs for each state. Only the Commended cutoff is national. NMSC will mail high schools the names of Semifinalists at the end of August, and students will be notified by their schools in early to mid-September. Schools are not given the Commended Student letters until after Semifinalists are announced.
[The November 2023 post below has been updated with the Commended cutoff information.]
The 2023 digital PSAT/NMSQT for the class of 2025 represents the biggest change to the National Merit Scholarship Program since the PSAT was overhauled in 2015. Each year Compass looks at the results from the PSAT and tracks projected Selection Index cutoffs for Commended Students and for Semifinalist in each of the 50 states. [See National Merit Scholarship Program Explained for full details on stages and instructions. For information on the class of 2024 cutoffs, see this archive.]
Instead of having schools administer a paper test on fixed dates, College Board allowed the digital PSAT to be offered throughout October. College Board also introduced a new score return policy. Students taking the test on or before October 14th receive scores on November 6th. Students taking the PSAT after October 14th receive their scores on November 16th. Compass now has the data from both release windows. Approximately 50,000 students landed in the 1400-1520 score band from almost 1.5 million test takers. The initial half of scores already accounted for 30,000 of top band scores, so the later testers had a lower proportion of high scorers. This will come as a relief to students who were fearing an extremely large jump in Selection Index cutoffs.
This year is shaping up similar to the class of 2021 (the last pre-pandemic PSAT) and, reaching back farther, the class of 2017.
The number of top scorers is the most critical piece of information that we get this early in the process. There is a strong correlation between the 1400-1520 band of students and the Commended Student score.
[We now know the exact Commended cutoff is 208. -Ed.] The Commended Student cutoff is likely to rise to 209 (above the 207 from the last 3 years). Estimates can be imperfect, but we are confident that the Commended cutoff will fall within the 208 to 210 range. The higher Commended cutoff, in turn, correlates with higher Semifinalist cutoffs. Below are those estimates.
| State | Class of 2025 (Most Likely) | Class of 2025 (Est Range) | Class of 2024 (Actual) | Class of 2023 (Actual) | Class of 2022 (Actual) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 212 | 210 - 216 | 210 | 212 | 212 |
| Alaska | 212 | 209 - 215 | 209 | 210 | 208 |
| Arizona | 217 | 214 - 220 | 216 | 214 | 218 |
| Arkansas | 212 | 209 - 215 | 210 | 210 | 211 |
| California | 221 | 219 - 223 | 221 | 220 | 221 |
| Colorado | 217 | 215 - 220 | 216 | 217 | 217 |
| Connecticut | 221 | 219 - 222 | 221 | 221 | 220 |
| Delaware | 220 | 218 - 222 | 219 | 218 | 220 |
| District of Columbia | 223 | 222 - 224 | 223 | 223 | 224 |
| Florida | 216 | 215 - 219 | 216 | 216 | 217 |
| Georgia | 219 | 216 - 220 | 217 | 218 | 219 |
| Hawaii | 217 | 215 - 220 | 217 | 215 | 217 |
| Idaho | 214 | 210 - 216 | 211 | 215 | 214 |
| Illinois | 219 | 217 - 221 | 219 | 219 | 218 |
| Indiana | 216 | 213 - 219 | 216 | 214 | 215 |
| Iowa | 213 | 210 - 216 | 210 | 212 | 211 |
| Kansas | 215 | 213 - 218 | 214 | 214 | 215 |
| Kentucky | 214 | 210 - 217 | 211 | 212 | 212 |
| Louisiana | 214 | 211 - 217 | 214 | 213 | 213 |
| Maine | 214 | 211 - 217 | 213 | 215 | 211 |
| Maryland | 222 | 219 - 223 | 221 | 222 | 224 |
| Massachusetts | 222 | 220 - 223 | 222 | 220 | 221 |
| Michigan | 217 | 215 - 220 | 217 | 218 | 217 |
| Minnesota | 218 | 215 - 220 | 216 | 216 | 218 |
| Mississippi | 211 | 209 - 215 | 209 | 210 | 213 |
| Missouri | 215 | 212 - 218 | 214 | 213 | 214 |
| Montana | 210 | 208 - 214 | 209 | 207 | 208 |
| Nebraska | 213 | 209 - 216 | 210 | 212 | 210 |
| Nevada | 214 | 210 - 218 | 211 | 210 | 214 |
| New Hampshire | 215 | 213 - 219 | 215 | 213 | 214 |
| New Jersey | 223 | 222 - 224 | 223 | 223 | 222 |
| New Mexico | 211 | 208 - 214 | 207 | 208 | 210 |
| New York | 220 | 218 - 222 | 220 | 219 | 220 |
| North Carolina | 218 | 215 - 220 | 217 | 217 | 218 |
| North Dakota | 208 | 208 - 210 | 207 | 209 | 207 |
| Ohio | 216 | 214 - 218 | 216 | 216 | 215 |
| Oklahoma | 211 | 209 - 215 | 208 | 211 | 210 |
| Oregon | 217 | 215 - 220 | 216 | 216 | 220 |
| Pennsylvania | 219 | 217 - 221 | 219 | 218 | 218 |
| Rhode Island | 216 | 213 - 219 | 215 | 216 | 213 |
| South Carolina | 213 | 209 - 217 | 209 | 213 | 213 |
| South Dakota | 211 | 208 - 214 | 209 | 212 | 210 |
| Tennessee | 216 | 214 - 219 | 217 | 215 | 215 |
| Texas | 220 | 218 - 221 | 219 | 219 | 220 |
| Utah | 212 | 209 - 216 | 209 | 211 | 212 |
| Vermont | 213 | 210 - 217 | 212 | 213 | 211 |
| Virginia | 221 | 219 - 222 | 219 | 221 | 221 |
| Washington | 220 | 218 - 222 | 220 | 220 | 220 |
| West Virginia | 208 | 208 - 210 | 207 | 207 | 207 |
| Wisconsin | 214 | 212 - 217 | 213 | 213 | 214 |
| Wyoming | 208 | 208 - 210 | 207 | 207 | 208 |
| U.S. Territories | 208 | 208 | 207 | 207 | 207 |
| Studying Abroad | 223 | 222 - 224 | 223 | 223 | 224 |
| Commended | 208 | 208 | 207 | 207 | 207 |
[See Compass’s National Merit Historical Cutoffs post for data going back to the class of 2008, which can be helpful in comparing this year to its analogues.]
The shift to a shorter, online and adaptive exam is unlikely to wreak the havoc we saw when the “revised PSAT” was introduced 8 years ago. That test overhauled content AND scoring. The digital SAT represents a content change — mainly on Reading and Writing — but keeps the 320-1520 score range intact. The Selection Index, too, remains consistent, with the Reading and Writing score having twice the weight of the Math score.
However, for any given state, a change in cutoff is more likely than not. Historically, Semifinalist cutoffs remain unchanged only about one-third of the time.
Even in years where the Commended cutoff remains static, we see half of state cutoffs go up or down. And it is extremely improbable that the Selection Index will be static. The chart below divides the 50 states into those that saw increases (blue), those that remained unchanged (gray), and those that saw declines (red). We are likely to see a year with far more blue than gray and more gray than red.
Uncertainty around exactly which state cutoffs will change and by how much is why we encourage students to compare their scores to the full estimated range in the table above rather than to a single value (our “Most Likely”). These estimates are built from prior performance data and from data on what scores are doing nationally. State and national numbers are not always in alignment. Cutoffs are particularly bumpy in states with smaller pools of test takers and National Merit Semifinalists. Over the last 10 years, large states’ cutoffs have remained within 1 point of the prior cutoff 88% of the time. That figure drops to 73% for midsized states and 53% for small states. No large state’s cutoff has jumped by more than 3 points in a year, whereas 6-point changes have occurred in the pool of smaller states. Scores also tend to be more stable as they get higher. It is more unusual for a state to move from 221 to 222, for example, than for a state to move from 212 to 213.
What does a cutoff mean? Do I need to score at the cutoff or above it?
Students must have a Selection Index at or above the official cutoff in order to qualify for National Merit honors.
The top 52,000 to 54,000 students will receive some form of honors. National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) determines the cutoff number that comes closest to producing the target number of national honorees. This is the Commended cutoff.
How are Semifinalist cutoffs set?
Unlike the national Commended cutoff, Semifinalist cutoffs are calculated state by state. NMSC allocates the 16,000 semifinalists among states based on the annual number of high school graduates. For example, California sees about 2,000 Semifinalists every year, Michigan 500, and Wyoming 25. In each state, NMSC determines the Selection Index that comes closest to matching its target number of Semifinalists. If 1,900 California students score 222 and higher and 2,050 score 221 or higher, then the Semifinalist cutoff would be 221 (this assumes that the target is exactly 2,000). Because score levels can get crowded, it is easy for cutoffs to move up or down a point even when there is minimal change in testing behavior or performance.
No Semifinalist cutoff can be lower than the national Commended level. Cutoffs for the District of Columbia and for U.S. students studying abroad are set at the highest state cutoff (typically New Jersey). The cutoff for students in U.S. territories and possessions falls at the Commended level each year. Boarding schools are grouped by region. The cutoff for a given region is the highest state cutoff within the region.
Why does the number of top scorers vary from year to year?
While there are changes in the number of students taking the PSAT/NMSQT, there can also be small flaws in test scaling that play a role. Prior to the digital PSAT, a single test form was seen by a large percentage of test takers. Something amiss with that single form could impact selection cutoffs across the country. The digital PSAT is constructed differently. Students receive unique form codes drawn from a large pool of problems. Scaled scores are generated based on the characteristics of those problems. In theory, this should make scores more stable. College Board’s early studies have found an extremely high correlation between the paper-and-pencil test and digital test. Still, even with its adaptive nature, the uncertainty remains as to whether the much shorter test can reliably score students at the 700-760 end of the scale. It appears that the class of 2025 is roughly average compared to the classes of 2017 to 2024 (the years after the change from the 2400 to 1520 scale).
Will test cancellations raise or lower qualifying scores for the National Merit Scholarship Program?
College Board’s online systems failed under load on one of the biggest testing days. There was also a bug that prevented iPads on the latest operating system from submitting exams. We do not know how many schools or students simply gave up and did not retest on rescheduled dates. If the cancellations increase the number of students pursuing alternate entry (see Compass’s explanation of National Merit alternate entry) then cutoffs could rise. Alternate entrants tend to have higher scores, because they can submit SAT scores through June 2024 to enter the competition. They must apply by April.
When are National Merit Semifinalists announced?
The Commended cutoff becomes unofficially known by the end of April. The lists of Semifinalists are not distributed to high schools until the end of August. NMSC sets a press embargo on Semifinalist announcement until mid-September, but schools are allowed to notify students before that date. NMSC does not send Commended Student letters to high schools until mid-September. Compass will keep students updated on developments as those dates approach.
Do state and national percentiles indicate whether I will be a National Merit Semifinalist?
No! Approximately 1% of test takers qualify as Semifinalists each year, so it is tempting to view a 99th percentile score as indicating a high enough score — especially now that College Board provides students with percentiles by state. There are any number of flaws that rule out using percentiles as a quick way of determining National Merit status.
- Percentiles are based on section scores or total score, not Selection Index
- Percentiles are rounded. There is a large difference, from a National Merit perspective, between the top 0.51% and the top 1.49%
- Percentiles reveal the percentage of students at or below a certain score, but the “at” part is important when NMSC is determining cutoffs.
- The number of Semifinalists is based on the number of high school graduates in a state, not the number of PSAT takers. Percentiles are based on PSAT takers. States have widely varying participation rates.
- Most definitive of all: Percentiles do not reflect the current year’s scores! They are based on the prior 3 years’ performance. They are set even before the test is given. And if you are going to use prior history, why not use the completely accurate record of prior National Merit cutoffs rather than the highly suspect percentiles?
Entry requirements for National Merit versus qualifying for National Merit.
Your PSAT/NMSQT score report tells you whether you meet the eligibility requirements for the NMSP. In general, juniors taking the October PSAT are eligible. If you have an asterisk next to your Selection Index, it means that your answers to the entrance questions have made you ineligible. Your answers are conveniently noted on your score report. If you think there is an error, you will also find instructions on how to contact NMSC. Meeting the eligibility requirements simply means that your score will be considered. Approximately 1.4 million students enter the competition each year. Only about 52,000 students will be named as Commended Students, Semifinalists, Finalists, or Scholars. See National Merit Explained for more information.
Hi Art
Now that we have all of the numbers, could identify the regions National Merit uses, specifically which states (I’m thinking of boarding schools) are in Maryland’s region
Thanks
rca,
I should know this, but I can’t find a definitive list. I believe New England is also joined with Mid-Atlantic.
Art,
Thanks for the cutoff list and very useful analysis. You mentioned that “As the state with the highest cutoff, it also determines the DC cutoff and the international cutoff.” Did you mean the cutoff for DC is determined by cutoff for Maryland?
NMSC puts guide rails on the lowest and highest cutoffs. No state or selection unit cutoff can fall below the Commended cutoff. No selection unit cutoff can fall above the highest state cutoff. DC, boarding schools, international students, and U.S. Territories and Commonwealths are examples of selection units that follow these guidelines. Maryland doesn’t always determine the DC cutoff; it just so happens that Maryland has the highest state cutoff this year.
Is the Maryland cutoff of 224 a definitive number, do we know that for 100% certainty? It just seems so odd considering other states that are similar to Maryland every year are at 222 or below for their cutoffs. If my daughter has a 222 and my son has a 221, what do you feel their chances are in Maryland for semifinalist status?
Is there a chance the 224 number is definitely wrong?
Thanks for your great information,
TH
TH,
I haven’t seen the original document, so I don’t want to claim 100% certainty. However, everything I know about the list of cutoffs checks out.
The 224 does seem odd. The fact that DC is also 224, however, makes me think it wasn’t a typo. Canceled PSATs, Alternate Entry, and a concentrated set of NMSFs allow for some unusual possibilities. Hopefully your students’ school(s) can give more clarity. They may be more forthcoming as of the 15th. You can be assured that I’ll post it clear and loud if we find out that 224 is a mistake.
I believe that in a typical year, the NM competition rules are fairly strict about all PSAT testing being completed in October. I am trying to understand how the scores for students who took the PSAT in October 2020 can be aggregated with those of students who had an additional 3 months of learning, leading up to the January PSAT. Despite the crazy year that so many students (including my child) had during a year of virtual schooling, there is no doubt that that additional time provided an opportunity to learn new concepts (particularly, at least in my son’s case, in math). Our school offered the PSAT in person in October 2020, with Covid protocols, and encouraged all juniors to take it. By the time he took the SAT in March 2021, his math score had improved considerably. I can’t help but wonder how his PSAT score might have been different had the PSAT been administered at his school in January, so it’s surprising to me that there has been no mention (at least that I have seen) of the potential differences in scoring between who took the test in October and those who had the benefit of the additional three months of learning time. (If the Commended cutoff holds up, it looks like he will make it; he’s going to miss the semifinalist cutoff in our state, though.)
Missy,
There has been less discussion of Oct vs Jan than PSAT versus Alternate Entry partly because much of the debate about the January impact happened earlier this year. You’re right that scores improve over time and with practice. The problem NMSC faced was disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of students who had no ability to take the October PSAT. That would have been a wildly unpopular outcome with, among others, the National Merit sponsors who pay the bills. It’s hard to imagine a plan that would have pleased everyone. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that accepting PSAT and SAT scores from all students might have worked. Yes, you still have the problem of some students having taken and October PSAT being compared to a March SAT, but at least it gives the choice to the student.
I’m sorry that your son didn’t qualify as a NMSF, but he will be a Commended Student (the 207 is for sure). And it sounds like he did great on the SAT!
The most difficult aspect of this is seeing that students are disappointed with their outcomes. We can debate the merits of how NMSC handled the situation, but at the end of the day, I am trying to help my son put things into the same perspective that you did. Thanks so much for helping parents and students navigate yet another unforeseen consequence of the pandemic!
You are very welcome! Perspective can take time. I’ve had decades of practice.
If it helps, student that took PSAT and submitted AE, at the same time, were considered only based on PSAT. This is especially interesting for students with PSAT selection index lower than cutoff and AE selection index higher than cut off. I believe that there are many students in this category as well and probably larger than 1.8% (AE portion) of semifinalist.
Thank you, Art, for all you do.
Correct. AE is only for students who were not able to take the PSAT. Students who took the PSAT and did much better on the SAT are understandably frustrated.
The casual way you worked in the 1.8% tells me that’s cited somewhere. Has NM officially given that figure. I know that Sonia, in these comments, was told 1%, but I’d expect a NM rep to round down. Do you have a link? Thanks. Sure seems like it should be higher than 300 students nationwide, but I may just be biased by my California perspective.
Yes, I called NM, since we received “National Merit Scholar Family Guide” from University of Oklahoma as well. Knowing that this year was going to be anything but normal, especially in California, we anticipated that some rules will be bent. That is why my daughter applied for AE as well. Again thank you.
Thanks for the added information. I’m sure I’ll be quoting it!
I called NM and asked them the direct question about “what percent AE” and they wouldn’t answer.
“AE is only for students who were not able to take the PSAT.”
I think it’s extremely important to note that this is not completely true. A certain college advisory company widely advised students to cancel their PSAT, and CB/NMC seemed quite open to this, as with AE, compared to past years.
Sending an “I was anxious about COVID and couldn’t concentrate, please cancel my score”, followed by multiple SAT attempts, certainly occurred. It was possibly quite widespread.
Thanks for reminding me of this, Rich. I clearly tried to forget this less-than-ethical behavior.
Hi Art!
I was also told yesterday that we could have canceled by son’s PSAT at anytime before his scores were released. Obviously, this made me more upset as I had sent him in with a headache and some Advil and mentioned this on the phone when I called National Merit. I was basically told in January that nothing could be done. Now I am being told that a student can cancel if they feel they did not perform to the best of their abilities for any reason . The supervisor said anyone who answered the phone would have told me that. So many inconsistencies that make students feel this was not fair cycle. I would love to know how many of the semifinalists from CA were AE vs PSAT takers.
I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with this, Sonia.
It seems quite unreasonable that only 1.8% of all semifinalist were from AE. The cutoff for California should have been well under 221, even if all 300 AE semifinalist were from California. I will take this percentage with grain of salt. Maybe, NM representatives are intentionally muddying the waters.
It does strain credulity. It will be interesting to look at the released lists by school. We know certain schools, for example, had no PSATs. Every qualifier at those schools would presumably be AE.
I can believe that 1.8% of all score submissions were AEs, but I do not believe that 1.8% of students who ultimately qualified as NMSFs were selected through AE. The students who applied through AE were a self selecting group, and as a result, the ratio of score submissions to NMSF selection will be significantly higher in the AE group.
I do not have a problem with AE, but I really wish that NMSC worked to clamp down on the abuse this past fall.
Kim,
Your interpretation sounds like a good one. There were a bit fewer than 1 million entrants this year (versus 1.5M in a typical year), so 1.8% would be 18,000. That feels like the proper order of magnitude for AE entrants. NMSC clearly wants to spin 1.8% as a small number, but 18,000 highly-qualified SAT takers were bound to have impacted the results in many states.
I am so sad; I was holding out hope that a 221 was going to be enough in New Jersey this year. 🙁
That person who claimed they made it with a 221 on Reddit never replied again, huh?
I understand your disappointment. I hope you still take pride in your 221.
No, not that I saw.
Just curious – what kind of a counseling office receives a full breakdown of NMS cutoff scores by state?
Traditionally principals are sent a guide that includes cutoffs. I didn’t encounter one in the wild this year, but apparently some schools received something similar.
Do we know if AE will be allowed for this year for the class of 2023? Our school is offering the PSAT and SAT on the same day and since I am worried about cancellation (due to covid and/or fire – I am from CA) for the regular SAT I registered for in Oct / Nov / Dec. My school will likely not cancel the School SAT on Oct 13 and I am considering registering for it instead of the PSAT. I am a Junior ready to test and want to be done with SAT this fall but don’t want to miss out on PSAT.
C,
Alternate Entry will be around; the unknown is how strictly NMSC will interpret the wording. “If you do not take the 2021 PSAT/NMSQT because of illness, an emergency, or other extenuating circumstance, you may still be able to enter the 2023 National Merit Scholarship Program.” In the past, entering via AE required a good excuse. This last year was an exception. I’d imagine that NM would like to get back to normal. Please check with NMSC to see if they can offer any guidance. [And then check again the next day to make sure that you get the same guidance!] You can find the AE information for your class here. Good luck!
Art,
I ran a quick statistical analysis (Monte Carlo simulation) in order to quantify the magnitude of the advantage one gains from being allowed to report / use the highest score from multiple SAT tests. A student’s highest score after taking three SAT test would tend to be higher than that student’s score from a single SAT test by about 48-50 points (about 23-24 in Math and 25-26 in EBRW). That would be equivalent to a bump in that student’s SI of about 7+ points. The results are pretty robust under a range of reasonable assumptions. My two cents’ worth… (my way of saying ‘thank you’ for the wealth of information you provide!)
Best,
T
Tsvetan,
Thanks for the contribution. That’s in line with what I’ve found when modeling the impact of score choice and repeat testing. I don’t know if you accounted for the capped section scores when running the simulation. A 760 M scorer gets no benefit in Selection Index, for example, from a 790 M. And the R and WL are separately capped at 38 each.
We at least avoided the doomsday scenario that some worried about — 1550+ SAT scorers driving cutoffs completely out of reach of PSAT takers. [Although Maryland’s cutoff has to be wind-aided.]
I’ll add, too, that a California student would have had a better chance at winning at the roulette tables of Monte Carlo than coming up with 3 SAT dates by June. Cancelations were the norm.
Given that the true beneficiaries of multiple testing are the kids “on the bubble,” I ran the analysis (including the caps) for a hypothetical student with a “true” scores / abilities at 730M / 700V). That student’s SI would go up from 213 to about 220.
The impact of caps on the magnitude of the bump is be greater (lower) for lower (higher) scoring students. Repeated testing, however, is of limited usefulness to both tail groups.
Thanks, Tsvetan.
In this unusual year it’s incumbent on the College Board to reveal, state-by-state, what percentage of students qualified by AE and what percentage by the PSAT. CA’s 221 could be mostly the result of SAT scores such as 740 verbal and 730 math, i.e. scores only in the 95th percentile or so. This would represent a huge drop off in standards for the national merit competition; semi-finalists in CA have tended to score higher than the top one percent of test takers. California kids who scored in the top 1% (or even higher) on the Oct or Jan PSAT may have lost out to those scoring in 95th % on a SAT taken sometime in the Spring. Given the number of PSAT cancellations and people being advised strategically not to try to qualify for National Merit through the PSAT, there is a high chance that a very high percentage of CA National Merit Semi-finalists qualified on the basis of less-than-spectacular SAT scores. As others have pointed out, we are going to have a lot of people who scored in 99th percentile plus on the PSAT and on the SAT that did not qualify as a National Merit Semifinalist because their PSAT score was not high enough while their SAT score that far exceeded the cutoff can’t be counted.
It seems it would have been better to claculate the cutoffs using October’s scores and add the students that took the test in February and the alternate entries to the mix after that. October test takers are clearly disadvantaged in the mix. My son missed MO cutoff by one point despite testing in the 1% and having a much better score in the March SAT.
That was my thought, too, originally (although I probably would have included January). The results would have made some anomalies however. The number of California students able to take the October PSAT, for example, was extremely low. The resulting cutoff would have been low, and the number of qualifiers from January and Alternate Entry would have been huge. California could have ended up with an extra 2,000+ NMSFs. States that were able to pull off the PSAT, on the other hand, would have seen almost no increase in NMSFs. I think NMSC was loathe to go that route. And I can’t imagine that other states would have viewed it as fair.
My alternative would have been to allow PSAT and SAT submission (and maybe ACT if we are to be completely fair) for all students.
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the response.
Hi Art,
I am in the same camp as Sonia. I sent my student into PSAT (220) CA and she also took SAT (227). I didn’t know about AE until after she took PSAT. I feel like CA PSAT students (and I’m sure other states) got screwed.
It was a rough year in so many ways. Congratulations on your daughter’s SAT score. Ultimately it will play a much larger role in admission than her NMSF status.
Regarding Maryland: I called the NMSC office today, left a message and sent a fax lodging my protest against the outsized impact AE had on this year’s cutoff score, and proposing an alternative: Maryland PSAT takers who scored 222 or higher — equal to the highest cutoff of any other state — should be extended the opportunity to submit a confirming SAT score with an SI of 224 or above.
I did receive a call back (I do give them credit for that at least). They dispute that AE in any way raises scores, they use College Board as cover for that, and, as expected, stand by the process. Furthermore, they would not tell me the proportion of semi-finalists in Maryland who came from AE and said they will never release that information.
Beth,
The folks at NMSC really care about the program and about students, so I don’t want to paint them as the bad guys. That roll is played by COVID-19. That said, I wish they’d be more open and honest. Let’s break down Maryland.
The NMSFs in Maryland are highly concentrated. Montgomery County Public Schools had 157 Semifinalists last year. That’s more than half the state’s total. MCPS canceled the PSAT this year because of the public health crisis. I’m sure there were other schools in Maryland that canceled, but let’s pretend it was only MCPS. If we were to believe that AE applicants had no impact on cutoffs, then it would require the other 50% of schools to have generated a 224 SI all by themselves. That’s nonsensical. You can’t halve the number of likely qualifiers while seeing the cutoff hit a 50-state, multi-year record.
I want to make clear that AE students deserve to be Semifinalists. It would be terribly unfair to take half the slate of likely qualifiers and tell them, “Sorry, the pandemic means you don’t get to enter.” [Again, I’m sure it’s much more than half when other cancelations are factored in.]
Other NMSC representatives have said that NMSC did, indeed, factor in AE scores. That’s almost certainly the case.
The way in which NMSC handled AE scores, though, seems to have biased the results in favor of SAT takers. This year was a scenario no one saw coming. “How to administer National Merit in the event of a global pandemic” was not in the playbook. It’s understandable that NMSC had to make adjustments and that some of those adjustments would seem unfair or would produce discordant results. I wish they had made different choices.
I was worried that this would happen in Virginia (we live just over the border from Maryland BTW, thankfully as it turns out) and Fairfax County typically has over 50% of the Semifinalists every year. Thank fully it looks like we stayed the same at 221 but not sure what made VA and MD so different.
Yes, Virginia has me confused, as well. The same can be said about California. My best guess right now is that the overlap of canceled tests and motivated AE applicants was particularly high in MD. California students also had a hard time taking the SAT. Not sure how things were in the spring in VA.
The alternative scenario that this was all about PSAT performance in Maryland doesn’t hold up. Let’s say that this year’s test was particularly easy and a 224 cutoff was possible. Why didn’t we see this reflected anywhere else? And how could that level be reached with so few students? I don’t see any plausible explanation beyond AE (or NM played around with the number of students used in calculating the cutoffs). Suggestions welcome!
My interpretation, FWIW: The commended score cutoff went down 2 points from 2021. But only 8 states had semifinalist cutoffs that went down 2 or more points, and many of these were the smaller, more volatile states (Alaska, Rhode Island, Montana, North Dakota, Maine…).
What do we make of this??
I only see 2 possible explanations. Perhaps the pandemic negatively affected those who would traditionally score in the 97th-98th percentile, while those at the very top found a way to get their tests in. More plausibly, though, is that the NMSC took into account AE for awarding semifinalist status more robustly than in their computation of commended status (which, after all, was done prior to many AE submissions).
The first part of your post, in my opinion, is linked to the second part. I agree that the Semifinalist marks were propped up by AE, whereas the Commended level was not (or was to a lesser degree). That’s why we saw the expected drop in Commended score — even from the class of 2021’s unusually low mark. Commended students are highly concentrated in the large, high-scoring states (large score differentials between the national Commended level and the statewide Semifinalist levels). California, alone, had more than 7,200 Commended students last year, and 6 states accounted for half the total. To the extent that those states saw fewer PSAT takers, the overall Commended level was bound to fall. Since the Commended level was set before (or right around) the AE deadline and before most AE SAT scores were received, it’s unlikely that SAT scores played much of a role. For Semifinalist cutoffs, we have strong evidence that SAT scores did play a role in preventing large drops (or creating odd increases).
Your other theory may have played a small role. For the October PSAT, score distributions were as expected, despite the far lower number of testers. In other words, the pandemic seemed to impact the full swath of students. On the other hand, January may not have been so even. I don’t have the final numbers for that test. Anecdotally, some schools did try harder to make room for their NM candidates when offering the January PSAT. That’s probably a rounding error on the larger movements.
Art,
The question is not if “AE (SAT only) students deserve to be finalist”. The question is should AE students with SAT 1500 have an higher selection index than a student with PSAT 1450 and SAT 1600. I asked this question in March if you remember.
That’s why I now think NMSC should have treated all students as AE candidates. Otherwise, I just don’t know of a fair way to decide that 1500 SAT is as good as a 1450 PSAT but not as good as a 1480 PSAT or a 1500 PSAT. Percentiles are not the solution.
And that’s why NMSC folks are not bad guys, but they owe an apology to many students and their families.
I think it’s worth mentioning that not only does MCPS have over half the NMSF in any given year, but that the SAT scores are oftentimes even higher, with many students missing out on NMSF simply due to MD’s historically high cutoffs. This year, if all of those 1500+ scorers applied for AE, and believe me, there are A TON of them especially concentrated at a few select magnet schools, NMSC would have had no choice but to factor in AE or there would’ve been at least double the usual number of MD NMSF in Montgomery County alone. It’s also worth mentioning that PG County (second largest) and Howard County also cancelled the PSAT. While neither one of these districts has even close to the same number of NMSF as Moco, they do have enough to a point AE entrants could have also increased the cutoff.
Thanks, MoCo Res. I heard similar information from another reader. This is almost certainly how Maryland ended up with such an outlier of a cutoff. I don’t know which schools were able to offer a PSAT, but my guess is that they’ll end up with a smaller number of Semifinalists this year.
As you surmised, it wasn’t just Montgomery County that cancelled. Howard County and others plus our top private schools. Based on last year’s results it was most of the schools that regularly produce semi- finalist. When I scratched off all the cancelled schools from last years list it was literally a handful of kids left. Our county did run but we never have more than a negligible number. However, I could see on all the school websites that cancelled — they made a big push for AE. Not sure what the fair answer is here but this does not seem to be it.
Thanks for the added color, Terri T. I figured there were more. Maryland stayed pretty locked down during the winter surge.
Wait so they admitted that the Maryland cutoff was 224? If I were to call them regarding my state would I also be able to find out the cutoff score?
Hi,
Do we have any idea what the confirming SAT cutoff will be for semi finalists to advance?
Amanda,
NMSC has not officially said a number, but it has said that it will not be higher than the lowest Semifinalist number. That’s a wink-wink way of saying that it will be a 207 SAT Selection Index or comparable ACT.
Ahhh, I get it! Thanks so much.
Hi Art – isn’t it likely that cutoffs are down in so many states because designating the same 16k Semifinalists from a testing/AE pool that’s much smaller than the 1.6M average number of PSAT-takers means that you’d go deeper into selection index ranking to get the 16k same total number of qualifiers? And that this year’s lucky group of PSAT/AE qualifiers aggregate to more than the typically targeted 1% of total test takers? If the numerator number of qualifiers is constant and the denominator of test takers has declined, it must be so, right?
True, fewer entrants means lower scores. This was notable even pre-COVID when comparing states with low-participation rates with those with high-participation rates. What’s not as straightforward is that cutoffs are not down uniformly. In fact, cutoffs are up in almost as many states as they are down. And we would have expected a state such as California to have a much lower cutoff had only PSAT scores been used. The x-factor is the addition of AE students. According to recently obtained NM data, 895,000 students entered the competition via the PSAT/NMSQT. Even if we assume that high-scoring students were a little more likely to take the exam, there would be a giant void. As you say, instead of the top 1% of test-takers, you’d be taking the top 1.6%. AE, though, throws that equation out the window, since those entrants are uniformly high scoring. I’m guessing that we saw 15-20K AE applicants. In a few states, more than half of the NMSFs are likely AE students.
Thanks, Art. Confirming what you’ve heard as the number of PSAT test-takers this year: 985k per this reply above and 895k per table you posted this morning.
Guessing table is correct and that means 16.7k semifinalists divided by (895k PSAT entrants + 25k guess AE entrants) = 1.8% test takers/AE entrants vs NMSC goal of 1% top test takers. It was a good year to enter through AE.
Table is correct. Thanks for catching the typo.
For AE, yes. It was a rough year in many places to apply as a regular PSAT entrant. The 895K + 25K aren’t really additive as a useful denominator, since the 25K is such an elite group.
As data people, wouldn’t we all love to disaggregate the qualifiers by PSAT vs AE.
Let’s guess it’s half of the 16k semifinalists from each route. That would mean 8k/900k PSAT = .9% of PSAT takers qualified as NMSF and 8k/25k (AE guess) = 32% of SAT takers qualified as NMSF via AE. Lots of guessing, but makes your point about the elite nature of AE entrants.
Sounds about right. If we assume that the PSAT takers scored similarly to prior years (and my Oct showed that they did), and most cutoffs ultimately came in just below historical norms, then that produces around 9-10K PSAT qualifiers. The AE qualifiers were concentrated in the states with the most cancelations.
And that seems to mean that PSAT takers were not disadvantaged, as the top 1% of PSAT takers likely qualified as semifinalists.
It’s different ways of looking at it. For the most part, Semifinalists this year did not have to score higher than Semifinalists in prior years. That goes to your point. On the other hand, AE students were advantaged by being able to use SAT scores.
Hello,
Do you have the cutoff score for class of 2022 for Outside the US?
Thanks,
Ljohn
Ljohn,
The U.S. Students Studying Abroad cutoff, like the DC cutoff, falls at the highest state cutoff. That means that it is 224 this year.
Question: for students who applied via AE using SAT scores, is the verbal score based on each subscore or is it based on the total verbal score? For example, if a student scored 730 on Verbal with 33 on Reading and 40 on Writing…is the student’s Verbal score for purposes of AE 33+38= 71 or is it just 730/10=73?
JB,
The section scores are capped individually, so it is 33+38=71.
Hi Art,
Thank you for all the meticulously gathered information. Now that we know the cutoffs, does the Commended SI of 207 make sense? It appears too low. Not saying this because I want fewer students to get Commended; just calling into question NMSC methodology. There are some pieces to this process that appear capricious and opaque. Are parents allowed to do a FOIA to get information or is this moot because they are a private organization? Thanks.
FJ,
It does make sense. First, there is a possibility that NMSC did not consider AE scores when setting the Commended score. The Commended level is set no later than April, when NMSC sends initial eligibility checklists to high schools. Even if NMSC had received some AE scores, it certainly would not have received all of them.
Also, the AE applicants would have been unlikely to have offset the drop in PSAT takers. Large, high scoring states produce a disproportionate number of Commended Students (think of how many Californians there are between the Commended level and the NMSF level). But I doubt that many students with a 1400 SAT bothered to apply, and it’s unlikely that those applicants offset all of students who weren’t able to take the PSAT (and would normally have qualified for Commended). So when NMSC took the top 50,000 of students, it had to go lower than it usually would. The AE applicants would have offset that dip at the SF level.
Hello Art,
Is there one boarding school group, or multiple groups? (i.e. Northeast boarding schools, Mid-Atlantic boarding schools, etc.) And is the NMSF cutoff for each region, or all boarding schools?
Thanks,
James
James,
There are cutoffs for each boarding school region, with the cutoff determined by the highest state cutoff within that region. I can’t seem to come up with an accurate list of the current regions, but the boarding school cutoffs ranged from 219 to 224 this year.
Disagree with you, Art, on the idea that AE entrants can deserve to be semi-finalists. Perhaps in some cases, but not in what is likely to be a huge number of cases in which an AE candidate becomes a semi-finalist over someone with a higher SAT score that they cannot count because they took the PSAT on which they may well have scored in a higher percentile than the Semifinalist did on their SAT which they used for AE. The College Board has done a miserable job of adjusting to the pandemic and cost deserving students big scholarship money. Anger builds every year against the College Board; this fiasco has likely hastened its demise.
In this case, it is National Merit, rather than College Board, responsible for the (bad) decision making. College Board already has enough mistakes that it can claim as its own.
I fully agree. My son has a 1540 SAT March score and he is out of National Merit by one point because he took the PSAT in October. There should have been a way for people like him to qualify.
All this raises two questions for me.
1. How many people have been gaming the system each year by calling in “sick” on PSAT day so that they could choose among their highest SAT scores to submit via Alternative Entry? Have some of the testing companies (not Compass of course) been hinting to their customers to do this? Or has the trick if it has been used just spread through word-of-mouth?
2. I am also confused why each wrong math answer on the January PSAT cost 20 points while a wrong math answer on the SAT costs only 10 points. At least that was in the case of my child’s PSAT and SAT which at 1550 (790 ERW, 760 Math) would yielded a perfect 228 NMSC Selection Index.
1) I’m sure that there have some who have suggested sicking out in the past, but there was at least the need to work through the college counselor to be approved. That was not true this year. I am concerned that all of the AE discussion this year has spread the idea for future years. Let’s hope not.
2) The test scales can have anomalies at their extremes. If a PSAT form is a little easier, for example, than another PSAT form, even 1 wrong can drop a student 20 points (or more in extreme cases).
Hi Art.
I want to thank you for all the support and info you provide in this blog.
It has been very helpful for my senior and helped us a lot psychologically while we were waiting for results on NMSF.
She qualified in FL, with 1480 PSAT (1550 confirming SAT) , hooray!
Elena.
Congratulations to your senior, Elena! I’m glad that I could help pass the time.
Pretty sure CA could have filled up FL’s whole class of semifinalists with people with scores above FL’s 217 cutoff and below CA’s 221 cutoff. A very rough day for Californians who made the mistake of taking the PSAT in their state. Can’t see Californians ever taking the PSAT again. The National Merit council has destroyed their PSAT test.
Many semifinalists in CA deserved their place regardless of their AE status. Not allowing AE at all would neglect students who were terrified to attend school because of poor COVID-19 precautions and protocols in schools in October and January, especially for immunosuppressed students. Since the cutoff took AE into account, nothing would change for PSAT test takers as we see California be the same cutoff as it was last year. I don’t quite understand your frustration on this question; if your daughter wanted to submit her SAT score, she should have, but she chose to take PSAT.
From, an immunosuppressed California student
Arkansas semifinalists
https://237995-729345-1-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/22-AR-Semifinalists-NatlMeritProgram.pdf
Thank you, Heather!
Hi Art,
The this link posted Maryland’s full semifinalists for class 2022:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-national-merit-20210915-fyv6lp6sobgwxdw5nf7pgsbobm-story.html
What caught my eyes is that most schools on the list have entire student body with “000” as future interested major. I think “000” means undecided.
In normal years, these three digit codes vary as students picked different interested area to study in colleges. When entered with AE using SAT scores, there is no place to indicate such interested area, thus I guess NMSC puts all AE entries as “000”. Again, this is just my assumption. If that holds true, probably >95% semifinalists in Maryland comes from AE as I only saw a handful none “000” next to student names.
Always appreciate your insights and extremely helpful information on Compass Prep!
Good eye. I looked at last year’s lists, and about 1/3 of students had 000. There were some schools where every student had 000, even where I know the PSAT was given. Students are not required to provide the personal information.
So while we can’t say that every 000 means an AE Semifinalist, we can say that (a) every AE Semifinalist is 000 and (b) it provides further confirmation of how few students were able to take the PSAT in Maryland.
I counted roughly 4% with a non-000 code. If we assume that PSAT registrants provided personal information at the same rate as in prior years, 1-2% of Maryland Semifinalists took the PSAT and were labeled 000 (one-third of those with non-000 codes). That would give an estimate of 94% of Semifinalists in MD coming from the AE pool.
To see the affect of AE in Maryland: Almost every Montgomery County Maryland public high school – where they did not administer the PSAT, and so students have to be AE – has *double* the number of semi-finalists this year. By contrast, a number of Maryland private schools do not have any, despite having several in the past. (And I can confirm that 000 does not necessarily mean that the student submitted AE).
Thanks, Anon.
Art, you write: “There were some schools where every student had 000, even where I know the PSAT was given. Students are not required to provide the personal information.” I would think more likely than these students not giving personal information would be some students at this school knowing to cancel their PSAT score after they took the PSAT and use Alternate Entry for National Merit competition. In other words, the pandemic is now revealing that the National Merit competition has long been gamed and lost by suckers.
Art,
Why don’t you advise class of 2023 to skip or cancel PSAT? All students need to know that AE SAT gives them a better chance to NMS? I think it will only make NMS competition healthier.
G,
It’s a question I’ve wrestled with, but ultimately I think it’s a misuse of the AE process to voluntarily cancel or skip the exam. If every student in the country followed the rule, then it might be fair. It’s more likely that it would squeeze out many students for whom National Merit is vital. And to the extent that it creates inequities, it ultimately threatens the National Merit program.
Well, when you don’t qualify with two SAT exams, each with 228 selection index, because your PSAT selection index is lower than some cutoff made of other AE SATs, you kind of lose faith in the system (if there is one). It is NMSC that is seriously threatening the future of NM program. We all recall how they lost support of many decent universities last two decades.
Jus curious – how did a Us Territories student earn Commended status with a cutoff score of 207?
I’m scratching my head on that one, too. I’ve seen it before, but don’t have a good explanation. Perhaps it’s some eligibility/validation issue that allows the student to be Commended but not Semifinalist.
Hi Art,
Thanks for all the work you’ve put into compiling this information for students and parents, it really means a lot! I found out today via a local media outlet that I qualified as a NMSF. However, I’ve yet to receive any official confirmation from my school, and when I asked someone who works in our counseling office if they’ve received any news, she told me that they still haven’t gotten the letters in the mail. Should I be worried? Is it worth calling the NMSC to ask about my status, and do you think they’ll grant me access to my application? This opportunity really means a lot to me, and I’d hate to miss out on a scholarship because I couldn’t meet the application deadline.
Congratulations! You should not be worried at all. The important is that you know you are a Semifinalist. The rest will sort itself out and is not uncommon.
Unless things have changed recently, NMSC will not give you the information directly. If the letter doesn’t show up at your school, they’ll coordinate getting a new letter. I’d check in again with your school next week and then contact NMSC. The Finalist application is straightforward, so you’ve got plenty of time.
Hi Art,
Actually if you call NMSC they are giving out information directly (upon providing personal ID info).
Good to hear, AJ. Thanks for the information.
Do the National Merit people recognize that they have effectively punished people who went to great lengths to take their PSAT test in October or January? If my daughter could have used her SAT score, her selection index number would have been 228. But she can’t use that number because she took the PSAT. And the fact that she scored in the 99th+ percentile on the January PSAT is not good enough to be a semi-finalist. So the National Merit people ended up treating badly people who took their own PSAT seriously. They should do something to course correct.
how have they punished kids who took their PSAT in January? they explicitly stated that you could either take the PSAT or submit an SAT score. The 221 SI is effectively the same as last year, when there were ONLY PSAT test takers and a few AE entries.