Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School

[Anonymous]

An idea: For future years, update the common lottery algorithm to add a new "preference" for the school you ranked #1. Just like a sibling or in-bound preference, you would get a preference at the school you ranked #1 over all other applicants who did not rank that school #1. This preference would come after all other preferences (so, you'd be after sibling, in-bound preferences, but before people who do not have any preference).

This helps more students get into the school they ranked #1. It's fair because everybody can only put one single school in their #1 spot, so everybody gets to pick that one school they want this extra preference at. If you don't get an initial match at your #1 school, you would still have a better wait list number at your #1 school than those who did not rank that school #1.

Some strategy involved. If you put a school with a long wait list #1 (YY, MV, CMI, etc.), you are taking a bigger risk because while you have an improved chance to get into that school, you may end up "wasting" your #1 preference if you don't get in. But, put a school with an average size wait list that likely would have fewer people giving it their #1 preference (maybe Haynes, Lee, etc.), then you are much more likely to get in.

I think adding this new preference would really help balance out some of the lotto luck that comes from having a common lottery where you get one and only one lotto #. While it's adds one more wrinkle of complexity to school choice, its still simple enough that everybody can understand it, and shouldn't be too much difficulty to implement mathematically because the algorithm already is capable of handling preferences.

[Anonymous]

That makes no sense and it would also mean that should your kid not match at their #1 spot they get stuck to the back of the line for their #2 spot. It would mean parents would need to spend hours figuring out which schools most OTHER parents would be applying for because if they don't, their kid then gets stuck at the back of the pack....

Moreover, what's the point? Are you more deserving of a place because you want it more?

[Anonymous]

No.

Your system would make it impossible for anyone to get into many schools unless they ranked it #1 and requires people to game the system by not ranking their choices by their true preferences.

Think about your example, where you have ranked Mundo Verde your first choice. Mundo Verde admits its siblings, then turns to the 200 people who ranked it number one and starts moving through those names. If you don't get in, the algorithm goes to your second choice school, Yu Ying. Well, Yu ying is full of people who ranked it first, so you're not getting in there. Your third choice was DC Bilingual, but some people figured the odds were too long on MV, so they put DCB first. Your third pick isnt going to get you anywhere at DCB, either. And so on, until you wind up at your in-bounds school or some school that is low-ranked enough that everyone who put it as a first (or second, or third, or fifth) choice actually went through all those applicants.

[Anonymous]

Never going to happen. It would lead to strategic ranking.

[Anonymous]

You can do this now. You only put down one school. Your IB is the default.

Then again, you are probably only thinking about PS3 and pk4, right OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never going to happen. It would lead to strategic ranking.

Exactly - the reason people won a Nobel prize for designing these lotteries is that they created a fair system with no incentives for strategic rankings. Instead you rank based on true preference, which is much better than the strategy and gaming that you suggest.

That doesn't mean that it isn't painful when you don't get into your top choice and someone who is meh about it gets in

[Anonymous]

Terrible idea. Completely takes away the inherent fairness of everyone getting an equal shot

[Anonymous]

The common lottery is also still relatively new. Switching rules up every couple of years is not helpful.

It will benefit those with the most time and energy to research each year's new wrinkle and disadvantage those who most need better choices for their kids.

[Anonymous]

If anyone wants to read up on the algorithm, here's a good explanation and history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/nyregion/how-game-theory-helped-improve-new-york-city-high-school-application-process.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

OP = not a Nobel prize winner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP = not a Nobel prize winner

Oh, come on. She was just brainstorming an idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP = not a Nobel prize winner

Oh, come on. She was just brainstorming an idea.

An idea that shows zero understanding of how the lottery works. Okay.

[Anonymous]

OP - I'm thinking mostly about PK3 or PK4, especially true for places like Brookland, Petworth, etc. where there are many great charter options and most people are likely to rank multiple charters ahead of their DCPS IB option. I doubt there is a common consensus on which charter is everybody's #1 (this data isn't available, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least 10 schools that had at least 5% of Ward 4 and 5 applicants rank it #1).

So, just run through the thought exercise of what this change would mean (and I'm not seriously proposing it - encouraging people to rank in anything but their true order of preference is going to be a non-starter). But, with this system, I think it would help a lot more people than it would hurt.

End result, your chance of getting into your #1 ranked school increases greatly. A lot more people will match with their #1 option than under the current system. But, it significantly reduces your chance at non-IB options you rank between #2 and wherever your in-bound is ranked. This also probably means that more families who don't get into their #1 end up at the DCPS IB school, which depending on where you stand in the public v public-charter debate, is probably a good thing in the long-run.

I also think this may make the lotto process much less time consuming and stressful. Decide which charter or OOB DCPS you want to rank #1 (risk versus reward prop), then rank your IB #2. Done. No more debating your 4th ranked versus 5th ranked versus 6th ranked preference, because in this system, it is not likely to matter at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - I'm thinking mostly about PK3 or PK4, especially true for places like Brookland, Petworth, etc. where there are many great charter options and most people are likely to rank multiple charters ahead of their DCPS IB option. I doubt there is a common consensus on which charter is everybody's #1 (this data isn't available, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least 10 schools that had at least 5% of Ward 4 and 5 applicants rank it #1).

So, just run through the thought exercise of what this change would mean (and I'm not seriously proposing it - encouraging people to rank in anything but their true order of preference is going to be a non-starter). But, with this system, I think it would help a lot more people than it would hurt.

End result, your chance of getting into your #1 ranked school increases greatly. A lot more people will match with their #1 option than under the current system. But, it significantly reduces your chance at non-IB options you rank between #2 and wherever your in-bound is ranked. This also probably means that more families who don't get into their #1 end up at the DCPS IB school, which depending on where you stand in the public v public-charter debate, is probably a good thing in the long-run.

I also think this may make the lotto process much less time consuming and stressful. Decide which charter or OOB DCPS you want to rank #1 (risk versus reward prop), then rank your IB #2. Done. No more debating your 4th ranked versus 5th ranked versus 6th ranked preference, because in this system, it is not likely to matter at all.

How do you figure this? I'm not following how you think an add'l pref is going to fix the fundamental problem of demand outpacing supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - I'm thinking mostly about PK3 or PK4, especially true for places like Brookland, Petworth, etc. where there are many great charter options and most people are likely to rank multiple charters ahead of their DCPS IB option. I doubt there is a common consensus on which charter is everybody's #1 (this data isn't available, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least 10 schools that had at least 5% of Ward 4 and 5 applicants rank it #1).

So, just run through the thought exercise of what this change would mean (and I'm not seriously proposing it - encouraging people to rank in anything but their true order of preference is going to be a non-starter). But, with this system, I think it would help a lot more people than it would hurt.

End result, your chance of getting into your #1 ranked school increases greatly. A lot more people will match with their #1 option than under the current system. But, it significantly reduces your chance at non-IB options you rank between #2 and wherever your in-bound is ranked. This also probably means that more families who don't get into their #1 end up at the DCPS IB school, which depending on where you stand in the public v public-charter debate, is probably a good thing in the long-run.

I also think this may make the lotto process much less time consuming and stressful. Decide which charter or OOB DCPS you want to rank #1 (risk versus reward prop), then rank your IB #2. Done. No more debating your 4th ranked versus 5th ranked versus 6th ranked preference, because in this system, it is not likely to matter at all.

If one's only choices are effectively their #1 preference and their IB, a ton of people would start moving out of DC, which isn't what DC wants.