Did everyone land?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the "switching" problem? I have no desire to read 25 pages to see if this term is defined. It was not in the cited page.

There's a mechanism to switch options if two kids are admitted to different schools but they each have a higher preference for the other. If you run separate lotteries you can't do that, as you would have to jump the waitlist to pull a kid up. With a unified lottery it works out and benefits both parties.

All of this was gone over in that thread. There are still only x number of seats for y number of students. The common lottery does not change the odds of you getting in to any school. It just simplifies the process, prevents shuffling, and distills your odds into a single number, instead of a whole bunch spread out over different waitlists. When you enter your odds are the same under either system.

Where is your cite for this being how the Common Lottery was run this year? In the bazillion threads on this (including some people who were specifically speaking to Common Lottery staff about it), it was made crystal clear that that switching wasn't happening, which actually is a huge bummer. It was clarified over and over again that the ONLY way that your own ranking of the schools on your list matters to what school you actually end up in is that if you get into one of your higher choices, you are dropped from consideration for all choices below.

You are describing a system where, once the lottery does it's thing, the program actually looks to see how everyone ranked their choices and where one student got a slot at a school they ranked #4 and another student got a spot at a different school they ranked #4, the computer would look at their higher choices to see if each student ranked the other student's school 1-3, and if so, swtich the students so they get one of their better choices. Nothing anyone said as the lottery was being rolled out indicated that this "switching" was going to happen. I really like the idea of switching, but it was made pretty clear that wasn't part of the actual process this year.

What is your source for saying that indeed that is what happened?

New poster, I believe you are correct. I think the system doesn't have "mutually beneficial trades" because under the algorithm there are no equivalent swaps. There will always be one student that has a better combination of number+preference so there's no need to trade.

(not a stats person, so please correct me if wrong)

Sorry, PP who wrote that. I got lost in my remembrance of that past thread. There was a lot of confusion as to which parts of similar systems were going to be brought into the DC model. Consider that assertion revoked.

No, that is what happens. The algorithm makes swaps to maximize the number of people who get in to their first choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your explanation "using math" assumed that you had an equal chance of getting into each school (that each school has the same number of open spots and each is just as popular as each other). That is not the case. If you were truly such a math whiz you'd understand that.

It is the exact same. If you disagree, please explain it mathematically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt stats class, but back to the original post: we got shut out for K. Will go to IB school until we can move.

Can you share your list? That might actually be helpful for future years.

Not PP but we also got shut out for K, like pretty much everyone we know who applied for K:

MV
IT
Two Rivers
Lee
DC Prep
Kipp
Powell
Capital City
SWS
Maury
Haynes

I'm missing one more, can't remember right now. Plus Yu Ying, Stokes, Creative Minds.

Failed to have any safeties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt stats class, but back to the original post: we got shut out for K. Will go to IB school until we can move.

Can you share your list? That might actually be helpful for future years.

Not PP but we also got shut out for K, like pretty much everyone we know who applied for K:

MV
IT
Two Rivers
Lee
DC Prep
Kipp
Powell
Capital City
SWS
Maury
Haynes

I'm missing one more, can't remember right now. Plus Yu Ying, Stokes, Creative Minds.

Failed to have any safeties.

Yes, I think this was nicely explained by a PP:

Under the new system, it is quite possible to make errors in selecting your 12 schools. This is another thing I tried to explain on DCUM during the lottery. Errors include failure to research prior year waiting lists and safety schools, failure to understand preferences and how they apply to you for a given school or set of schools, failure to list IB for PK years, etc.

I think there were many people who didn't have enough or any safety schools on their lists. To be fair, I don't think this was hammered home enough by the MySchools people, who were eager to paper over how few available places are available if you aren't in-bounds or if you don't have sibling preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Different PP than the one you're responding to, but while the points you make are true, you are still missing the prior PP's point, which is also true. Even though not every student will be in every pool, for whatever pool you ARE in, having a bad number shuts you out of everything, usually even you're #12 choice. Whereas before, even if you still only applied to 12 schools, 12 different lotteries meant you had a brand new chance at a good number in each lottery. That, in and of itself, improves the odds you'll do well. Doesn't increase the spots, doesn't reduce the number of applicants overall. But in each lottery it means you have a new chance to do well, as opposed to just one shot to do well that impacts all your choices.

Not saying one system is better than the other, just pointing out that it is INcorrect to say the odds are the same under both systems. They are not the same.

This is wrong. I explained why using math. The example I gave was simple, but the same result occurs with different numbers.

Ok, let's try it this way. 12 schools, and for the sake of simplicity, 100 people applying to the same 12 schools. There are only 12 slots, whether you have a common lottery or 12 individual school lotteries that all 100 people apply to, only 12 students can end up in slots. In the common lottery scenario, once that random lottery number is assigned, and my child got a number between 1-12, my child is getting one of those slots, period, end of story, regardless of how I ordered the schools. (This example assumes no siblings jump in and change the order/# of slots). In the same common lottery scenario, if your child got a number in the bottom 12 (82-100), you are not getting in anywhere. Period. End of story. That single number determined your shot at all 12 schools.

Now do 12 separate lotteries. Lottery for school A, I get number 2, you get number 98 I'm in, you're not. But for School B, we both get another different roll of the dice. If in separate lottery for school B you get #3 and I get #97, now I'm out for school B and you're likely in. And then both you and I get another 10 chances for 10 more schools. Sure, it's possible that you'll get 92 for school B, 96 for school C, 83 for school D, etc, none of which gets you one of those 12 slots in the end. You could still strike out. But you had 12 chances to try for a slot at each school, instead of one chance for all 12.

If you win at the common lottery, you win BIG, i.e. you not only get in somewhere, you get one of your top choices. If you lose at common lottery, you lose big. You don't get in anywhere. How can anyone argue that having 12 separate chances for each of those 12 seats gives you the same odds as 1 chance at all 12 seats? If you get another roll of the dice for another school, that is always one additional shot you have, which means BETTER ODDS.

How is that not true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the "switching" problem? I have no desire to read 25 pages to see if this term is defined. It was not in the cited page.

There's a mechanism to switch options if two kids are admitted to different schools but they each have a higher preference for the other. If you run separate lotteries you can't do that, as you would have to jump the waitlist to pull a kid up. With a unified lottery it works out and benefits both parties.

All of this was gone over in that thread. There are still only x number of seats for y number of students. The common lottery does not change the odds of you getting in to any school. It just simplifies the process, prevents shuffling, and distills your odds into a single number, instead of a whole bunch spread out over different waitlists. When you enter your odds are the same under either system.

Where is your cite for this being how the Common Lottery was run this year? In the bazillion threads on this (including some people who were specifically speaking to Common Lottery staff about it), it was made crystal clear that that switching wasn't happening, which actually is a huge bummer. It was clarified over and over again that the ONLY way that your own ranking of the schools on your list matters to what school you actually end up in is that if you get into one of your higher choices, you are dropped from consideration for all choices below.

You are describing a system where, once the lottery does it's thing, the program actually looks to see how everyone ranked their choices and where one student got a slot at a school they ranked #4 and another student got a spot at a different school they ranked #4, the computer would look at their higher choices to see if each student ranked the other student's school 1-3, and if so, swtich the students so they get one of their better choices. Nothing anyone said as the lottery was being rolled out indicated that this "switching" was going to happen. I really like the idea of switching, but it was made pretty clear that wasn't part of the actual process this year.

What is your source for saying that indeed that is what happened?

New poster, I believe you are correct. I think the system doesn't have "mutually beneficial trades" because under the algorithm there are no equivalent swaps. There will always be one student that has a better combination of number+preference so there's no need to trade.

(not a stats person, so please correct me if wrong)

Sorry, PP who wrote that. I got lost in my remembrance of that past thread. There was a lot of confusion as to which parts of similar systems were going to be brought into the DC model. Consider that assertion revoked.

No, that is what happens. The algorithm makes swaps to maximize the number of people who get in to their first choice.

What is your source for saying that is how the algorithm works?

[Anonymous]

Stats need here (the one who got a terrible lottery draw but still thinks it's the best system). The algorithm does not do trades. It is a lot more complicated then this, but ther result is that effectively it works by picking a name, and going through your list from #1 on and then placing you in the top school with an available space, giving you priority (IB, sib, etc.) where you qualify. The algorithm means that there is no situation in which one person gets into B but prefers A, and another gets into A but prefers B, which is when a trade would be necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt stats class, but back to the original post: we got shut out for K. Will go to IB school until we can move.

Can you share your list? That might actually be helpful for future years.

Not PP but we also got shut out for K, like pretty much everyone we know who applied for K:

MV
IT
Two Rivers
Lee
DC Prep
Kipp
Powell
Capital City
SWS
Maury
Haynes

I'm missing one more, can't remember right now. Plus Yu Ying, Stokes, Creative Minds.

Failed to have any safeties.

Oh yeah, blame the parent. Obviously their fault not the system. K students have "safeties" they have an automatic right to attend their IB. There is no need to list them. There is also no need to be such a judgmental holier than thou bitch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the "switching" problem? I have no desire to read 25 pages to see if this term is defined. It was not in the cited page.

There's a mechanism to switch options if two kids are admitted to different schools but they each have a higher preference for the other. If you run separate lotteries you can't do that, as you would have to jump the waitlist to pull a kid up. With a unified lottery it works out and benefits both parties.

All of this was gone over in that thread. There are still only x number of seats for y number of students. The common lottery does not change the odds of you getting in to any school. It just simplifies the process, prevents shuffling, and distills your odds into a single number, instead of a whole bunch spread out over different waitlists. When you enter your odds are the same under either system.

Where is your cite for this being how the Common Lottery was run this year? In the bazillion threads on this (including some people who were specifically speaking to Common Lottery staff about it), it was made crystal clear that that switching wasn't happening, which actually is a huge bummer. It was clarified over and over again that the ONLY way that your own ranking of the schools on your list matters to what school you actually end up in is that if you get into one of your higher choices, you are dropped from consideration for all choices below.

You are describing a system where, once the lottery does it's thing, the program actually looks to see how everyone ranked their choices and where one student got a slot at a school they ranked #4 and another student got a spot at a different school they ranked #4, the computer would look at their higher choices to see if each student ranked the other student's school 1-3, and if so, swtich the students so they get one of their better choices. Nothing anyone said as the lottery was being rolled out indicated that this "switching" was going to happen. I really like the idea of switching, but it was made pretty clear that wasn't part of the actual process this year.

What is your source for saying that indeed that is what happened?

New poster, I believe you are correct. I think the system doesn't have "mutually beneficial trades" because under the algorithm there are no equivalent swaps. There will always be one student that has a better combination of number+preference so there's no need to trade.

(not a stats person, so please correct me if wrong)

Sorry, PP who wrote that. I got lost in my remembrance of that past thread. There was a lot of confusion as to which parts of similar systems were going to be brought into the DC model. Consider that assertion revoked.

No, that is what happens. The algorithm makes swaps to maximize the number of people who get in to their first choice.

What is your source for saying that is how the algorithm works?

MyschoolDC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your explanation "using math" assumed that you had an equal chance of getting into each school (that each school has the same number of open spots and each is just as popular as each other). That is not the case. If you were truly such a math whiz you'd understand that.

It is the exact same. If you disagree, please explain it mathematically.

Sure. Let's say that there are 5,000 kids, applying for 500 places. That gives them a 1:10 chance of getting a spot somewhere under the common lottery. Let's assume that none have siblings, are IB or have proximity preference, just to make it simpler.

Now let's say that they applied to the following schools using the old system:

school 1 - 300 kids apply and there are only 30 places - odds are the same 1:10
school 2 - 100 kids apply and there are 25 places - YOUR ODDS ARE 1:4 BINGO, your odds are increased from those of the common lottery (for that school at least)
school 3 - 500 kids apply and there are only 10 places - your odds are worse than under common lottery (for that single lottery) = 1:50

etc, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt stats class, but back to the original post: we got shut out for K. Will go to IB school until we can move.

Can you share your list? That might actually be helpful for future years.

Not PP but we also got shut out for K, like pretty much everyone we know who applied for K:

MV
IT
Two Rivers
Lee
DC Prep
Kipp
Powell
Capital City
SWS
Maury
Haynes

I'm missing one more, can't remember right now. Plus Yu Ying, Stokes, Creative Minds.

Failed to have any safeties.

Oh yeah, blame the parent. Obviously their fault not the system. K students have "safeties" they have an automatic right to attend their IB. There is no need to list them. There is also no need to be such a judgmental holier than thou bitch.

Exactly - esp the b*tch part. And that's why I didn't share our list. Our IB, which may have been higher up on others' lists, was our safety. We are not happy with it for our particular kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt stats class, but back to the original post: we got shut out for K. Will go to IB school until we can move.

Can you share your list? That might actually be helpful for future years.

Not PP but we also got shut out for K, like pretty much everyone we know who applied for K:

MV
IT
Two Rivers
Lee
DC Prep
Kipp
Powell
Capital City
SWS
Maury
Haynes

I'm missing one more, can't remember right now. Plus Yu Ying, Stokes, Creative Minds.

Failed to have any safeties.

Oh yeah, blame the parent. Obviously their fault not the system. K students have "safeties" they have an automatic right to attend their IB. There is no need to list them. There is also no need to be such a judgmental holier than thou bitch.

Exactly - esp the b*tch part. And that's why I didn't share our list. Our IB, which may have been higher up on others' lists, was our safety. We are not happy with it for our particular kid.

I am not the PP, but how exactly is it bitchy to point out that there are, in fact, no safety schools on this list? Why would anyone judge you for trying to lottery for the schools you really want and not put down schools you would never send your kid to? That makes no sense. Now, if you were going to complain bitterly about how the lottery sucks so bad because you didn't get a spot with a list like this, someone might question your judgement, or at least your understanding of the lottery. But in your case you put down only the schools you would actually attend, and I think that's fine! We only had two schools on our list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt stats class, but back to the original post: we got shut out for K. Will go to IB school until we can move.

Can you share your list? That might actually be helpful for future years.

Not PP but we also got shut out for K, like pretty much everyone we know who applied for K:

MV
IT
Two Rivers
Lee
DC Prep
Kipp
Powell
Capital City
SWS
Maury
Haynes

I'm missing one more, can't remember right now. Plus Yu Ying, Stokes, Creative Minds.

Failed to have any safeties.

Oh yeah, blame the parent. Obviously their fault not the system. K students have "safeties" they have an automatic right to attend their IB. There is no need to list them. There is also no need to be such a judgmental holier than thou bitch.

Exactly - esp the b*tch part. And that's why I didn't share our list. Our IB, which may have been higher up on others' lists, was our safety. We are not happy with it for our particular kid.

I am not the PP, but how exactly is it bitchy to point out that there are, in fact, no safety schools on this list? Why would anyone judge you for trying to lottery for the schools you really want and not put down schools you would never send your kid to? That makes no sense. Now, if you were going to complain bitterly about how the lottery sucks so bad because you didn't get a spot with a list like this, someone might question your judgement, or at least your understanding of the lottery. But in your case you put down only the schools you would actually attend, and I think that's fine! We only had two schools on our list.

So exactly where would you add as a "safety" that would be better than our inbound school? And what is the point in listing schools that you wouldn't send your kid too? there are several on that list that I'm not really interested in at all but we listed them anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Different PP than the one you're responding to, but while the points you make are true, you are still missing the prior PP's point, which is also true. Even though not every student will be in every pool, for whatever pool you ARE in, having a bad number shuts you out of everything, usually even you're #12 choice. Whereas before, even if you still only applied to 12 schools, 12 different lotteries meant you had a brand new chance at a good number in each lottery. That, in and of itself, improves the odds you'll do well. Doesn't increase the spots, doesn't reduce the number of applicants overall. But in each lottery it means you have a new chance to do well, as opposed to just one shot to do well that impacts all your choices.

Not saying one system is better than the other, just pointing out that it is INcorrect to say the odds are the same under both systems. They are not the same.

This is wrong. I explained why using math. The example I gave was simple, but the same result occurs with different numbers.

Ok, let's try it this way. 12 schools, and for the sake of simplicity, 100 people applying to the same 12 schools. There are only 12 slots, whether you have a common lottery or 12 individual school lotteries that all 100 people apply to, only 12 students can end up in slots. In the common lottery scenario, once that random lottery number is assigned, and my child got a number between 1-12, my child is getting one of those slots, period, end of story, regardless of how I ordered the schools. (This example assumes no siblings jump in and change the order/# of slots). In the same common lottery scenario, if your child got a number in the bottom 12 (82-100), you are not getting in anywhere. Period. End of story. That single number determined your shot at all 12 schools.

Now do 12 separate lotteries. Lottery for school A, I get number 2, you get number 98 I'm in, you're not. But for School B, we both get another different roll of the dice. If in separate lottery for school B you get #3 and I get #97, now I'm out for school B and you're likely in. And then both you and I get another 10 chances for 10 more schools. Sure, it's possible that you'll get 92 for school B, 96 for school C, 83 for school D, etc, none of which gets you one of those 12 slots in the end. You could still strike out. But you had 12 chances to try for a slot at each school, instead of one chance for all 12.

If you win at the common lottery, you win BIG, i.e. you not only get in somewhere, you get one of your top choices. If you lose at common lottery, you lose big. You don't get in anywhere. How can anyone argue that having 12 separate chances for each of those 12 seats gives you the same odds as 1 chance at all 12 seats? If you get another roll of the dice for another school, that is always one additional shot you have, which means BETTER ODDS.

How is that not true?

no you have the same chance of ending up nowhere as ending up in a favorite school as ending up in an acceptable school whether it is one draw or 12. It just FEELS like more chances/better odds. There are 300-400 other people drawing for 8-10 spots at 12 schools whether there is one draw or 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got nothing in the first round or the second round, so we're sticking with daycare for another year. Can't help but think that the previous system would have been better for us.

shinning stars has openings. families there love what happens the classroom. I'd try it instead of daycare.

please. they have gone through their waitlists and STILL can't get people to enroll. they have MAJOR issues.