Did everyone land?

[Anonymous]

It is my impression that things would pan out better if the parent's choice was limited to 5 or so schools. Maybe I am wrong, but wouldn't this decrease the odds of an all or nothing scenario and make the second round more than a waitlist lottery? It is also my impression the "safety" schools would be much more likely to capture a population of parents who do not actually consider them safeties, but a desirable option for their kid. Would this not then improve the long term potential for those schools by decreasing the churn after the early childhood years?

[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?

Because everyone else also has those twelve rolls. So you're all even. And it's still the same number of people, same number of spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is my impression that things would pan out better if the parent's choice was limited to 5 or so schools. Maybe I am wrong, but wouldn't this decrease the odds of an all or nothing scenario and make the second round more than a waitlist lottery? It is also my impression the "safety" schools would be much more likely to capture a population of parents who do not actually consider them safeties, but a desirable option for their kid. Would this not then improve the long term potential for those schools by decreasing the churn after the early childhood years?

I think they should limit it to 6--the same # as was in the original DCPS lottery. Really make people choose.

[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.

That's why I never share my list with DCUM, despite being shut out entirely. There's always someone waiting to pounce on you for listing the 'wrong' schools. Doesn't matter how much research you have done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought Janney was able to accommodate all IB kids? Stoddert also was not.

For Janney PreK? Not by a long shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

everyone knows their issues, yet their families like the experience their children have in the classroom. That's worth 20,000 to me (what I'd pay for private preschool)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

everyone knows their issues, yet their families like the experience their children have in the classroom. That's worth 20,000 to me (what I'd pay for private preschool)!

Good for you, I hope you're practicing what you're preaching and enrolled there. But for many many of us, the uncertainty of poor leadership and poor decisionmaking and not knowing where they'll be in 2 years is enough to keep us away. If a good number of the parents who loved SS before are gone (and obviously they are because they are underenrolled whereas before they were fully enrolled), then that proves that whatever was great about the classroom is not in and of itself enough to keep a family happy and sane. You also need to trust your leaders and know either where the school will be or that the people working out location know what they're doing and are good communicators. Sadly, SS has proved that they don't know what they're doing re: space and are awful communicators TWICE. No way I'd risk my kid going there until they have years of stability and good outcomes and happy parents under their belt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because everyone else also has those twelve rolls. So you're all even. And it's still the same number of people, same number of spots.

I give up. If you can't understand the difference of 12 shots at the same number of slots (even with everyone having 12 shots) vs. 1 shot at all the slots, there's nothing else to be said. I just know what my DCPS common lottery numbers were the year I applied and that I also got into 2 of the most HRCSs because I got to apply to all of the HRCSs and I'm grateful for that chance. Even if the Common Lottery is overall a better, more consistent, and fairer system, I don't see how anyone can dispute the fact that 12 rolls of the dice for 12 individual jackpots is better than one roll for the whole mega jackpot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because everyone else also has those twelve rolls. So you're all even. And it's still the same number of people, same number of spots.

I give up. If you can't understand the difference of 12 shots at the same number of slots (even with everyone having 12 shots) vs. 1 shot at all the slots, there's nothing else to be said. I just know what my DCPS common lottery numbers were the year I applied and that I also got into 2 of the most HRCSs because I got to apply to all of the HRCSs and I'm grateful for that chance. Even if the Common Lottery is overall a better, more consistent, and fairer system, I don't see how anyone can dispute the fact that 12 rolls of the dice for 12 individual jackpots is better than one roll for the whole mega jackpot.

Because they understand statistics, and you don't.

[Anonymous]

Exactly! Please give up and read a book on statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly! Please give up and read a book on statistics.

NP, also not an expert in statistics. Can one of you last two posters please explain then why the long 12 schools poster is wrong? I've read through the whole thread and honestly s/he sounds reasonable when saying the odds are better overall if your chance at any school is better if all your eggs are not in one basket. You keep saying "but it's the same number of applicants and same number of spots" which doesn't address PP's point. If it's so elementary, please explain how it's not better for me as one parent to get 12 chances at a good number instead of 1 chance? That is a reasonable question and you who understand statistics should be able to explain your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm just bumping this because all of those who claim that they are such experts in statistics have ignored it. Please take a look and tell me why you are ignoring this. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm just bumping this because all of those who claim that they are such experts in statistics have ignored it. Please take a look and tell me why you are ignoring this. Thanks.

Because there are different numbers of people applying to different schools. If under the old system, only 100 kids applied to a school with 25 spots (school 2 in the above example), then logically under the new system only 100 people would have that school in their list of 12 under the new system. Your odds for that school would still be 1:4 for that school under the new system. Everyone is confusing their odds from before the lottery is run, when the odds are the same under either system, compared to their odds after the lottery is run. Your odds after the lottery is run are different under the two systems, but that's because you have cycled through 95% of the probabilities by running it all at once. Under the old system you only got through maybe 70% of the probabilities (complete guesses!) because of all the shuffling that went on. The difference now is the final answer comes much quicker.

If I may make an analogy, it's like saying a quarterback has a 70% completion percentage of the receiver catching the ball. That's an overall percentage on every play. But if you evaluate the odds of an individual throw while the ball is in the air, you have a lot more information and the probabilities will change. You would be able to tell at that point how well covered the receiver was, if the ball looked like it was too high or too low, etc. The odds would be much closer to 0 or 100% at that point. Under the old system it was kind of like that. Under the new system it's much more binary- you have the overall odds at the beginning, and you pretty much jump to the point where the ball is caught or not. So it seems like one might have had better odds under the old system, because you were looking at the odds more along the playing out of the probabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm just bumping this because all of those who claim that they are such experts in statistics have ignored it. Please take a look and tell me why you are ignoring this. Thanks.

Because there are different numbers of people applying to different schools. If under the old system, only 100 kids applied to a school with 25 spots (school 2 in the above example), then logically under the new system only 100 people would have that school in their list of 12 under the new system. Your odds for that school would still be 1:4 for that school under the new system. Everyone is confusing their odds from before the lottery is run, when the odds are the same under either system, compared to their odds after the lottery is run. Your odds after the lottery is run are different under the two systems, but that's because you have cycled through 95% of the probabilities by running it all at once. Under the old system you only got through maybe 70% of the probabilities (complete guesses!) because of all the shuffling that went on. The difference now is the final answer comes much quicker.

If I may make an analogy, it's like saying a quarterback has a 70% completion percentage of the receiver catching the ball. That's an overall percentage on every play. But if you evaluate the odds of an individual throw while the ball is in the air, you have a lot more information and the probabilities will change. You would be able to tell at that point how well covered the receiver was, if the ball looked like it was too high or too low, etc. The odds would be much closer to 0 or 100% at that point. Under the old system it was kind of like that. Under the new system it's much more binary- you have the overall odds at the beginning, and you pretty much jump to the point where the ball is caught or not. So it seems like one might have had better odds under the old system, because you were looking at the odds more along the playing out of the probabilities.

PP here, and remember, probabilities are based on the entire pool of applicants. But at the end of cycle it's a binary- you get in or you don't. Just because you didn't get in to a school where you had a 75% chance doesn't mean you didn't have a 75% chance. It just means that 3 other people got in instead of you.

[Anonymous]

New poster. I believe you statistics people, really, I do! But I wish there was some way that someone could explain it to me so I would understand it. I feel dumb.