Fairness of Common Lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who even questions the new system did not deal with the old system.

Wrong. I dealt with the old system, got 2 kids into 2 different HRCS's over 2 years because of individual lotteries. We didn't play in the new system but I've followed it closely, and while I do actually support the new system and understand why in the end it is probably more fair and more accurate (in terms of matching), for those who got a crappy random lottery number for the common lottery, you can't really expect them not to wish they had several more shots at getting a better number in at least a few other lotteries.

Basically just pointing out that some of us who did the old system did very well, so you cannot say anyone who questions this system never dealt with the old one. My wish for the current one is that they could do a version of individual school lotteries within the overall common lottery, so for each person applying to 12 schools, you got 12 chances at a great lottery number instead of one chance that affected your matching/waitlist for all 12 schools.

I struck out in the old system - not a single match. I struck in (sorta) in new system - one match half-way through my list and long waitlist numbers for all other schools. There aren't just total winners and losers in the new system. There are winners, losers, and those in between. Just like in the old system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who even questions the new system did not deal with the old system.

Wrong. I dealt with the old system, got 2 kids into 2 different HRCS's over 2 years because of individual lotteries. We didn't play in the new system but I've followed it closely, and while I do actually support the new system and understand why in the end it is probably more fair and more accurate (in terms of matching), for those who got a crappy random lottery number for the common lottery, you can't really expect them not to wish they had several more shots at getting a better number in at least a few other lotteries.

Basically just pointing out that some of us who did the old system did very well, so you cannot say anyone who questions this system never dealt with the old one. My wish for the current one is that they could do a version of individual school lotteries within the overall common lottery, so for each person applying to 12 schools, you got 12 chances at a great lottery number instead of one chance that affected your matching/waitlist for all 12 schools.

But that just brings you back to the problem with the old system. You may get the great number for school #12 on your list, while getting a terrible number for your #1 school. Someone else may have ranked your #12 school higher and gotten into your #1, which they ranked lower than your #12. If you guys could trade, you'd be better off, but you can't under the old system. Under the new system, that situation doesn't exist. The randomness of where people got their high numbers (in the old system) is one of the reasons so many people kept switching year after year.

Also, some of these choices that people are writing in about are illusions. Your neighbor who got into DC Bilingual, is #10 on the MV list, and #20 at Yu Ying, will be at DC Bilingual next year, despite being ahead of 90% of the people on the Yu Ying waiting list for prek.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who even questions the new system did not deal with the old system.

Wrong. I dealt with the old system, got 2 kids into 2 different HRCS's over 2 years because of individual lotteries. We didn't play in the new system but I've followed it closely, and while I do actually support the new system and understand why in the end it is probably more fair and more accurate (in terms of matching), for those who got a crappy random lottery number for the common lottery, you can't really expect them not to wish they had several more shots at getting a better number in at least a few other lotteries.

Basically just pointing out that some of us who did the old system did very well, so you cannot say anyone who questions this system never dealt with the old one. My wish for the current one is that they could do a version of individual school lotteries within the overall common lottery, so for each person applying to 12 schools, you got 12 chances at a great lottery number instead of one chance that affected your matching/waitlist for all 12 schools.

I agree. I think some tweaks could be made to the current common lottery system. Right now if you get a terrible lottery number you have a terrible lottery number on every school waitlist and realistically won't get in anywhere. I like the idea of having individual lotteries within the current lottery system --Still awarding each application only 1 slot -- but you may end up with #2 waitlist at school B and #357 waitlist at school C, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who even questions the new system did not deal with the old system.

Wrong. I dealt with the old system, got 2 kids into 2 different HRCS's over 2 years because of individual lotteries. We didn't play in the new system but I've followed it closely, and while I do actually support the new system and understand why in the end it is probably more fair and more accurate (in terms of matching), for those who got a crappy random lottery number for the common lottery, you can't really expect them not to wish they had several more shots at getting a better number in at least a few other lotteries.

Basically just pointing out that some of us who did the old system did very well, so you cannot say anyone who questions this system never dealt with the old one. My wish for the current one is that they could do a version of individual school lotteries within the overall common lottery, so for each person applying to 12 schools, you got 12 chances at a great lottery number instead of one chance that affected your matching/waitlist for all 12 schools.

I agree. I think some tweaks could be made to the current common lottery system. Right now if you get a terrible lottery number you have a terrible lottery number on every school waitlist and realistically won't get in anywhere. I like the idea of having individual lotteries within the current lottery system --Still awarding each application only 1 slot -- but you may end up with #2 waitlist at school B and #357 waitlist at school C, etc.

There are many threads on why this is contrary to the whole premise of the current lottery system.

[Anonymous]

Can you provide the name of such a thread? I genuinely would like to read more.

[Anonymous]

I would like to read more too. I don't see why it isn't just as fair to do the lottery as follows: everyone does the lottery for their number one choice. Then a new lottery is run for the number 2 choice, etc.

[Anonymous]

Under the current system, unless you have good luck, you match where you have a preference or at an unpopular DCPS (which are becoming increasingly rare). That all points to trying to improve all DCPS generally.

[Anonymous]

Here's a nice long thread from last spring ... http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/409441.page

[Anonymous]

Anyone who even questions the new system did not deal with the old system.

Wrong. I dealt with the old system, got 2 kids into 2 different HRCS's over 2 years because of individual lotteries. We didn't play in the new system but I've followed it closely, and while I do actually support the new system and understand why in the end it is probably more fair and more accurate (in terms of matching), for those who got a crappy random lottery number for the common lottery, you can't really expect them not to wish they had several more shots at getting a better number in at least a few other lotteries.

Basically just pointing out that some of us who did the old system did very well, so you cannot say anyone who questions this system never dealt with the old one. My wish for the current one is that they could do a version of individual school lotteries within the overall common lottery, so for each person applying to 12 schools, you got 12 chances at a great lottery number instead of one chance that affected your matching/waitlist for all 12 schools.

I agree. I think some tweaks could be made to the current common lottery system. Right now if you get a terrible lottery number you have a terrible lottery number on every school waitlist and realistically won't get in anywhere. I like the idea of having individual lotteries within the current lottery system --Still awarding each application only 1 slot -- but you may end up with #2 waitlist at school B and #357 waitlist at school C, etc.

By allowing you to rank up to 12 schools, the current algorithm is designed to optimize preferences across the universe of applicants. Under what you're proposing (separate lotteries where you have an equal chance to win at each school), you could end up #2 at a School B, when what you really want school C. Another family could prefer School B, but end up highly ranked at school C, which you prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to clarify- I totally understand that the nature of a lottery is that some people win and others lose. But it seems weird that some people win dramatically while others fight for the scraps these winners turn down.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I just wonder at the fairness of a system that allows for such big wins and big losses.

All they are doing is trading up of they get off a waitlist, releasing the spot at the school they had previously enrolled in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who even questions the new system did not deal with the old system.

Wrong. I dealt with the old system, got 2 kids into 2 different HRCS's over 2 years because of individual lotteries. We didn't play in the new system but I've followed it closely, and while I do actually support the new system and understand why in the end it is probably more fair and more accurate (in terms of matching), for those who got a crappy random lottery number for the common lottery, you can't really expect them not to wish they had several more shots at getting a better number in at least a few other lotteries.

Basically just pointing out that some of us who did the old system did very well, so you cannot say anyone who questions this system never dealt with the old one. My wish for the current one is that they could do a version of individual school lotteries within the overall common lottery, so for each person applying to 12 schools, you got 12 chances at a great lottery number instead of one chance that affected your matching/waitlist for all 12 schools.

I agree. I think some tweaks could be made to the current common lottery system. Right now if you get a terrible lottery number you have a terrible lottery number on every school waitlist and realistically won't get in anywhere. I like the idea of having individual lotteries within the current lottery system --Still awarding each application only 1 slot -- but you may end up with #2 waitlist at school B and #357 waitlist at school C, etc.

There are many threads on why this is contrary to the whole premise of the current lottery system.

Link to some of them please. I read a lot of those threads in the past, they were about why it was an illusion that separate lotteries gave you a better chance at getting into a school than one common lottery. They were NOT about whether one common lottery with different individual lotteries with each school would give more people a chance at a good number.

If you think you read THAT thread, please link to those, because that's what we're talking about now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a nice long thread from last spring ... http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/409441.page

Again, that thread is not about a common lottery with individual lotteries for each school within the common lottery. It's just about the old system vs. the new system. What we're talking about is basically a combination of the 2 systems (common lottery with ranking and matching, but also with individual lotteries for each school).

If that's part of the discussion you linked to, please say which page it's on, because I'm not seeing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone who even questions the new system did not deal with the old system.

Wrong. I dealt with the old system, got 2 kids into 2 different HRCS's over 2 years because of individual lotteries. We didn't play in the new system but I've followed it closely, and while I do actually support the new system and understand why in the end it is probably more fair and more accurate (in terms of matching), for those who got a crappy random lottery number for the common lottery, you can't really expect them not to wish they had several more shots at getting a better number in at least a few other lotteries.

Basically just pointing out that some of us who did the old system did very well, so you cannot say anyone who questions this system never dealt with the old one. My wish for the current one is that they could do a version of individual school lotteries within the overall common lottery, so for each person applying to 12 schools, you got 12 chances at a great lottery number instead of one chance that affected your matching/waitlist for all 12 schools.

I agree. I think some tweaks could be made to the current common lottery system. Right now if you get a terrible lottery number you have a terrible lottery number on every school waitlist and realistically won't get in anywhere. I like the idea of having individual lotteries within the current lottery system --Still awarding each application only 1 slot -- but you may end up with #2 waitlist at school B and #357 waitlist at school C, etc.

By allowing you to rank up to 12 schools, the current algorithm is designed to optimize preferences across the universe of applicants. Under what you're proposing (separate lotteries where you have an equal chance to win at each school), you could end up #2 at a School B, when what you really want school C. Another family could prefer School B, but end up highly ranked at school C, which you prefer.

So really what the algorithim (sp?) should do is (preferences aside for the moment) run a lottery for everyone who ranked school A #1, then everyone who ranked school B #1, etc. Then after all the #1 rankings are run, they do another round (starting with whatever number they left off at at the end of the #1 rankings) for those who ranked the school #2. That way wouldn't you fill up all the most desireable schools only with people who ranked it first? And order the waitlist in groupings by where others ranked it? It would make the rankings much more meaningful. Would that lead to 12 separate lotteries for each school? That sounds like a technical nightmare but hey, computers are smart and can do just about anything, so isn't it possible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So really what the algorithim (sp?) should do is (preferences aside for the moment) run a lottery for everyone who ranked school A #1, then everyone who ranked school B #1, etc. Then after all the #1 rankings are run, they do another round (starting with whatever number they left off at at the end of the #1 rankings) for those who ranked the school #2. That way wouldn't you fill up all the most desireable schools only with people who ranked it first? And order the waitlist in groupings by where others ranked it? It would make the rankings much more meaningful. Would that lead to 12 separate lotteries for each school? That sounds like a technical nightmare but hey, computers are smart and can do just about anything, so isn't it possible?

Ding ding ding!!!

This.

When they first started talking about the common lottery algorithm "maximizing the number of people to get their first choice" (or however they phrased it), this is what I thought they would do, and I still think this would be the best way. Under this scenario, I don't think it would be possible to have the situation where two families wind up in each other's second-choice school: No one can get into a school they ranked #2 unless everyone who ranked it #1 has already been admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So really what the algorithim (sp?) should do is (preferences aside for the moment) run a lottery for everyone who ranked school A #1, then everyone who ranked school B #1, etc. Then after all the #1 rankings are run, they do another round (starting with whatever number they left off at at the end of the #1 rankings) for those who ranked the school #2. That way wouldn't you fill up all the most desireable schools only with people who ranked it first? And order the waitlist in groupings by where others ranked it? It would make the rankings much more meaningful. Would that lead to 12 separate lotteries for each school? That sounds like a technical nightmare but hey, computers are smart and can do just about anything, so isn't it possible?

The problem with that process is that if you don't get your number one you go down to the bottom of the list and you don't get another whack until the #2 round. So it's a real risk to put a popular school number one, if you don't get it by the time the lottery comes back to you everything is taken and you get nothing. So you might be tempted to put a "safety school" number one. But what if you get a good number and it's wasted on the safety school?

With the current system, you rank your choices in your true order of preference, and you get into the highest-ranked one that is available when your number comes up. No fiddling with the order changes your chances of getting picked. Since there is no "safety school" strategy, overall more people end up higher preference schools.

The problem with the lottery isn't its fairness. It is as fair as can be. The problem is the lack of good choices. People aren't ending up with no good choices because good seats are going unfilled or some children are occupying more than one. People are ending up with no good choices because there aren't enough for everyone. No amount of fiddling with the lottery is going to change that.

I'll add that before the common lottery schools ran their own lotteries, and there were unfilled seats at desirable schools. That has largely been eliminated.