Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School

[Anonymous]

Many people who rank a less popular school #1 would not match there if they draw a poor common lotto # because those who draw a better number, but don't have it ranked #1 would be waitlisted (or get-in) before them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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]

How about preference points to people shut out or matched with low choices for the next year? Of course I suggest this as DC's number has been in the bottom 25% the last 3 years but seriously, it might cut down on the constant switching and trading up and keep consistency from year to year in many schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, now she's clarified that she only wants two choices, number 1 and your IB school, so she's proposing an entirely different lottery altogether, where you just throw your name in for a single school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about preference points to people shut out or matched with low choices for the next year? Of course I suggest this as DC's number has been in the bottom 25% the last 3 years but seriously, it might cut down on the constant switching and trading up and keep consistency from year to year in many schools.

Then people would game that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The only way to reveal true preferences is to limit a resource. If you have 12 options to rank its not really limited. The real thing to do is to give everyone 100 "points", and then you bid however many points you want on however many schools. Then you run the auction- if a school has 30 spots available, the top 30 bidders get those spots.

I am actually serious, this is really the way to do this right, it's how fantasy sports auctions are run. But there would be too many opportunities to "game the system". As others have stated, what's important about the current lottery system is that it gives everyone the same set of incentives, to simply rank their true preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, now she's clarified that she only wants two choices, number 1 and your IB school, so she's proposing an entirely different lottery altogether, where you just throw your name in for a single school.

Which is, of course, available to everyone now. Just put down only 1 school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, now she's clarified that she only wants two choices, number 1 and your IB school, so she's proposing an entirely different lottery altogether, where you just throw your name in for a single school.

OP - I wasn't suggesting that. I was saying, the idea is that the lottery would be exactly the same but with a new preference given to everybody's #1 ranked school - if this new preference was added, then the most realistic scenarios are that you either match with your #1 or match your IB, then essentially your #1 ranking is the one that matters most. But, I wasn't saying you not allow somebody to rank schools between your #1 and in-bound, I'm just saying that these rankings may not end up mattering. But, if you ranked a very popular school #1, and a a couple less popular charters afterwards but before your IB, then those rankings could still come into play if you drew a pretty good lotto # but not good enough to get matched with your #1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many people who rank a less popular school #1 would not match there if they draw a poor common lotto # because those who draw a better number, but don't have it ranked #1 would be waitlisted (or get-in) before them.

This is what happens now. We drew a crap number this year. Someone else who drew a better number got matched with our #1 choice, even though they ranked it #10. So we're not going to a school we really want and neither are they.

I'm with you, OP! After all the sibling, in-boundary, etc preferences, the WL would be ranked by preference. So everyone who ranked it #1 would get in or get on the WL in the order of their lottery number, then once you're through the #1s, all the #2s rank in order of their lottery number, then #3s, etc. Makes sense to me. Not sure how this would result in more gaming the system than we currently have -- if people are already lotterying for schools where they have a <5% chance of getting in, you're "wasting" that spot on your list just as much as you would under this system.

[Anonymous]

At restaurants, we should seat people in order of who is most hungry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At restaurants, we should seat people in order of who is most hungry.

Conversely, when you show up at a particular restaurant, would you be ok being offered a table at a restaurant on the other side of town instead? Or else being turned away and being told you can try again next year?

[Anonymous]

When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.

A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.

[Anonymous]

How about this - expand guaranteed PK3 and PK4 to all schools and eliminate the OOB lottery for DCPS all together. Lottery for charters only. No preference other than sibling preference. If you get in, you get in. If you don't, you go to your neighborhood school, you go private, or you leave town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people who rank a less popular school #1 would not match there if they draw a poor common lotto # because those who draw a better number, but don't have it ranked #1 would be waitlisted (or get-in) before them.

This is what happens now. We drew a crap number this year. Someone else who drew a better number got matched with our #1 choice, even though they ranked it #10. So we're not going to a school we really want and neither are they.

I'm with you, OP! After all the sibling, in-boundary, etc preferences, the WL would be ranked by preference. So everyone who ranked it #1 would get in or get on the WL in the order of their lottery number, then once you're through the #1s, all the #2s rank in order of their lottery number, then #3s, etc. Makes sense to me. Not sure how this would result in more gaming the system than we currently have -- if people are already lotterying for schools where they have a <5% chance of getting in, you're "wasting" that spot on your list just as much as you would under this system.

It would be more gaming of the system because in practice, you'd have to consider the odds of there being any spots at a school before you ranked it -- and thus, ranking schools in some order other than the order in which you'd like to attend them, period. Otherwise you'd be burning your #1 preference on, for instance, some HRCS that only offers up 20 spots for PK3 after siblings are admitted, or some WOTP DCPS school that takes very few out of bounds students, so maybe you should actually rank some other school where you can possibly get in #1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At restaurants, we should seat people in order of who is most hungry.

Conversely, when you show up at a particular restaurant, would you be ok being offered a table at a restaurant on the other side of town instead? Or else being turned away and being told you can try again next year?

If that's how I ranked my restaurants, I guess I would be.

I prioritized commute so no school was on the other side of town.