Charter Waitlist Data is Available!

[Anonymous]

If you get a fucked up lottery draw then your ranking doesn't even matter.

Very true. And if you're fucked for one school, you are fucked for all schools, automatically shunted down the entire line of popular ones to a "safety."

What would be the effect of having the school's lotteries all be individual? Is the problem a lack of ability to centrally administer it? Can't the charter board just run a lottery for each school? That seems more fair to me than the luck of the draw one number for all... and I say that as someone who has been lucky with low number draws (relatively lucky).

Doesn't the current system just sort of enforce the crazy popularity contest with the HRCS's?

[Anonymous]

Well the every school does their own lottery was the system through 2013. Doubt we are going back to the past.

[Anonymous]

I was also disappointed to find out (after the lottery) that the algorithm doesn't factor in rankings. Not sure why this wasn't done since it makes all the sense in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was also disappointed to find out (after the lottery) that the algorithm doesn't factor in rankings. Not sure why this wasn't done since it makes all the sense in the world.

It would have cost a lot more money to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you get a fucked up lottery draw then your ranking doesn't even matter.

Very true. And if you're fucked for one school, you are fucked for all schools, automatically shunted down the entire line of popular ones to a "safety."

What would be the effect of having the school's lotteries all be individual? Is the problem a lack of ability to centrally administer it? Can't the charter board just run a lottery for each school? That seems more fair to me than the luck of the draw one number for all... and I say that as someone who has been lucky with low number draws (relatively lucky).

Doesn't the current system just sort of enforce the crazy popularity contest with the HRCS's?

This was debated back and forth when DC started going down the unified lottery path. It would certainly make sense to try and match families with their preferred schools rather than run everyone's number and then based on that draw, plug children into schools on their list regardless of how highly the rated it. Does it seem unfair that a family who ranks a school #12 gets a spot while another who ranked the same school #1 gets a 100+ waitlist number? No, not really. But DC is pretty happy with the process they now have in place because it's tons more efficient and transparent than it used to be, so I don't see it changing anytime soon. Not to mention, I'm sure it was a very significant investment ($) to create. The one thing I wish is this...I wish DC would stop touting the percentage of children who were matched with one of their top 3 schools. It's such a bogus number because it is weighted heavily by ECE and inboundary DCPS families who got spots at their neighborhood schools. Take those out and show us how everyone without some sort of preference fared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you get a fucked up lottery draw then your ranking doesn't even matter.

Very true. And if you're fucked for one school, you are fucked for all schools, automatically shunted down the entire line of popular ones to a "safety."

What would be the effect of having the school's lotteries all be individual? Is the problem a lack of ability to centrally administer it? Can't the charter board just run a lottery for each school? That seems more fair to me than the luck of the draw one number for all... and I say that as someone who has been lucky with low number draws (relatively lucky).

Doesn't the current system just sort of enforce the crazy popularity contest with the HRCS's?

The reason it is done centrally is that more people's preferences are maximized. With individual lotteries, you may be #1 at you #12 school, and vice versa. Someone else may be #1 at your #1 school, which they ranked last, because they want your #12 school. You would both be better off if you switched places. The algorithm prevents that. Your good draw is pit toward your most preferred school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you get a fucked up lottery draw then your ranking doesn't even matter.

Very true. And if you're fucked for one school, you are fucked for all schools, automatically shunted down the entire line of popular ones to a "safety."

What would be the effect of having the school's lotteries all be individual? Is the problem a lack of ability to centrally administer it? Can't the charter board just run a lottery for each school? That seems more fair to me than the luck of the draw one number for all... and I say that as someone who has been lucky with low number draws (relatively lucky).

Doesn't the current system just sort of enforce the crazy popularity contest with the HRCS's?

I was fucked at them all under teh old system. Didn't get into a single school. It did happen. A lot. And the chances of it happening are the same as the chances of it happening now. Same number of desirably spots and same number of people wanting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you get a fucked up lottery draw then your ranking doesn't even matter.

Very true. And if you're fucked for one school, you are fucked for all schools, automatically shunted down the entire line of popular ones to a "safety."

What would be the effect of having the school's lotteries all be individual? Is the problem a lack of ability to centrally administer it? Can't the charter board just run a lottery for each school? That seems more fair to me than the luck of the draw one number for all... and I say that as someone who has been lucky with low number draws (relatively lucky).

Doesn't the current system just sort of enforce the crazy popularity contest with the HRCS's?

I was fucked at them all under teh old system. Didn't get into a single school. It did happen. A lot. And the chances of it happening are the same as the chances of it happening now. Same number of desirably spots and same number of people wanting them.

Played again the next year (1st year of common lottery) and got into a mid-ranked school which turned out to be the best fit possible. Play again next year, you'll eventually get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was also disappointed to find out (after the lottery) that the algorithm doesn't factor in rankings. Not sure why this wasn't done since it makes all the sense in the world.

No, this just encourages gaming the system, and it doesn't allow people to put down their true preferences. No one would put down Yu Ying, even though they all want it. They would put Cap City first, reasoning that there would be less competition if they ranked thst first. No one gets what they want.

Really, it's a pretty good algorithm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was also disappointed to find out (after the lottery) that the algorithm doesn't factor in rankings. Not sure why this wasn't done since it makes all the sense in the world.

It doesn't because that would make people game the rankings. Making it "strategy proof" was one of the goals of the common lottery when it was set up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you get a fucked up lottery draw then your ranking doesn't even matter.

Very true. And if you're fucked for one school, you are fucked for all schools, automatically shunted down the entire line of popular ones to a "safety."

What would be the effect of having the school's lotteries all be individual? Is the problem a lack of ability to centrally administer it? Can't the charter board just run a lottery for each school? That seems more fair to me than the luck of the draw one number for all... and I say that as someone who has been lucky with low number draws (relatively lucky).

Doesn't the current system just sort of enforce the crazy popularity contest with the HRCS's?

I was fucked at them all under teh old system. Didn't get into a single school. It did happen. A lot. And the chances of it happening are the same as the chances of it happening now. Same number of desirably spots and same number of people wanting them.

This is correct. Odds are always the same- number of available slots divided by number of applicants. Now you just get the odds run at once instead of sequentially. It felt like you had more "chances" under the old system, but the odds haven't changed at all. This system is MUCH more administratively efficient, and prevents most of the shuffling and multiple spot holding. Those are the benefits, but at the core its still a lottery to allocate a scarce resource, so not everyone can get that resource.

[Anonymous]

Anyone advocating for the old system, obviously didn't use the old system.

People sitting on three, four and five spaces (and yes, I was guilty of it as well).

This current system isn't perfect, but I remember a neighbor holding three seats until mid-September while she was deciding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was also disappointed to find out (after the lottery) that the algorithm doesn't factor in rankings. Not sure why this wasn't done since it makes all the sense in the world.

No, this just encourages gaming the system, and it doesn't allow people to put down their true preferences. No one would put down Yu Ying, even though they all want it. They would put Cap City first, reasoning that there would be less competition if they ranked thst first. No one gets what they want.

Really, it's a pretty good algorithm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was also disappointed to find out (after the lottery) that the algorithm doesn't factor in rankings. Not sure why this wasn't done since it makes all the sense in the world.

It doesn't because that would make people game the rankings. Making it "strategy proof" was one of the goals of the common lottery when it was set up.

Nope, factoring in preferences would have increased fairness and provided happier outcomes much earlier in the process. That's why rankings are used as a data point in the other match-making systems that use Roth algorithms (some of which have been mentioned already in this thread). As things stand, those with bad numbers have to sit around waiting for scraps to fall from the table where those with good numbers are feasting. Sure, no one can hold multiple spots anymore, but they can now re-prioritize after the lottery and thereby stay on many other waitlists. Honestly, I don't see how this is preferable to "gaming" the system. In a truly fair system, an applicant who ranks a school 1st should have priority over another who ranks that same school 12th--irrespective of what number they drew.

If eliminating the ability to make strategic choices (or "gaming") truly was the deciding factor, then that's an unbelievably patronizing move by DC. Ah, these stupid parents will all try to game the system, so let's remove that option entirely... It's more likely that a process including a true preference-based algorithm would have been more costly and time-consuming...

[Anonymous]

The current system maximizes overall utility. No one's utility could be improved by a post-lottery switch. The two main problems are the number of desirable seats are limited (not a problem with the lottery algorithm) and parents are frustrated there's nothing they can do to increase their chances (this is more of a feature than a bug, but causes much resentment).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was also disappointed to find out (after the lottery) that the algorithm doesn't factor in rankings. Not sure why this wasn't done since it makes all the sense in the world.

No, this just encourages gaming the system, and it doesn't allow people to put down their true preferences. No one would put down Yu Ying, even though they all want it. They would put Cap City first, reasoning that there would be less competition if they ranked thst first. No one gets what they want.

Really, it's a pretty good algorithm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was also disappointed to find out (after the lottery) that the algorithm doesn't factor in rankings. Not sure why this wasn't done since it makes all the sense in the world.

It doesn't because that would make people game the rankings. Making it "strategy proof" was one of the goals of the common lottery when it was set up.

Nope, factoring in preferences would have increased fairness and provided happier outcomes much earlier in the process. That's why rankings are used as a data point in the other match-making systems that use Roth algorithms (some of which have been mentioned already in this thread). As things stand, those with bad numbers have to sit around waiting for scraps to fall from the table where those with good numbers are feasting. Sure, no one can hold multiple spots anymore, but they can now re-prioritize after the lottery and thereby stay on many other waitlists. Honestly, I don't see how this is preferable to "gaming" the system. In a truly fair system, an applicant who ranks a school 1st should have priority over another who ranks that same school 12th--irrespective of what number they drew.

If eliminating the ability to make strategic choices (or "gaming") truly was the deciding factor, then that's an unbelievably patronizing move by DC. Ah, these stupid parents will all try to game the system, so let's remove that option entirely... It's more likely that a process including a true preference-based algorithm would have been more costly and time-consuming...

No, as I noted earlier, gaming the system leads to lower total welfare. See Section 4

http://stanford.edu/~alroth/papers/2008_Hahn_Lecture_EJ.pdf