Did everyone land?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm always interested in all of the spin in March and April over the lottery waitlists, as it has been my personal experience over the last eight years that most folks land somewhere within the public school system. Maybe not their first choice, but somewhere acceptable. I know several families who have moved year to year from amongst multiple highly regarded charters and neighborhood schools. Does all of the spring angst really play out in the reality of school starting in September? Were people really completely shut out?

We were completely shut out.

Next year put down your IB school. Problem solved.

I did put down my IB school. I was in the lottery for PK3. I had the worst lottery number. I was in the 20s at IB, and in the hundreds at more desirable schools. Still waiting to hear from any school.

Eyeroll right back at you. You obviously live in a catchment for a great school, so you'll get in by K at the latest. It's hard to feel sympathy for your "shutout."

LOL! First, I should have said I was in the teens, not 20s, for my IB. My IB is Peabody, which, if you've ever seen the megathread in this forum, is only good through K. So, eyeroll back at you?

But there are schools nearby to you that had open PK3 seats, right after the 1st round - didn't both Miner and Walker-Jones have slots? Did you do the second round?

Yes, she could probably walk into Payne and get a seat tomorrow. There are very few people who are "shut out;" they're just too picky. And they would have been too picky for the old system as well.

PS - It's okay to be picky! But don't blame the lottery for not having an acceptable seat for you. Not that this PP is blaming anyone. Sorry, Peabody PP, for jumping on your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oops. Would you have preferred to not know your fate for this year until late October? That is the only difference, statistically, between the systems.

Statistically speaking, I would have had a better shot under the old system, so yes, I would have been fine not knowing my spot until mid October. At least that way I would have got something, rather than nothing.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

You clearly never went through the previous system.

BS. I went through the previous system and can tell you that EVERYONE I know got in somewhere they were happy with for PS3. EVERYONE. In fact most of us had multiple offers. Sure, we may have been less likely to get in at our number one pick, but we got multiple offers. This time around, if you got a bad draw in the lottery you were shut out of everywhere.

For us, it worked okay. For PS3 we had offers for Bridges, Appletree, DC Prep and a couple of others, as well as our inbound. For K we played again now with the common lottery and were shut out initially and hovered around the 50 percent mark on all the wait lists. Got in to our number 5 pick in May and happy there (so far). Still, for most people under the old system so long as you applied everywhere your chances of being shut out were minimal.

I find this perspective odd as there are the same number of slots for children in the old system as well as the common lottery, and therefore the same number shut out either way. I guess last year your friends were just all lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm always interested in all of the spin in March and April over the lottery waitlists, as it has been my personal experience over the last eight years that most folks land somewhere within the public school system. Maybe not their first choice, but somewhere acceptable. I know several families who have moved year to year from amongst multiple highly regarded charters and neighborhood schools. Does all of the spring angst really play out in the reality of school starting in September? Were people really completely shut out?

We were completely shut out.

Next year put down your IB school. Problem solved.

I did put down my IB school. I was in the lottery for PK3. I had the worst lottery number. I was in the 20s at IB, and in the hundreds at more desirable schools. Still waiting to hear from any school.

Eyeroll right back at you. You obviously live in a catchment for a great school, so you'll get in by K at the latest. It's hard to feel sympathy for your "shutout."

Really? Because I feel genuine sympathy, being in the same boat. It's hard to know that your odds of getting in next year have greatly reduced, as the number of available spots are greatly reduced from PreK3 to PreK4. It's hard knowing that if you don't get in anywhere in PreK3 or PreK4 you have to choose between your IB school or uprooting your entire family and selling your family home. The home you raised your children in. It's a cold-hearted person that doesn't feel sympathy for someone in the 12% who got shut out entirely in this sh***y system.

Sorry, I don't feel *too* much sympathy for someone who's IB for Peabody-Watkins. Yes, it sucks to lose the lottery, but there are much, much more difficult options. I do have sympathy for her, though, because it stinks to buy IB for Peabdody-SWS and then not have the option of either one when the time comes.

Please take heart, PPs. There are many, many people who have lotteried successfully for PK4 (I am one) and also for K. Of my close friends parent friends, I know FIVE families that have gotten into HRCS this year in PK4 or K (Yu Ying, MV, Stokes and IT).

[Anonymous]

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.

PP here. Should have included that it the common lottery feels worse for those who got bad waitlist numbers at ALL schools vs. getting a spread like you would have gotten in the past. At that point, once the lotteries are run, yes, you would have worse odds. But that's kind of meaningless, because running the lottery is the thing which actually plays out the operations of those odds. At the beginning, which is the only place where it really matters, your odds are the same under either system. It's the number of students applying over the number of seats available (inside your preference group).

[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.

You clearly never went through the previous system.

BS. I went through the previous system and can tell you that EVERYONE I know got in somewhere they were happy with for PS3. EVERYONE. In fact most of us had multiple offers. Sure, we may have been less likely to get in at our number one pick, but we got multiple offers. This time around, if you got a bad draw in the lottery you were shut out of everywhere.

For us, it worked okay. For PS3 we had offers for Bridges, Appletree, DC Prep and a couple of others, as well as our inbound. For K we played again now with the common lottery and were shut out initially and hovered around the 50 percent mark on all the wait lists. Got in to our number 5 pick in May and happy there (so far). Still, for most people under the old system so long as you applied everywhere your chances of being shut out were minimal.

I find this perspective odd as there are the same number of slots for children in the old system as well as the common lottery, and therefore the same number shut out either way. I guess last year your friends were just all lucky.

^^OK, that was my post and then I just saw the 5+ pages of attempts to explain statistics - LOL! Now realize this topic has been more adequately covered. +1,000,000 to anyone who took statistics in school and passed.
- signed, Math Nerd who is happy with the new system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You clearly never went through the previous system.

BS. I went through the previous system and can tell you that EVERYONE I know got in somewhere they were happy with for PS3. EVERYONE. In fact most of us had multiple offers. Sure, we may have been less likely to get in at our number one pick, but we got multiple offers. This time around, if you got a bad draw in the lottery you were shut out of everywhere.

For us, it worked okay. For PS3 we had offers for Bridges, Appletree, DC Prep and a couple of others, as well as our inbound. For K we played again now with the common lottery and were shut out initially and hovered around the 50 percent mark on all the wait lists. Got in to our number 5 pick in May and happy there (so far). Still, for most people under the old system so long as you applied everywhere your chances of being shut out were minimal.

I find this perspective odd as there are the same number of slots for children in the old system as well as the common lottery, and therefore the same number shut out either way. I guess last year your friends were just all lucky.

^^OK, that was my post and then I just saw the 5+ pages of attempts to explain statistics - LOL! Now realize this topic has been more adequately covered. +1,000,000 to anyone who took statistics in school and passed.
- signed, Math Nerd who is happy with the new system

I also am happy with the system, and have tried ad nauseum to explain it to everyone as a stats nerd, AND I got a crappy number. (From my waitlist numbers, several of which were over 400, I know I got a very late draw.) Just because I was a loser doesn't mean that it's not the best way of allocating scarce resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops. Would you have preferred to not know your fate for this year until late October? That is the only difference, statistically, between the systems.

Statistically speaking, I would have had a better shot under the old system, so yes, I would have been fine not knowing my spot until mid October. At least that way I would have got something, rather than nothing.

That is patently wrong. The math has already been explained. If you believe that math to be wrong, please explain, not by anecdote or feeling but by actual mathematical explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops. Would you have preferred to not know your fate for this year until late October? That is the only difference, statistically, between the systems.

Statistically speaking, I would have had a better shot under the old system, so yes, I would have been fine not knowing my spot until mid October. At least that way I would have got something, rather than nothing.

That is patently wrong. The math has already been explained. If you believe that math to be wrong, please explain, not by anecdote or feeling but by actual mathematical explanation.

I believe this has been explained ad naseum above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same number of students get into the desirable spots either way in this scenario. Thus, every student still has the same chance to get one of the 12 spots. The only difference is that with one lottery you know earlier whether you got into your chosen school, a different school, or got shut out.

You still don't understand the difference between one single student's odds of getting into 12 schools in 12 different lotteries vs. 12 schools in 1 lottery. No one is arguing the fact that at the end of the day, there are only X number of spots with Y numbers of people looking and only X students will end up in those spots. Yes, we all understand that part.

Each lottery is for only a fraction of the total pot. Thus the chances in each individual lottery are less than the chances of getting into any of the schools in the larger lottery.

Ex. 2 schools, 1 space in each. 10 students applying. If there are two lotteries, the student has a 1 in 10 chance of getting into school A and a 1 in 10 chance of getting into school B. Thus, the student has a 2 in 10 (1 in 5) chance of getting into either school. If there is one lottery, the student has a 2 in 10 (or 1 in 5) chance of getting into one of the schools. See how it is the same. Do you need another example?

You're assuming that all things are equal in this example. They are not. Under the old system, child had a 1 in 10 chance at one school and a 1 in 500 chance at another school and each of those odds operated independently of each other. Under the new system with the single draw, a poor number rules them out of every single option, even the ones where the odds would have been pretty good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm always interested in all of the spin in March and April over the lottery waitlists, as it has been my personal experience over the last eight years that most folks land somewhere within the public school system. Maybe not their first choice, but somewhere acceptable. I know several families who have moved year to year from amongst multiple highly regarded charters and neighborhood schools. Does all of the spring angst really play out in the reality of school starting in September? Were people really completely shut out?

We were completely shut out.

No you were not. There are still open slots at many schools. Take one.

[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.

The same Shining Stars that has been unforthcoming to parents about where they will actually be this year and has moved locations twice? The same one that had no location one week before school started? No thank you.

Well they have a new spot now for two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, you win, statistics moron. Let's go back to a system in which everyone has an equal chance to land a desirable spot, but the spots they land are not desirable to them. Great plan.

Childish namecalling aside, another issue you clearly don't understand is the difference between working to improve the overall number of quality spots available (which is essential obviously in DC), and just pointing out basic facts about the pluses and minuses about different application/lottery systems. Those are two totally different issues, even though the overwhelming demand compared to the small supply is a root cause for both.

You're too petty to pay attention to the fact that it's possible to both be in favor of the common lottery (which I am), AND to recognize that there is a drawback, namely that actually individual odds of getting in to one of the better schools are reduced if there's one draw. Good luck with just spinning around on namecalling and oversimplication. Hopefully others are actually able to recognize the pluses and minuses and keep working to improve BOTH the number of quality school spots available (by improving the schools we already have and opening new schools where necessary, both complex but crucial endeavors) as well as by improving the application system each year.

THANK YOU! Of course those of us who are smart would never call PP a "moron" no matter what the evidence might suggest.

You do realize I'm reading this and attempting to engage in a discussion based on my perceptions, prior discussions, anecdotal scenarios and my apparently very limited grasp of statistics, right? How does being snarky and personally attacking me (with your "evidence" and all) contribute to this? And, no, I'm not new to DCUM and have seen many a thread devolve into this crap. It's ridiculous.

I'm also in favor of the common lottery and see its benefit clearly. I also know that the prior system had advantages, which I've explained based on my experience. We did not take the spot offered to us because changing circumstances made the logistics a little more difficult than anticipated and because we had the option to remain in our preschool another year. Entering the lottery this year was a totally different experience and we got shut out. I'm not bitching, I'm not name calling, I'm not pointing fingers. Someone has to be last. Just knock off the bitchiness for a second or two and try to contribute.

No bitchiness aimed at you. Not quite sure how you interpreted my comment (especially after I said "thank you") - I was reacting to PP who called you (at least I'm assuming it was you) "statistics moron" and saying that you and I are too smart to engage in name calling.

[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.

You clearly never went through the previous system.

BS. I went through the previous system and can tell you that EVERYONE I know got in somewhere they were happy with for PS3. EVERYONE. In fact most of us had multiple offers. Sure, we may have been less likely to get in at our number one pick, but we got multiple offers. This time around, if you got a bad draw in the lottery you were shut out of everywhere.

For us, it worked okay. For PS3 we had offers for Bridges, Appletree, DC Prep and a couple of others, as well as our inbound. For K we played again now with the common lottery and were shut out initially and hovered around the 50 percent mark on all the wait lists. Got in to our number 5 pick in May and happy there (so far). Still, for most people under the old system so long as you applied everywhere your chances of being shut out were minimal.

I find this perspective odd as there are the same number of slots for children in the old system as well as the common lottery, and therefore the same number shut out either way. I guess last year your friends were just all lucky.

Not talking about "last year" but talking about the last 5 years.