Fairness of Common Lottery?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
What irks me about your proposal is that you seem to think there is some sort of moral failing in not attending a school you ranked number 1. That and the fact you don't listen to any of the criticism. |
Anonymous
All I can say is I hope you're not a teacher. Because I'm being very transparent (and even actually used the words) "You're right, I don't get it". It's not about "not listening to criticism". I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense to me. At least I'm adult enough to actually say that. So feel free to be as irked as you wish, but it is further bizarre and ridiculous to me that you are saying with a straight face that I'm suggesting there's "moral failing in not attending a school you ranked #1". Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too: You can't freak out over a system where people might "game it" and where the goal is the highest % of top matches, and then be surprised that someone thinks it's a good idea to go further and have the rankings mean more than just what schools you're waitlisted on. Oh, and for the record, no one is suggesting it's a "moral failing" to go to your #2 school, especially if it's the best you got into and it works for your family. Never said anything like that. All other arguments aside, if the whole point isn't to get people to take their choices seriously and give the most people the most chances at getting into their top choice, I give up. What irks you is what I thought the point was. And I still think it's the point. But hey, don't lose anymore energy being irked - as you are more than clear about, I have nothing to do with what actually happens with the lottery, so you can allow me to think rankings should matter more and there should be individual school lotteries, while in fact for the forseeable future you can be happy with a system where a larger number of matches can be families who "settle" for #4 because overall they had a pretty good number, while lots of families who were dying to go to the same school strike out with all schools. I don't know a way to fix that that would work, but it seems like a fair thing to aspire to: same # of slots, but a higher % of families getting matched with their #1 choice. |
Anonymous
All I can say is I hope you're not a teacher. Because I'm being very transparent (and even actually used the words) "You're right, I don't get it". It's not about "not listening to criticism". I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense to me. At least I'm adult enough to actually say that. So feel free to be as irked as you wish, but it is further bizarre and ridiculous to me that you are saying with a straight face that I'm suggesting there's "moral failing in not attending a school you ranked #1". Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too: You can't freak out over a system where people might "game it" and where the goal is the highest % of top matches, and then be surprised that someone thinks it's a good idea to go further and have the rankings mean more than just what schools you're waitlisted on. Oh, and for the record, no one is suggesting it's a "moral failing" to go to your #2 school, especially if it's the best you got into and it works for your family. Never said anything like that. All other arguments aside, if the whole point isn't to get people to take their choices seriously and give the most people the most chances at getting into their top choice, I give up. What irks you is what I thought the point was. And I still think it's the point. But hey, don't lose anymore energy being irked - as you are more than clear about, I have nothing to do with what actually happens with the lottery, so you can allow me to think rankings should matter more and there should be individual school lotteries WITHIN the overall common lottery, while in fact for the forseeable future you can be happy with a system where a larger number of matches can be families who "settle" for #4 because overall they had a pretty good number, while lots of families who were dying to go to the same school strike out with all schools. I don't know a way to fix that that would work, but it seems like a fair thing to aspire to: same # of slots, but a higher % of families getting matched with their #1 choice. |
Anonymous
| PP, have you bothered to read actual articles describing the mechanics of the lottery? I think it would be worth your time. |
Anonymous
I have. Which articles to you find to be especially helpful? I'll see if I've read those. Links would be great. |
Anonymous
It's so funny to me that you're kind of getting huffy and you clearly don't understand how the lottery works. The algorithm isn't preventing people from matching with their number 1 choices; the lack of seats is preventing more people from matching with their number 1 choices. People with the best lottery numbers DO get matched with their number 1 choices. Then the seats are gone at the top schools, so people with very good and good numbers start to match with their number 2 (call it B) and number 3 (call it C) schools. Under your system, they would not be allowed to match at B or C because they didn't rank it number 1. (They are "settling" for B or C, in your words.) So you want those people, who had very good numbers, remember, to go the the end of every waitlist. How on earth do you think that increases overall satisfaction? In reality, a system like this would discourage nearly everyone from applying to their dream schools because the results would be catastrophic. A handful of people would get their dream schools, and thousands upon thousands of applicants would be matched at the very bottom of their lists. Very few people would be able to afford to gamble on their dream schools at all. Don't you want people to at least be able to take a shot at a super-competitive school? I understand your impulse to want to increase satisfaction, but there is no way to measure how "badly" families want a particular school other than to have them rank them in order. After that, it's all about the luck of the numbers. |
Anonymous
| This is sort of the problem with DC, isn't it? Too many people with strong opinions about policies |
Anonymous
| This is sort of the problem with DC, isn't it? Too many people who have strong opinions about policies, but who lack the math skills to actually evaluate those policies. |
Anonymous
| It's such a stupid idea I'm enjoying watching this nut cling to it impervious to every flaw and counter-argument exposed. |
Anonymous
Repeat this, over and over. There is nothing wrong with the way the lottery is run, it's actually run quite well. What's wrong is how few seats there are at schools people want to attend. |
Anonymous
+1 Anyone wanting to go back to the way things were before should read this article... http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-school-parents-struggle-with-wait-list-shuffle/2012/09/09/6b10eb26-f2f1-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html |
Anonymous
| Not surprised people are piling on the resistant poster, but unless I'm missing something they're not suggesting going back to original system of each school holding their own. Their idea may not work, but it's not the old system they are proposing. |
Anonymous
You lawyers are so sadistic! 
|
Anonymous
We know. The system they are proposing is infinitely worse than the old system, which is not bad at all by comparison. |
Anonymous
Then why did someone just post that anyone considering going back to the old system should read an article? That sounds like someone who didn't know. |