Charter Waitlist Data is Available!

[Anonymous]

It seems like its in the city's interest, if not any particular hyper-informed parent, to make the ranking and lottery system as easy to understand as possible. That would presumably catch the attention and participation of the most people. Believe it or not, the mean lottery participant probably hasn't set up a likelihood-of-waitlist-movement spreadsheet and keeping things simple on the ranking front means those people aren't being unfairly disadvantaged.

[TheGreatEscape]

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...

I don't think wanting a school more should provide an advantage in the lottery and I'm glad the system was set up with this in mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Didn't read the whole paper, but there's no data that supports your post (at least not in Section 4). Statements from a Boston school superintendent aren't data. There should be a way to appropriately weight rankings (in addition to the lottery number) so as to produce a fairer outcome. Just don't see how not taking into account families' preferences at all makes the system better. If a family doesn't bid on their true top choice for strategic reasons, then that's their problem. But it will absolutely help someone with a low number be more competitive at their top choice schools.

[Anonymous]

TheGreatEscape wrote:

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...

I don't think wanting a school more should provide an advantage in the lottery and I'm glad the system was set up with this in mind.

Why not? The person that ranks the school #12 is more likely to jump ship as soon they get a waitlist call.

[Anonymous]

TheGreatEscape wrote:

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...

I don't think wanting a school more should provide an advantage in the lottery and I'm glad the system was set up with this in mind.

Of course it should--if the city is truly interested in matching students up with schools that they really want to attend.