Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are a dozen kids at YY who learn to understand some Mandarin, or another dialect, at home. They're not bilingual, or native speakers, because they seldom answer in Chinese outside class. The names of bilingual kids rarely go in the lottery hat, both because the lack of ethnic leadership doesn't work for their immigrant parents and because the lottery, which welcomes individual families rather than an ethnic community, runs contrary to Chinese cultural norms. I recognize that this background will be of no interest to most YY parents.
As somebody already pointed out, the research supports that two-way immersion is far and away the best method for kids to learn a second or third language. It follows that the one lottery for all should be scraped. It won't be for at least 20 years, but it should be.
I don't expect you to answer PP, because you've already shown that you won't or you can't. But does anyone else have theories about why this person is this wound up about something that Yu Ying couldn't change even if it was their biggest priority (admissions preference for ethnic, native-speaking Chinese students)? What situation or personality that sounds fairly intelligent chooses to ignore this reality and yet twist and twist and twist over this issue without letting up?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Different poster, but PP your understanding of the common lottery is wrong. It would be so much better if it worked through #1 picks first; but it doesn't. It takes the person with random lottery #0001 or however many there were, and taking preference groups into consideration (siblings and IB where applicable) it works through all of that #0001 person's list to match them, and then moves onto #0002. Person #9999 pretty much has zero chance in Hades getting matched anywhere on their list of 12 unless they apply to a school that never has a waiting list. If it went through #1 rankings first, that would be much fairer, but person #0050 who ranks Yu Ying 11th has a better chance of getting in than person #0600 who ranks Yu Ying #1.
If they figure out how to have the algorithm consider the parent's ranking of schools as well as random lottery number and preference, that would be a great improvement.
I actually don't think that your understanding of the lottery is correct. But even in your scenario, person with a number of 50 is not getting into their 11th choice. They are getting into their 1, 2 or 3 choice. And YY would be ranked as #1 by many, many people, so it would still be a combination of great number/high ranking.
NP here. PP is absolutely correct in her description of how the lottery works.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Different poster, but PP your understanding of the common lottery is wrong. It would be so much better if it worked through #1 picks first; but it doesn't. It takes the person with random lottery #0001 or however many there were, and taking preference groups into consideration (siblings and IB where applicable) it works through all of that #0001 person's list to match them, and then moves onto #0002. Person #9999 pretty much has zero chance in Hades getting matched anywhere on their list of 12 unless they apply to a school that never has a waiting list. If it went through #1 rankings first, that would be much fairer, but person #0050 who ranks Yu Ying 11th has a better chance of getting in than person #0600 who ranks Yu Ying #1.
If they figure out how to have the algorithm consider the parent's ranking of schools as well as random lottery number and preference, that would be a great improvement.
I actually don't think that your understanding of the lottery is correct. But even in your scenario, person with a number of 50 is not getting into their 11th choice. They are getting into their 1, 2 or 3 choice. And YY would be ranked as #1 by many, many people, so it would still be a combination of great number/high ranking.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Different poster, but PP your understanding of the common lottery is wrong. It would be so much better if it worked through #1 picks first; but it doesn't. It takes the person with random lottery #0001 or however many there were, and taking preference groups into consideration (siblings and IB where applicable) it works through all of that #0001 person's list to match them, and then moves onto #0002. Person #9999 pretty much has zero chance in Hades getting matched anywhere on their list of 12 unless they apply to a school that never has a waiting list. If it went through #1 rankings first, that would be much fairer, but person #0050 who ranks Yu Ying 11th has a better chance of getting in than person #0600 who ranks Yu Ying #1.
If they figure out how to have the algorithm consider the parent's ranking of schools as well as random lottery number and preference, that would be a great improvement.
I actually don't think that your understanding of the lottery is correct. But even in your scenario, person with a number of 50 is not getting into their 11th choice. They are getting into their 1, 2 or 3 choice. And YY would be ranked as #1 by many, many people, so it would still be a combination of great number/high ranking.
Anonymous wrote:There are a dozen kids at YY who learn to understand some Mandarin, or another dialect, at home. They're not bilingual, or native speakers, because they seldom answer in Chinese outside class. The names of bilingual kids rarely go in the lottery hat, both because the lack of ethnic leadership doesn't work for their immigrant parents and because the lottery, which welcomes individual families rather than an ethnic community, runs contrary to Chinese cultural norms. I recognize that this background will be of no interest to most YY parents.
As somebody already pointed out, the research supports that two-way immersion is far and away the best method for kids to learn a second or third language. It follows that the one lottery for all should be scraped. It won't be for at least 20 years, but it should be.
Anonymous wrote:Different poster, but PP your understanding of the common lottery is wrong. It would be so much better if it worked through #1 picks first; but it doesn't. It takes the person with random lottery #0001 or however many there were, and taking preference groups into consideration (siblings and IB where applicable) it works through all of that #0001 person's list to match them, and then moves onto #0002. Person #9999 pretty much has zero chance in Hades getting matched anywhere on their list of 12 unless they apply to a school that never has a waiting list. If it went through #1 rankings first, that would be much fairer, but person #0050 who ranks Yu Ying 11th has a better chance of getting in than person #0600 who ranks Yu Ying #1.
If they figure out how to have the algorithm consider the parent's ranking of schools as well as random lottery number and preference, that would be a great improvement.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, sorry that that these wankers have mangled your innocuous thread.
PS. Hope you've learned to avoid advocating a thing where YY is concerned.
Meh, OPs original assumption that the common lottery ranking takes care of YY's concern about getting parents serious about Chinese isn't really true. Common lottery computer only looks at your random assigned lottery number for the most part, not how you ranked the school until it gets to you. Parents who would rank YY #1 but got a random lottery number of 480 would NOT get in ahead of someone who ranked YY #7 but had a 200 random number, unless 200 got to one of their higher ranked choices, which might or might not happen.
We plan to apply next year and we hope they keep a separate lottery.
First of all, you're discounting the fact that not everyone who gets into YY through the separate lottery would choose YY as a first choice. Remember, the line standing is only for the waiting list, so someone could apply online the day before the lottery closed and have just as much chance of getting in as the people who stood out in the cold for 8 hours.
Second of all, I think you are misunderstanding how the lottery works. My understanding is that it looks at people's #1 choices first, and matches as many of those people as possible. In subsequent rounds, the "accepted" kids will only be displaced by students with sibling preference (and in-bounds preference for DCPS) or by people with better numbers. So for any school with few seats, the ones who match are going to be siblings and those who ranked the school highly AND had an excellent number. Someone who had a truly excellent number is not going to match with their number 7 school unless they chose 6 schools with no seats available.
Anonymous wrote:There are a dozen kids at YY who learn to understand some Mandarin, or another dialect, at home. They're not bilingual, or native speakers, because they seldom answer in Chinese outside class. The names of bilingual kids rarely go in the lottery hat, both because the lack of ethnic leadership doesn't work for their immigrant parents and because the lottery, which welcomes individual families rather than an ethnic community, runs contrary to Chinese cultural norms. I recognize that this background will be of no interest to most YY parents.
As somebody already pointed out, the research supports that two-way immersion is far and away the best method for kids to learn a second or third language. It follows that the one lottery for all should be scraped. It won't be for at least 20 years, but it should be.
Anonymous wrote:There are a dozen kids at YY who learn to understand some Mandarin, or another dialect, at home. They're not bilingual, or native speakers, because they seldom answer in Chinese outside class. The names of bilingual kids rarely go in the lottery hat, both because the lack of ethnic leadership doesn't work for their immigrant parents and because the lottery, which welcomes individual families rather than an ethnic community, runs contrary to Chinese cultural norms. I recognize that this background will be of no interest to most YY parents.
As somebody already pointed out, the research supports that two-way immersion is far and away the best method for kids to learn a second or third language. It follows that the one lottery for all should be scraped. It won't be for at least 20 years, but it should be.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, sorry that that these wankers have mangled your innocuous thread.
PS. Hope you've learned to avoid advocating a thing where YY is concerned.
Meh, OPs original assumption that the common lottery ranking takes care of YY's concern about getting parents serious about Chinese isn't really true. Common lottery computer only looks at your random assigned lottery number for the most part, not how you ranked the school until it gets to you. Parents who would rank YY #1 but got a random lottery number of 480 would NOT get in ahead of someone who ranked YY #7 but had a 200 random number, unless 200 got to one of their higher ranked choices, which might or might not happen.
We plan to apply next year and we hope they keep a separate lottery.
Anonymous wrote:Yu Ying had 5 spaces for Prek3 and 9 spaces for PreK4 this year for the lottery.
They had no spaces in grades K, 1st, and 2nd so it was only the waitlist for people who applied to these grades.
Not sure if being in the common lottery will make any difference for future yrs other than getting rid of the waitlist by timestamp which will become completely random like other HRCS.