Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

As it turns out, I'm a game theorist. So, yes, I COMPLETELY familiar with such concepts as the prisoners' dilemma.

You're confusing matters. The tension in a PD is that everyone has a strictly dominant strategy: fink. Translated here, this is "going private" is the strictly dominant strategy. No one believes, not even yourself.

Instead, what you're actually describing is a coordination game. Stag Hunt is a good example. If you and I agree to work together, we can bring down a large deer and eat like kings. If I work alone, I can catch some rabbits. You too. But if I decide to hunt stag while you go after rabbits, I go hungry while you dine on Bugs Bunny.

Stag Hunt is more applicable here. That's the crux of the matter: if the IB families agree to send their children to Hardy, Hardy will quickly look like Deal. If you look below the surface, it already looks like Deal in several key ways.


An unrelated poster asked about "why would I send my kid to a lesser-quality school (Hardy) when I could just send them somewhere better (private)?" There is a difference in cost, you know. That should be a sufficient answer, but there are other compensating differentials as well.

Moreover, my entire point was that if Wilson is good enough for your child, Hardy is most certainly good enough for him too. If Deal is good enough for your child, you can make a solid case that Hardy is good enough for him too. That's what the data say.

I'm not a game theorist -- but I'm an ed. researcher. So actually, I think that one of the key differences here is that IB Hardy is wealthier than IB Deal, so IB families DO have access to the dominant strategy. CF also Hearst, which is our school. Hearst has low IB participation because the IB population is more affluent thank JKLM. IB Hardy families are mostly not catching rabbits, they get the stag at the country club. (Ouch. I think there's a law against mixing metaphors like that).

Also, while I like and appreciate your analysis, what PP said about "functional whiteness." I understand what you mean but I think it's a tone deaf way to express it, and I think it does gloss over difficulties encountered by middle class AA kids.

OP here. It's not about access to a dominant strategy. Stag Hunt is a coordination game that probably best describes the Hardy-IB situation. There is no dominant strategy in the Stag Hunt. (That there is a dominant strategy in an unrelated game that doesn't really apply is irrelevant here.)

Bloviating aside, this is all besides the main point. Hardy is already good enough for IB students if they actually look at the correct numbers (concerns about looking only at numbers notwithstanding). There are indications greater numbers of parents are realizing this and sending their children to Hardy. This makes the main point more obvious and, hence, makes coordination easier for those who continue to demand coordination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ideally people will engage the points in the first post instead of devolving into screeds against uniforms or the unquantified value of fitting in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy

OP here. There does not exist a robust theory of decisionmaking that can adequately take into account that which cannot be quantified, measured or even perceived. You are suggesting we make decisions based upon "feelings and perceptions" (don't take these words literally). While that's well-and-good, it sounds an awful lot like simply finding items to include that justify a preordained decision. (I honestly believe that this is what most people do -- myself included at times, but that doesn't mean it is how things should be. It is purely ad hoc.)

The theory implied by your post(s) is observationally equivalent to a person doing whatever he wanted to do in the first place. Data be damned. There is no updating and posterior beliefs match prior beliefs regardless of what is observed in the interim. I don't think this is what you actually want.

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

As it turns out, I'm a game theorist. So, yes, I COMPLETELY familiar with such concepts as the prisoners' dilemma.

You're confusing matters. The tension in a PD is that everyone has a strictly dominant strategy: fink. Translated here, this is "going private" is the strictly dominant strategy. No one believes, not even yourself.

Instead, what you're actually describing is a coordination game. Stag Hunt is a good example. If you and I agree to work together, we can bring down a large deer and eat like kings. If I work alone, I can catch some rabbits. You too. But if I decide to hunt stag while you go after rabbits, I go hungry while you dine on Bugs Bunny.

Stag Hunt is more applicable here. That's the crux of the matter: if the IB families agree to send their children to Hardy, Hardy will quickly look like Deal. If you look below the surface, it already looks like Deal in several key ways.


An unrelated poster asked about "why would I send my kid to a lesser-quality school (Hardy) when I could just send them somewhere better (private)?" There is a difference in cost, you know. That should be a sufficient answer, but there are other compensating differentials as well.

Moreover, my entire point was that if Wilson is good enough for your child, Hardy is most certainly good enough for him too. If Deal is good enough for your child, you can make a solid case that Hardy is good enough for him too. That's what the data say.

I'm not a game theorist -- but I'm an ed. researcher. So actually, I think that one of the key differences here is that IB Hardy is wealthier than IB Deal, so IB families DO have access to the dominant strategy. CF also Hearst, which is our school. Hearst has low IB participation because the IB population is more affluent thank JKLM. IB Hardy families are mostly not catching rabbits, they get the stag at the country club. (Ouch. I think there's a law against mixing metaphors like that).

Also, while I like and appreciate your analysis, what PP said about "functional whiteness." I understand what you mean but I think it's a tone deaf way to express it, and I think it does gloss over difficulties encountered by middle class AA kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Whether or not a group has benefited from systemic racism (knowingly or unknowingly), IN DC "white" is a proxy for high-income. You'd have to look high and low to find a significant number of poor white families in this city in 2015. The DC suburbs, Baltimore or any other city would be a different story.

I'm not arguing that white people in DC aren't, by and large, high income. I totally agree that they are. I'm arguing that you can't look at the numbers that represent the experience of high-income white kids in DC, and assume that experience of high-income kids of color, and particularly high-income AA kids, will be the same.

There is a lot of research comparing test scores and outcome for AA kids with white kids that show a substantial gap, even when income, household education, and other factors are controlled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is this OP? Again I appreciate your thoughtfulness, or whoever you are.

...

As for the costs, public schools with great demographics create networks of former classmates who are later successful in their business and professional ventures. Sure, if you attend InnerCity Middle and High School, you probably will still be successful, but you will not have this long-standing network, deep friendships that go back to the playground before any of you had any money or any clue. To me, these social aspects are important. As an economist surely you've seen research on the value of such networks. Plus the benefit of the parent networks, not even considering the kids!

No, I am a different social scientist.

As to the student networks, I am dubious that MS networks matter much to life success. HS networks maybe (but Hardy feeds Wilson, same as Deal does) and college networks matter more. OP did not mention the possible advantages on a college essay of describing an experience at a MS with very high FARMs or minority rates. You can call that a nebulous benefit, but I think it is no more so than a MS network.

As for parents networks, that's a point. Though my sense is that MS parents network less with each other than ES parents, and the need to move out of the neighborhood (if they are not doing the private school choice) could be disruptive to their social networks.

I'm PP. Just to respond to one thing, the college essay. Actually I expect white affluent kids to derive zero benefit from this. For sure, a black kid, even if affluent, could use this to advantage, or a poor white kid, but not a rich white kid. So I don't think that's valid.

Your other points about networks are fair enough. My personal experience is different but I'm certainly prepared to agree that, on average, college networks are much more important than MS.

To OP, I think you repeatedly overestimate the costs of avoiding Hardy, something you might consider. I tried to address this in my other post with real life examples.

Anonymous wrote:
Ideally people will engage the points in the first post instead of devolving into screeds against uniforms or the unquantified value of fitting in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy

Anonymous wrote:
Is this OP? Again I appreciate your thoughtfulness, or whoever you are.

...

As for the costs, public schools with great demographics create networks of former classmates who are later successful in their business and professional ventures. Sure, if you attend InnerCity Middle and High School, you probably will still be successful, but you will not have this long-standing network, deep friendships that go back to the playground before any of you had any money or any clue. To me, these social aspects are important. As an economist surely you've seen research on the value of such networks. Plus the benefit of the parent networks, not even considering the kids!

No, I am a different social scientist.

As to the student networks, I am dubious that MS networks matter much to life success. HS networks maybe (but Hardy feeds Wilson, same as Deal does) and college networks matter more. OP did not mention the possible advantages on a college essay of describing an experience at a MS with very high FARMs or minority rates. You can call that a nebulous benefit, but I think it is no more so than a MS network.

As for parents networks, that's a point. Though my sense is that MS parents network less with each other than ES parents, and the need to move out of the neighborhood (if they are not doing the private school choice) could be disruptive to their social networks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism.

OP here: lest you think I'm ignoring you, I will not be responding to this statement. If that's your stance, there is likely little possibility for reasonable discussion. (I'm not denying racism; I'm just denying that this is all there is.)

different PP - actually that post is orthogonal to your analysis. Whether the advantages white children have are due to parental involvement (which would be similar for high SES black children) or to racism (which would not be) your analysis and results would still hold. There would be differences in the return to parental involvement (for both races) but that is not the question you address.

OP here. Yes, fellow economist, you are correct. I didn't want to appear to be engaging the prior poster on this point. There are not gains to be had. I appreciate you weighing in here: more critical analysis desperately wanted.

Ideally people will engage the points in the first post instead of devolving into screeds against uniforms or the unquantified value of fitting in.

To the other poster, I will self-identify all of my replies at the outset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this shows how stoopid economists are. They don't understand the important things in life, like school uniforms, they think it is all about test scores and academics.

Suppose my kid comes home wearing a uniform, and my neighbor sees it. They will think my kid goes to a ghetto school. I am supposed to start telling them about standard deviations and confounding variables?

Really? If you wear a uniform people will think your kid goes to a ghetto school? Are you kidding?

Dude, it's a joke! It's satire! Lighten up!

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism. There are so many studies that say that AA kids from highly educated, affluent homes where parents own books, and read to them, and value their education, are not protected from racism. They are subjected to disproportionate discipline, and low expectations, which leads to achievement gaps that continue to exist even when income, parental education, time spent reading, and other factors are taken into account.

Whether or not a group has benefited from systemic racism (knowingly or unknowingly), IN DC "white" is a proxy for high-income. You'd have to look high and low to find a significant number of poor white families in this city in 2015. The DC suburbs, Baltimore or any other city would be a different story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism.

OP here: lest you think I'm ignoring you, I will not be responding to this statement. If that's your stance, there is likely little possibility for reasonable discussion. (I'm not denying racism; I'm just denying that this is all there is.)

different PP - actually that post is orthogonal to your analysis. Whether the advantages white children have are due to parental involvement (which would be similar for high SES black children) or to racism (which would not be) your analysis and results would still hold. There would be differences in the return to parental involvement (for both races) but that is not the question you address.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Notwithstanding that I fully believe that my kid will do well anywhere, why on earth would I send my kid to the lower performing school, if I had a choice?

The implication of the above is that there are costs to attending such a school for a high SES student (or a white high SES student) that have nothing to do with the student't test scores. One is that there are academic negatives not covered by the tests. More likely is that there are social unpleasantnesses apart from academics. "My kid aced the scores, and eventually went to Dartmouth, where he regaled his classmates with tales of how he was beaten up every day at DCPS"

To the extent that those other costs are relatively minor (not like in the hypothetical quote above) the reason to send the kid to this school is that a family does not want to move, and does not want to spend the money on private school.

Is this OP? Again I appreciate your thoughtfulness, or whoever you are.

I agree but... the point is that it is very easy for many families to avoid such a school. You can rent your place out and live IB for Deal for a few years, then move back, you can sell and in most cases get something really nice in the burbs (IB Hardy real estate is pricey), and for a smaller number of families, private is affordable, especially if it's just for MS and maybe HS. Those years typically correspond with peak or near-peak earnings for parents. It's the early years when parents are most likely to struggle to pay. Bottom line, there are numerous people who have avoided Hardy without great hardship, and without being Rockefellers either.

As for the costs, public schools with great demographics create networks of former classmates who are later successful in their business and professional ventures. Sure, if you attend InnerCity Middle and High School, you probably will still be successful, but you will not have this long-standing network, deep friendships that go back to the playground before any of you had any money or any clue. To me, these social aspects are important. As an economist surely you've seen research on the value of such networks. Plus the benefit of the parent networks, not even considering the kids!

But even if you don't care about that, perhaps because you believe you and your kid can develop networks elsewhere, there is still a lot to academics beyond the test scores. Revisit your data. You see that "90 percent" DCCAS for a school does not mean that this is the average percentage score on the exam. It means this is the percentage of students who are proficient or advanced. But this (proficient) is a very, very low bar! Chosen because let's face it, DC is coming from a long way down. But for me, academics go way beyond these standardized tests. Even among schools boasting 90 plus, there can be big variations in the level of academic rigor and enrichment. And this in turn will mostly be a function of average levels of performance. It is all very well to focus on the "white" scores for your kids, but DCPS central office and the school admins will have a more divided focus, if your school is not uniformly high achieving.

BTW all of this applies equally to Wilson as it does to Hardy, there I agree with OP completely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all true if you choose a school based only on test scores. Does anyone really do that?

I think so from reading some of the threads on this forum.

OP here.

I have no means of assessing those "other things" that matter. It's not that they don't matter; it's just that I'd rather to a proper analysis where the light can be shined than revert to nebulous concepts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this shows how stoopid economists are. They don't understand the important things in life, like school uniforms, they think it is all about test scores and academics.

Suppose my kid comes home wearing a uniform, and my neighbor sees it. They will think my kid goes to a ghetto school. I am supposed to start telling them about standard deviations and confounding variables?

Really? If you wear a uniform people will think your kid goes to a ghetto school? Are you kidding?

Are you new here? This is a famously repeated reason that some posters give for not sending their DC to Hardy and other assorted schools.

Anonymous wrote:

This is not true. In DC "white" is a clean proxy for being the beneficiary of systematic racism.

OP here: lest you think I'm ignoring you, I will not be responding to this statement. If that's your stance, there is likely little possibility for reasonable discussion. (I'm not denying racism; I'm just denying that this is all there is.)