Anonymous
04/18/2016 22:51
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
The problem with strategic ranking is that overall, it leads to sub-optimal outcomes. As soon as people start ranking in less-than-true-preference order, and assignments are done based on that ranking, there is a net loss of utility.
This pp must be an economist or other. They are correct. People should read up on this system and the reasoning behind it before they get so critical. No system will give everyone what they want, as we already know when supply is less than demand.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 22:38
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
The problem with strategic ranking is that overall, it leads to sub-optimal outcomes. As soon as people start ranking in less-than-true-preference order, and assignments are done based on that ranking, there is a net loss of utility.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 22:33
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
Because the lottery is intended to maximize the number of people marched to their preferred option. If people rank strategically, it can't do that.
Hey, I get it. I got a lousy draw, too. But the lottery is not the problem - it's that there isn't enough capacity at desirable schools and a lot of capacity at low performing schools. No lottery algorithm can fix that. At least now the lottery winners (of whom I am not one) can go to the schools they actually desire.
For sure, the capacity issue will not be solved by any algorithm. Everyone understands this. What we're arguing about is how to assign the scarce resources in the fairest, best way possible. The bolded part of your statement is the exact issue. The current algorithm does not take families' preferences into consideration (as expressed by their rankings). I don't agree with the OP's exact suggestion but I do think that bidders' rankings should factor into the process. If people decide to rank strategically, what's the big deal? I really don't see the problem with that. You could just as easily say to yourself "I'll put YY as my number 1, because most people will strategically bid on Shining Stars instead..." There is no foolproof way to game the system by strategic ranking. This isn't a video game with a cheat code. But what you do get is increased fairness, when someone with a bad number has a better chance at a school they ranked highly--instead of being last on all the lists.
Taking families' preference into account will dramatically favor those who have options -- like already being at an OK school and looking to trade up. As a PP noted, with this system if you don't get into your #1 you're basically screwed, regardless of your number. If you can afford to waste your one bullet, you'll aim high. If you can't, you'll hedge. What you'll see is people hedging to get in somewhere, and then shooting higher and higher in successive years. The resulting churn will destabilize the entire system. And there will be no net benefit: the number of seats at desirable schools will be unchanged.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 22:29
Subject: Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:I appreciate your idea and premise and hate that it isn't doable. I know of a couple families who have Lee as their first choice. It's a great school, but Montessori isn't for everyone, yet these families are in the 200s on the waitlist. It stinks.
You just know some of the admitted families (not just at Lee, but everywhere) are just biding their time until they can lottery into their preferred choice. It does stink for people who really want to be there, but nothing really can be done.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 22:21
Subject: Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
I appreciate your idea and premise and hate that it isn't doable. I know of a couple families who have Lee as their first choice. It's a great school, but Montessori isn't for everyone, yet these families are in the 200s on the waitlist. It stinks.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 22:17
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
Because the lottery is intended to maximize the number of people marched to their preferred option. If people rank strategically, it can't do that.
Hey, I get it. I got a lousy draw, too. But the lottery is not the problem - it's that there isn't enough capacity at desirable schools and a lot of capacity at low performing schools. No lottery algorithm can fix that. At least now the lottery winners (of whom I am not one) can go to the schools they actually desire.
+1
Anonymous
04/18/2016 17:27
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
Because the lottery is intended to maximize the number of people marched to their preferred option. If people rank strategically, it can't do that.
Hey, I get it. I got a lousy draw, too. But the lottery is not the problem - it's that there isn't enough capacity at desirable schools and a lot of capacity at low performing schools. No lottery algorithm can fix that. At least now the lottery winners (of whom I am not one) can go to the schools they actually desire.
For sure, the capacity issue will not be solved by any algorithm. Everyone understands this. What we're arguing about is how to assign the scarce resources in the fairest, best way possible. The bolded part of your statement is the exact issue. The current algorithm does not take families' preferences into consideration (as expressed by their rankings). I don't agree with the OP's exact suggestion but I do think that bidders' rankings should factor into the process. If people decide to rank strategically, what's the big deal? I really don't see the problem with that. You could just as easily say to yourself "I'll put YY as my number 1, because most people will strategically bid on Shining Stars instead..." There is no foolproof way to game the system by strategic ranking. This isn't a video game with a cheat code. But what you do get is increased fairness, when someone with a bad number has a better chance at a school they ranked highly--instead of being last on all the lists.
It does take them into account by taking people with good lottery #s and matching them to their highest ranked choice. What OP suggests would definitely not take true preference I to account because people would rank strategically - so you wouldn't know that their "top" choice is really their preference.
As PP said before, I think the Nobel winners have this one figured out.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 17:17
Subject: Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
I came up with an idea similar to the OP's, but we should give preference to the #6 spot. It's probably a better system than one designed by a person who understands these kinds of things even though I can't show why.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 17:13
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
Because the lottery is intended to maximize the number of people marched to their preferred option. If people rank strategically, it can't do that.
Hey, I get it. I got a lousy draw, too. But the lottery is not the problem - it's that there isn't enough capacity at desirable schools and a lot of capacity at low performing schools. No lottery algorithm can fix that. At least now the lottery winners (of whom I am not one) can go to the schools they actually desire.
For sure, the capacity issue will not be solved by any algorithm. Everyone understands this. What we're arguing about is how to assign the scarce resources in the fairest, best way possible. The bolded part of your statement is the exact issue. The current algorithm does not take families' preferences into consideration (as expressed by their rankings). I don't agree with the OP's exact suggestion but I do think that bidders' rankings should factor into the process. If people decide to rank strategically, what's the big deal? I really don't see the problem with that. You could just as easily say to yourself "I'll put YY as my number 1, because most people will strategically bid on Shining Stars instead..." There is no foolproof way to game the system by strategic ranking. This isn't a video game with a cheat code. But what you do get is increased fairness, when someone with a bad number has a better chance at a school they ranked highly--instead of being last on all the lists.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 16:56
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
Yes, I'm sure the system OP is suggesting is much better and fairer than the one the Nobel prize winners developed.
Lots of substantive points there. Hard to argue with that much data, and such strong arguments. And the emoji at the end, just drop the mic already.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 16:31
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
Because the lottery is intended to maximize the number of people marched to their preferred option. If people rank strategically, it can't do that.
Hey, I get it. I got a lousy draw, too. But the lottery is not the problem - it's that there isn't enough capacity at desirable schools and a lot of capacity at low performing schools. No lottery algorithm can fix that. At least now the lottery winners (of whom I am not one) can go to the schools they actually desire.
Thank you, this has been said over and over by different people, but still some just don't understand it. You are allocating a resource that is oversubscribed- there is no way to perfectly optimize it.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 16:28
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
There is strategy in the current system: rank the schools in the order you want to attend, because that will give you the best chance.
Under OP's plan you might not rank your top pick first because you heard that all but 4 slots are going to siblings and you're not optimistic enough to think you'll be among the first four draws who ranked X school #1.
Then that school expands in August but sucks to be you as you ranked a safety school #1.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 16:27
Subject: Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:At restaurants, we should seat people in order of who is most hungry.
But there are many restaurants - not just one - and everybody, by right as a DC taxpayer, has been given a free year supply of meals, but only at a single restaurant. Since each restaurant only has a handful of tables, DC does a lotto to determine who gets spots at each restaurant. Sure, I'd love to eat at Rose's Luxury or Le Diplomate everyday if I could, but I'd be also be happy eating at Meridian Pint since it's right next to my house and there is something there for everybody. Just as long as I didn't get matched with KFC or McDonalds... If that happened, I'd move to Maryland and join an exclusive Country Club.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 16:22
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
Because the lottery is intended to maximize the number of people marched to their preferred option. If people rank strategically, it can't do that.
Hey, I get it. I got a lousy draw, too. But the lottery is not the problem - it's that there isn't enough capacity at desirable schools and a lot of capacity at low performing schools. No lottery algorithm can fix that. At least now the lottery winners (of whom I am not one) can go to the schools they actually desire.
Anonymous
04/18/2016 16:19
Subject: Re:Idea - Lottery Preference for #1 Ranked School
Anonymous wrote:When did strategy become akin to Satan worship? Ooooh, no, can't do that, it'll lead to gaming. Shudder. Oh, how terrible! Wake up people. The whole charter system is gaming. We're gaming people who don't have the ability, education, or access to research or apply to charter schools.
A variation on the system proposed by the OP that assigns a weight to one's ranking of 12 schools (in addition to the random lottery number) would be quite workable, and would provide better, fairer outcomes, earlier in the process.
Yes, I'm sure the system OP is suggesting is much better and fairer than the one the Nobel prize winners developed.