Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 11:37     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:OP here,

Let's take the heterodox/neoclassical discussion to the pages of the [i]International Academy of Business & Economics.[\i] (It's my second-favorite journal, behind [i]Problemy Prognozirovaniya[\i], of course.)

I expect overall in-bound percentages to be
last year: 13% (this is a confirmed number)
current year: 15%
next year: 17%
following year: 25%

Farms (if you care about that kind of thing), will decline from
last year: 55% (this is a confirmed number)
current year: 45%
next year: 30%
following year: 22.5%


OP

You seem to think FARMs will decline much more rapidly than IB increases. Is this because you think non-IB feeder will increase and that most of those are non-FARMs, or do you think there will be a shift to more non-FARMs seeking Hardy as an OOB option, perhaps as the growing higher SES students in EOTP/Hill ES move up and see Hardy as an increasingly desirable option?
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 11:34     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:
One note though, I am not sure that the views of OOB matter much to this game. Not trying to be callous, and not saying their views don't matter in general or that they are not valuable contributors to the school. But to the extent that any IB can take the spot of an OOB at 6th, by the simple act of choosing Hardy, it is really the IB who matter for this game. The IB control the future of Hardy. Of course school admin and central office also play a role. In determining how many total seats (which also affects IB %), in employing strategies to make the school more attractive (the dreaded uniforms), and so on.



Sorry for not being more clear. The reason OOB choices matter is because OOB families are heterogeneous wrt to SES and other demographic attributes. In the event there is a surge in apps to Hardy from higher SES famlies in locations without worse MS options, and/or a decline in apps from lower SES families in areas where potentially options could improve, that would impact Hardy. As would a shift in the reverse direction.

Also the mix and attitudes of OOB families may impact school policies. One takeaway I get from these discussions, is that in the past there was a considerable body of OOB families who were actively hostile to changes at the school, but today many OOB families have different attitudes. Since there is self selection in which OOB families seek out Hardy, the nature of the Hardy admin and its policies will impact the mix of attitudes among OOB families, which in turn can ease the path to further changes in policies.
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 11:27     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
OP here,

Let's take the heterodox/neoclassical discussion to the pages of the [i]International Academy of Business & Economics.[\i] (It's my second-favorite journal, behind [i]Problemy Prognozirovaniya[\i], of course.)

I expect overall in-bound percentages to be
last year: 13% (this is a confirmed number)
current year: 15%
next year: 17%
following year: 25%

Farms (if you care about that kind of thing), will decline from
last year: 55% (this is a confirmed number)
current year: 45%
next year: 30%
following year: 22.5%
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 11:16     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Are the uniforms really bring dropped?
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 11:12     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

You're responding to my post. What you seem to be saying is that real life is more complicated than a 2-player model. Well, yes, can't argue with you there. But it's common to start with a simple model and then make our best effort to relax assumptions and add complexity. It's reasonable for me to debate with OP which of several competing game theory models might best apply to a given real life situation. It's not the end of the conversation, but it's a reasonable beginning. And as you may know, the debate over PD and stag hunt is a tricky one in general.


I am have not studied modern behavioral econ, my training is further back than that. However in my experience economists very often present models with simplifying assumptions, acknowledge that they are simplifying assumptions, and then leap into details and mathematical complexity that are meaningless once you relax a key, obvious, unrealistic assumption. The promised relaxation gets lost.

I see that happening here. I am skeptical that debate about which 2 player model is the better fit has any real bearing on this situation which is a multiplayer reality (and not only among the IB family decision makers, but also OOB families, Hardy Admin, and DCPS admin, none of whom are completely exogenous)

I think the two player models serve to give us a way of thinking about things, and for that reason are useful. I do not think debating which is closer to reality is useful. I think a discussion of the real heterogeneity, and how that maps to potential and likely shifts in demographics is more useful.


Me again. Yes, your instincts are consistent with heterodoxy and also with behavioral econ and some other strains. And for the record, I am empathetic to all of this and I also think that sometimes modern micro is as much mathematical masturbation as it is social science research. But this is for discussion over a beer sometime and is just way beyond this thread. My gesture in this direction was when I provided the list of 10 reasons, which was an attempt to at least begin to explain the unquantifiable, the reasons why people make school choices other than looking at standardized test results.

One note though, I am not sure that the views of OOB matter much to this game. Not trying to be callous, and not saying their views don't matter in general or that they are not valuable contributors to the school. But to the extent that any IB can take the spot of an OOB at 6th, by the simple act of choosing Hardy, it is really the IB who matter for this game. The IB control the future of Hardy. Of course school admin and central office also play a role. In determining how many total seats (which also affects IB %), in employing strategies to make the school more attractive (the dreaded uniforms), and so on.

Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 11:01     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:

You're responding to my post. What you seem to be saying is that real life is more complicated than a 2-player model. Well, yes, can't argue with you there. But it's common to start with a simple model and then make our best effort to relax assumptions and add complexity. It's reasonable for me to debate with OP which of several competing game theory models might best apply to a given real life situation. It's not the end of the conversation, but it's a reasonable beginning. And as you may know, the debate over PD and stag hunt is a tricky one in general.


I am have not studied modern behavioral econ, my training is further back than that. However in my experience economists very often present models with simplifying assumptions, acknowledge that they are simplifying assumptions, and then leap into details and mathematical complexity that are meaningless once you relax a key, obvious, unrealistic assumption. The promised relaxation gets lost.

I see that happening here. I am skeptical that debate about which 2 player model is the better fit has any real bearing on this situation which is a multiplayer reality (and not only among the IB family decision makers, but also OOB families, Hardy Admin, and DCPS admin, none of whom are completely exogenous)

I think the two player models serve to give us a way of thinking about things, and for that reason are useful. I do not think debating which is closer to reality is useful. I think a discussion of the real heterogeneity, and how that maps to potential and likely shifts in demographics is more useful.
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 11:01     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Op here.

Won't be 17% for the whole school. That's too big of a jump based on what we know.

I expect around 20% for the 6th grade class with 15% overall. That's for IB. I'm guessing feeder% for 6th is about 35% already.

As said earlier, the big jump will be in two years. Not only will the then-6th IB cohort be much larger (based upon my projections), but the then-8th grade will be aound 20% instead of 11%. Both will make the school average move quite a bit.
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 10:49     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am the PP who argued in favor of prisoners' dilemma for the Hardy 5th/6th grade transition.

(For the record, I have not made any posts about BASIS or OP's nationality.)

I wanted to raise something before, but did not want to derail the thread. No fear of that now, as it's already been done!

The main difference between the PD game and the stag hunt game is that PD has only one stable equilibrium (sell your friend out, sell your friend out), whereas stag hunt has at least two (cooperate, cooperate) and (do not cooperate, do not cooperate).

As I mentioned above, I think PD is more appropriate to Hardy, and I think our observations of reality back that up. Meaning, Hardy's very low IB percentage, 13% now and more or less persistent year after year, seems to indicate that (avoid Hardy, avoid Hardy) has been a stable equilibrium. Note: this can still change!

The idea I wanted to raise is that I think there is another place in DCPS where the stag hunt game is more applicable, and that is at PK in up and coming elementary schools.

Here, many high-SES people start at PK3 in ESs with very bad test scores in the upper grades. Each year they face the question, should I stay or should I go? Do I stay and cooperate to build this school into something better, or do I play the lottery for a charter or better DCPS?

I think for this PK graduation game, stag hunt may be appropriate. I think there are probably at least two stable (Nash) equilibria there, with one being (stay and cooperate, stay and cooperate). We are a little early to see if the observations of reality support this theory, and I have not thought very deeply about this, but this is my intuition at least.



I am the anti- binary approach PP. Again I think you are implying that any given situation is either a PD or a stag hunt. Given heterogeneity among decision makers, who face different costs and benefits (for example different ability to afford private, different attitudes toward privates, different attitudes to charters, different luck in the charter lottery, as well as different beliefs about the cost of their kid attending a lower SES school) it is likely that the reality is somewhere in between.

As for stability, there is of course the widely circulated claim from Pride that the feeder % has increased substantially, which would seem to imply at least some increase in IB, in white/asian, and in non-FARMs. But we do not have official data on any of that yet. Which sort of brings us full circle, does it not?


You're responding to my post. What you seem to be saying is that real life is more complicated than a 2-player model. Well, yes, can't argue with you there. But it's common to start with a simple model and then make our best effort to relax assumptions and add complexity. It's reasonable for me to debate with OP which of several competing game theory models might best apply to a given real life situation. It's not the end of the conversation, but it's a reasonable beginning. And as you may know, the debate over PD and stag hunt is a tricky one in general.

Or, if you reject that suggestion, then perhaps you reject much of contemporary microeconomics. Maybe you are part of the "heterodox" movement in economics. In which case I can't say that you're wrong, but you're raising issues that are way too big to be debated in an internet thread about Hardy Middle School.

As for IB increase, there were some numbers on IB (note: IB =/= feeder) discussed in another Hardy thread. Based on those, I think a suggestion of 17% IB was made, can't remember if that was for 6th or the whole school. Anyway unlike a lot of posters, I am patient enough to just wait for the number to be officially released by DCPS. I said previously in this thread that I am confident of Hardy's upward trajectory in terms of IB %. But, the very slow rise in IB% can't be ignored when considering PD versus stag hunt, I think.

Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 10:15     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:I am the PP who argued in favor of prisoners' dilemma for the Hardy 5th/6th grade transition.

(For the record, I have not made any posts about BASIS or OP's nationality.)

I wanted to raise something before, but did not want to derail the thread. No fear of that now, as it's already been done!

The main difference between the PD game and the stag hunt game is that PD has only one stable equilibrium (sell your friend out, sell your friend out), whereas stag hunt has at least two (cooperate, cooperate) and (do not cooperate, do not cooperate).

As I mentioned above, I think PD is more appropriate to Hardy, and I think our observations of reality back that up. Meaning, Hardy's very low IB percentage, 13% now and more or less persistent year after year, seems to indicate that (avoid Hardy, avoid Hardy) has been a stable equilibrium. Note: this can still change!

The idea I wanted to raise is that I think there is another place in DCPS where the stag hunt game is more applicable, and that is at PK in up and coming elementary schools.

Here, many high-SES people start at PK3 in ESs with very bad test scores in the upper grades. Each year they face the question, should I stay or should I go? Do I stay and cooperate to build this school into something better, or do I play the lottery for a charter or better DCPS?

I think for this PK graduation game, stag hunt may be appropriate. I think there are probably at least two stable (Nash) equilibria there, with one being (stay and cooperate, stay and cooperate). We are a little early to see if the observations of reality support this theory, and I have not thought very deeply about this, but this is my intuition at least.



I am the anti- binary approach PP. Again I think you are implying that any given situation is either a PD or a stag hunt. Given heterogeneity among decision makers, who face different costs and benefits (for example different ability to afford private, different attitudes toward privates, different attitudes to charters, different luck in the charter lottery, as well as different beliefs about the cost of their kid attending a lower SES school) it is likely that the reality is somewhere in between.

As for stability, there is of course the widely circulated claim from Pride that the feeder % has increased substantially, which would seem to imply at least some increase in IB, in white/asian, and in non-FARMs. But we do not have official data on any of that yet. Which sort of brings us full circle, does it not?
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 10:01     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Eh eh, too late for restating your nationality, OP you will always be remember as the Chechen economist who crunched the numbers on Hardy...

Now, everybody please take a break and go sign the petition against the budget cuts for Wilson HS (see separate thread).

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-wilson-high-school.html

Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 09:59     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:I am the PP who argued in favor of prisoners' dilemma for the Hardy 5th/6th grade transition.

(For the record, I have not made any posts about BASIS or OP's nationality.)

I wanted to raise something before, but did not want to derail the thread. No fear of that now, as it's already been done!

The main difference between the PD game and the stag hunt game is that PD has only one stable equilibrium (sell your friend out, sell your friend out), whereas stag hunt has at least two (cooperate, cooperate) and (do not cooperate, do not cooperate).

As I mentioned above, I think PD is more appropriate to Hardy, and I think our observations of reality back that up. Meaning, Hardy's very low IB percentage, 13% now and more or less persistent year after year, seems to indicate that (avoid Hardy, avoid Hardy) has been a stable equilibrium. Note: this can still change!

The idea I wanted to raise is that I think there is another place in DCPS where the stag hunt game is more applicable, and that is at PK in up and coming elementary schools.

Here, many high-SES people start at PK3 in ESs with very bad test scores in the upper grades. Each year they face the question, should I stay or should I go? Do I stay and cooperate to build this school into something better, or do I play the lottery for a charter or better DCPS?

I think for this PK graduation game, stag hunt may be appropriate. I think there are probably at least two stable (Nash) equilibria there, with one being (stay and cooperate, stay and cooperate). We are a little early to see if the observations of reality support this theory, and I have not thought very deeply about this, but this is my intuition at least.



By the way, OP and any other game theorists out there, if you want to work this idea up into a paper for publication, you are honor-bound to cite DCUM for the original idea. That would be a first

Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 09:54     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You heard it here first. The uniforms will soon be a thing of the past -- a concession to IB feeder parents who are considering their options.


You do realize that they still won't send their kids to Hardy...

signed,
Another parent with no skin in this game, but who is thoroughly entertained by the madness in this thread


Sure - the next excuse will be that they wouldn't dream of sending their kids to a school that had been analyzed by a Chechen economist.
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 09:53     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
I am the PP who argued in favor of prisoners' dilemma for the Hardy 5th/6th grade transition.

(For the record, I have not made any posts about BASIS or OP's nationality.)

I wanted to raise something before, but did not want to derail the thread. No fear of that now, as it's already been done!

The main difference between the PD game and the stag hunt game is that PD has only one stable equilibrium (sell your friend out, sell your friend out), whereas stag hunt has at least two (cooperate, cooperate) and (do not cooperate, do not cooperate).

As I mentioned above, I think PD is more appropriate to Hardy, and I think our observations of reality back that up. Meaning, Hardy's very low IB percentage, 13% now and more or less persistent year after year, seems to indicate that (avoid Hardy, avoid Hardy) has been a stable equilibrium. Note: this can still change!

The idea I wanted to raise is that I think there is another place in DCPS where the stag hunt game is more applicable, and that is at PK in up and coming elementary schools.

Here, many high-SES people start at PK3 in ESs with very bad test scores in the upper grades. Each year they face the question, should I stay or should I go? Do I stay and cooperate to build this school into something better, or do I play the lottery for a charter or better DCPS?

I think for this PK graduation game, stag hunt may be appropriate. I think there are probably at least two stable (Nash) equilibria there, with one being (stay and cooperate, stay and cooperate). We are a little early to see if the observations of reality support this theory, and I have not thought very deeply about this, but this is my intuition at least.

Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 09:31     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:You heard it here first. The uniforms will soon be a thing of the past -- a concession to IB feeder parents who are considering their options.


OP here.

(I'm waiting on a flight and have some time to kill.)

Someone asked about Hardy FARMS last year. You will see the number below. I will also re-post my predictions about Hardy's demographics (in the spirit of a prediction that uniforms will be a thing of the past).

THESE ARE PREDICTIONS:
The IB percentage is 15% for the current year (up from 13%).
The percent White has increased: 13% White (up from 11%).
The percent Asian has increased: 10% Asian (up from 8%).
The percent African-American has fallen: 60% (down from 64%).
The percent Latino is about the same: 14% (it was 14% last year).
FARMS has decreased by 20%: it is now 45% (down from 55%).

Finally, a bonus prediction: within year or two we will all of think of Stoddert in the same way people think of Janney now (for better or worse). Based on test scores, it will be the highest-performing DCPS ES.
Anonymous
Post 04/10/2015 09:12     Subject: By the numbers: A dispassioned evaluation of Hardy (compared to Deal and Wilson)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You heard it here first. The uniforms will soon be a thing of the past -- a concession to IB feeder parents who are considering their options.


Do you have a link or source? Did this get communicated to Hardy parents recently? I'm not a current Hardy parent but interested in this development, if it's really true.



The school just sent an email saying that, since many parents wanted to bring their kids in traditional Chechen clothes, they were afraid of a potential discrimination lawsuit.


(for those of you very literally minded - this is a joke. And OP is American)


Yes. I found it hysterical that some posters didn't get the Chechen post was a joke. It's what keeps me coming back to DCUM .