Anonymous wrote:This has been a good discussion, and it's interesting that several people want to make this bizarre (to me) distinction between "your first choice school" and "the school you think you have the best odds of getting into" and that opting for #2 is somehow an awful, horrible thing for a system to support.

But you know what? If I decide that the most important thing for my kids (and my sanity as a parent) is to get into what I consider a very good match for my kids, even if it's not my dream school, that school BECOMES my first choice if I'm valuing the odds of getting in. Who are you (people so concerned with "gaming the system") to decide that I am doing something bad or wrong or that the outcome will be better if I rank my #1 dream school #1, get shut out, and then have such a crappy number that I get into none of my 12 schools or only #12? Why are you happier with that system than a system that says that at least all those accepted to the most popular schools each had to choose (because remember: you can only choose ONE school as #1!)?

The whole idea that you're "gaming" because you're including in your considerations whether you have a better shot at one school than another is both obnoxious and still not explained in a way that makes sense. Are you also going to insist that parents not consider commute, or whether it's got good special ed services, because that is gaming the system too? The definition of "#1 pick" is that it's the school you want to put as #1, for whatever your reasons are. We may be overly optimistic, discussing ways we think the current system can improve,, but the conversation about parents being "strategic" about rankings is just bizarre as hell. No one, not even a Nobel Laureate, can create an algorithm that prevents parents from "being strategic", even the current system. Feeling that IT/MV/TR or whatever as my first pick IS strategic.

Whoa, there. No reason to get upset by the term "gaming." It's only used to help users understand how the lottery works. Of course you are expected to take all of the various factors into consideration when you make your rankings - commute, services, aftercare, curriculum, etc. That's not gaming; that's making an intelligent assessment of what would be best for your child!

The current system does not provide for gaming. The only thing that matters is your lottery number, your preferences (IB, sibling, etc), and whether or not there is room in the grade and schools you ranked by the time your lottery number comes up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Gaming," in this application, only means trying to anticipate how to use your picks strategically. So in the proposed "separate lottery" scenario suggested above, an applicant might really want Mundo Verde as their number 1 pick, but might be scared off by the astronomical odds of going into that huge pool. So they might put DC Billingual as #1 instead on the assumption that odds will be more in their favor. This is "gaming" the system, and it encourages people to improve their odds by not ranking their true preference if the odds are long.

The current algorithm is designed to improve the satisfaction of matched families. There aren't enough highly coveted seats to go around, but let's make sure that the families who get them had at least ranked them highly.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Under the current system, how highly you ranked a choice has no bearing on whether you get in there. The only two factors that matter are what your lottery number is and whether you got into any of your higher ranked choices. You could rank a school #12 and be the only person admitted if you had a high lottery number and your one through eleven choices were already full.

Correct, but those who have high lottery numbers got their top choices. The common lottery has eliminated the scenario where people got lucky at a hot school but couldn't make the commute or weren't actually that interested in immersion. Now the people who get good numbers get to go to the schools they really want.

(Your scenario in which someone with a great number gets matched at their #12 is possible, but not likely. If MySchool is to be believed, 86 percent of matched families matched at their 1, 2, or 3 choices.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly don't have an alternative, but it really is frustrating when you see that your number one choice was the number 12 choice for many people who got in. You genuinely want that spot in that school- for whatever reason. You love the location, the curriculum, the people, etc. But, while you have to hear everyone moaning and complaining about how awful their spot in your favorite school is... you are Crossing your fingers that they will drop their spot, waiting patiently all summer for a spot to open, calling throughout September, moving your child last minute... its just frustrating.

It does seem like a person who genuinely wants a school should have preference over someone who really could care less.


But, like I said, I have no alternative to propose.

I think it's a mistake to say that someone who ranked their school 12 could care less. The choices in DC are so stark that #12 could be a big step up from being shut out.

But I don't think that scenario really happens. I don't believe that there is any grade in DC where there are more than 10 schools that don't take every kid who applies. Maybe pre-k?

That said, one solution would be to limit the number of choices. Twelve is kind of ridiculous, there's no way a family can make informed decisions about that many schools. If people were limited to six choices the choices would be more meaningful. It would also mean that more people would be shut out and more would be placed in the second round. I suspect that OSSE recognizes that choices 6-12 are essentially the same as random assignment, it's just administratively easier to assign as many kids as possible in the first round of the lottery.

There were certainly families in this year's lottery who were shut out or got their 12th choice for PK3.

This has been a good discussion, and it's interesting that several people want to make this bizarre (to me) distinction between "your first choice school" and "the school you think you have the best odds of getting into" and that opting for #2 is somehow an awful, horrible thing for a system to support.

But you know what? If I decide that the most important thing for my kids (and my sanity as a parent) is to get into what I consider a very good match for my kids, even if it's not my dream school, that school BECOMES my first choice if I'm valuing the odds of getting in. Who are you (people so concerned with "gaming the system") to decide that I am doing something bad or wrong or that the outcome will be better if I rank my #1 dream school #1, get shut out, and then have such a crappy number that I get into none of my 12 schools or only #12? Why are you happier with that system than a system that says that at least all those accepted to the most popular schools each had to choose (because remember: you can only choose ONE school as #1!)?

The whole idea that you're "gaming" because you're including in your considerations whether you have a better shot at one school than another is both obnoxious and still not explained in a way that makes sense. Are you also going to insist that parents not consider commute, or whether it's got good special ed services, because that is gaming the system too? The definition of "#1 pick" is that it's the school you want to put as #1, for whatever your reasons are. We may be overly optimistic, discussing ways we think the current system can improve,, but the conversation about parents being "strategic" about rankings is just bizarre as hell. No one, not even a Nobel Laureate, can create an algorithm that prevents parents from "being strategic", even the current system. Feeling that IT/MV/TR or whatever as my first pick IS strategic.

Anonymous wrote:I certainly don't have an alternative, but it really is frustrating when you see that your number one choice was the number 12 choice for many people who got in. You genuinely want that spot in that school- for whatever reason. You love the location, the curriculum, the people, etc. But, while you have to hear everyone moaning and complaining about how awful their spot in your favorite school is... you are Crossing your fingers that they will drop their spot, waiting patiently all summer for a spot to open, calling throughout September, moving your child last minute... its just frustrating.

It does seem like a person who genuinely wants a school should have preference over someone who really could care less.


But, like I said, I have no alternative to propose.

I think it's a mistake to say that someone who ranked their school 12 could care less. The choices in DC are so stark that #12 could be a big step up from being shut out.

But I don't think that scenario really happens. I don't believe that there is any grade in DC where there are more than 10 schools that don't take every kid who applies. Maybe pre-k?

That said, one solution would be to limit the number of choices. Twelve is kind of ridiculous, there's no way a family can make informed decisions about that many schools. If people were limited to six choices the choices would be more meaningful. It would also mean that more people would be shut out and more would be placed in the second round. I suspect that OSSE recognizes that choices 6-12 are essentially the same as random assignment, it's just administratively easier to assign as many kids as possible in the first round of the lottery.

I certainly don't have an alternative, but it really is frustrating when you see that your number one choice was the number 12 choice for many people who got in. You genuinely want that spot in that school- for whatever reason. You love the location, the curriculum, the people, etc. But, while you have to hear everyone moaning and complaining about how awful their spot in your favorite school is... you are Crossing your fingers that they will drop their spot, waiting patiently all summer for a spot to open, calling throughout September, moving your child last minute... its just frustrating.

It does seem like a person who genuinely wants a school should have preference over someone who really could care less.


But, like I said, I have no alternative to propose.

Anonymous wrote:Sure, that sounds like a great idea. Give all the seats at highly desirable charters to families with great IB schools or who can afford private school or another year of daycare.

This was in response to 11:11's point system

Sure, that sounds like a great idea. Give all the seats at highly desirable charters to families with great IB schools or who can afford private school or another year of daycare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is gaming the system considered such a terrible thing?

Because the goal of the lottery is get the maximum number of people into the schools they like best, not the schools they thought they had the best shot at.

It's also at best zero-sum -- it doesn't increase the number of seats available. At worst it's negative-sum, overall people are less satisfied than they would have been if nobody had gambled and lost.

Anonymous wrote:"Gaming," in this application, only means trying to anticipate how to use your picks strategically. So in the proposed "separate lottery" scenario suggested above, an applicant might really want Mundo Verde as their number 1 pick, but might be scared off by the astronomical odds of going into that huge pool. So they might put DC Billingual as #1 instead on the assumption that odds will be more in their favor. This is "gaming" the system, and it encourages people to improve their odds by not ranking their true preference if the odds are long.

The current algorithm is designed to improve the satisfaction of matched families. There aren't enough highly coveted seats to go around, but let's make sure that the families who get them had at least ranked them highly.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Under the current system, how highly you ranked a choice has no bearing on whether you get in there. The only two factors that matter are what your lottery number is and whether you got into any of your higher ranked choices. You could rank a school #12 and be the only person admitted if you had a high lottery number and your one through eleven choices were already full.

Let me propose an alternative that allows for intensity of feeling.

Suppose instead of ranking choices one through twelve, each participant was given a fixed number of points that they could allocate however they wanted to however many schools they were interested in. Let's say everyone gets 100 points, and you could put 100 points on one school or one point on 100 schools. The way the lottery works is that for each school they rank the applicants by points, and take people until all the spots are gone. At a given point level if there are more applicants that spots there is a lottery just among people at that point level. So a super-desirable school might have a lottery that is just people who put down 100 points. A mid-tier school might let in anyone who put down more than 50 points and have a lottery for those who put down 49. Many schools would admit everyone who put down any points.

If you qualify for more than one school you go to the one you put the most points down for and lose your spot at the other. If you put points down and don't get into a school, those points are lost. At the end, everyone who was shut out will have zero points and there is a second round for them.

What is the practical outcome of such a system? It really, really favors those who have options. If you are IB for a DCPS school that you're fine with, but are interested in a charter, you can put 100 points on that charter. If you've decided if you don't get into your first choice you're going to move or go private, you can put 100 points on your first choice. On the other hand, if your IB school is unacceptable and you can't afford to go private or move, you can't take the risk of getting shut out. You can't put 100 points on any school because the risk is too great. Since there are people who can put 100 points down, all of the best spots will go to them, you're going to have to settle for maybe a school where 50 points gets you in and maybe a safety school at 30 and a bunch at 5-10.

Such a system would dramatically increase inequality. While this isn't the same thing as giving extra weight to the number one pick, it has many of the same qualities.

Anonymous wrote:Why is gaming the system considered such a terrible thing?

Because the goal of the lottery is get the maximum number of people into the schools they like best, not the schools they thought they had the best shot at.

Let the Hunger Games BEGINNNNNN!

Why is gaming the system considered such a terrible thing?

"Gaming," in this application, only means trying to anticipate how to use your picks strategically. So in the proposed "separate lottery" scenario suggested above, an applicant might really want Mundo Verde as their number 1 pick, but might be scared off by the astronomical odds of going into that huge pool. So they might put DC Billingual as #1 instead on the assumption that odds will be more in their favor. This is "gaming" the system, and it encourages people to improve their odds by not ranking their true preference if the odds are long.

The current algorithm is designed to improve the satisfaction of matched families. There aren't enough highly coveted seats to go around, but let's make sure that the families who get them had at least ranked them highly.