Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprised people are piling on the resistant poster, but unless I'm missing something they're not suggesting going back to original system of each school holding their own. Their idea may not work, but it's not the old system they are proposing.

We know. The system they are proposing is infinitely worse than the old system, which is not bad at all by comparison.

Anonymous wrote:Not surprised people are piling on the resistant poster, but unless I'm missing something they're not suggesting going back to original system of each school holding their own. Their idea may not work, but it's not the old system they are proposing.

Anonymous wrote:It's such a stupid idea I'm enjoying watching this nut cling to it impervious to every flaw and counter-argument exposed.

The algorithm isn't preventing people from matching with their number 1 choices; the lack of seats is preventing more people from matching with their number 1 choices.

Repeat this, over and over. There is nothing wrong with the way the lottery is run, it's actually run quite well. What's wrong is how few seats there are at schools people want to attend.

Anonymous wrote:
The algorithm isn't preventing people from matching with their number 1 choices; the lack of seats is preventing more people from matching with their number 1 choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
2. On what are you basing this idea that a family would put their #2 choice first? Please give a specific scenario and reasons a family would do this, if you know you're probably opting out of your #1 if you don't rank it #1, explain to me the reasons that a family would put their #1 as #2? Especially if their #2 is very popular and will likely fill up with #1s?

When my kids were in fifth grade I put Deal #1 for sixth even though they said they weren't accepting any OOB kids. I figured if I get an excellent lottery number I'll be high on the waitlist, who knows what will happen, and it doesn't cost me anything. Under your proposal that would have been a very foolish thing to do, it would pretty much have prevented me from getting in anywhere unless I got into Deal. What if I had drawn #1 in the lottery? I'd have given up a chance for a spot at Deal.

Exactly, it would have been foolish. Why are you celebrating a system where you get rewarded because it didn't cost you anything? Why if you got #1 in the lottery and were waitlisted for Deal, why do you deserve whatever your #2 chioce was more than the family who ranked it #1 because they wanted to be at your #2 choice more than any other school?

Really, you just want a system where you can take risks over a system that better matches families that are serious about the school they rank #1 (because they have to be serious)? That is a major part of the problem right there.

What irks me about your proposal is that you seem to think there is some sort of moral failing in not attending a school you ranked number 1.

That and the fact you don't listen to any of the criticism.

All I can say is I hope you're not a teacher. Because I'm being very transparent (and even actually used the words) "You're right, I don't get it". It's not about "not listening to criticism". I don't understand it, it doesn't make sense to me. At least I'm adult enough to actually say that. So feel free to be as irked as you wish, but it is further bizarre and ridiculous to me that you are saying with a straight face that I'm suggesting there's "moral failing in not attending a school you ranked #1". Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too: You can't freak out over a system where people might "game it" and where the goal is the highest % of top matches, and then be surprised that someone thinks it's a good idea to go further and have the rankings mean more than just what schools you're waitlisted on. Oh, and for the record, no one is suggesting it's a "moral failing" to go to your #2 school, especially if it's the best you got into and it works for your family. Never said anything like that.

All other arguments aside, if the whole point isn't to get people to take their choices seriously and give the most people the most chances at getting into their top choice, I give up. What irks you is what I thought the point was. And I still think it's the point. But hey, don't lose anymore energy being irked - as you are more than clear about, I have nothing to do with what actually happens with the lottery, so you can allow me to think rankings should matter more and there should be individual school lotteries WITHIN the overall common lottery, while in fact for the forseeable future you can be happy with a system where a larger number of matches can be families who "settle" for #4 because overall they had a pretty good number, while lots of families who were dying to go to the same school strike out with all schools. I don't know a way to fix that that would work, but it seems like a fair thing to aspire to: same # of slots, but a higher % of families getting matched with their #1 choice.

Anonymous wrote:PP, have you bothered to read actual articles describing the mechanics of the lottery? I think it would be worth your time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
2. On what are you basing this idea that a family would put their #2 choice first? Please give a specific scenario and reasons a family would do this, if you know you're probably opting out of your #1 if you don't rank it #1, explain to me the reasons that a family would put their #1 as #2? Especially if their #2 is very popular and will likely fill up with #1s?

When my kids were in fifth grade I put Deal #1 for sixth even though they said they weren't accepting any OOB kids. I figured if I get an excellent lottery number I'll be high on the waitlist, who knows what will happen, and it doesn't cost me anything. Under your proposal that would have been a very foolish thing to do, it would pretty much have prevented me from getting in anywhere unless I got into Deal. What if I had drawn #1 in the lottery? I'd have given up a chance for a spot at Deal.

Exactly, it would have been foolish. Why are you celebrating a system where you get rewarded because it didn't cost you anything? Why if you got #1 in the lottery and were waitlisted for Deal, why do you deserve whatever your #2 chioce was more than the family who ranked it #1 because they wanted to be at your #2 choice more than any other school?

Really, you just want a system where you can take risks over a system that better matches families that are serious about the school they rank #1 (because they have to be serious)? That is a major part of the problem right there.

What irks me about your proposal is that you seem to think there is some sort of moral failing in not attending a school you ranked number 1.

That and the fact you don't listen to any of the criticism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
2. On what are you basing this idea that a family would put their #2 choice first? Please give a specific scenario and reasons a family would do this, if you know you're probably opting out of your #1 if you don't rank it #1, explain to me the reasons that a family would put their #1 as #2? Especially if their #2 is very popular and will likely fill up with #1s?

When my kids were in fifth grade I put Deal #1 for sixth even though they said they weren't accepting any OOB kids. I figured if I get an excellent lottery number I'll be high on the waitlist, who knows what will happen, and it doesn't cost me anything. Under your proposal that would have been a very foolish thing to do, it would pretty much have prevented me from getting in anywhere unless I got into Deal. What if I had drawn #1 in the lottery? I'd have given up a chance for a spot at Deal.

Exactly, it would have been foolish. Why are you celebrating a system where you get rewarded because it didn't cost you anything? Why if you got #1 in the lottery and were waitlisted for Deal, why do you deserve whatever your #2 chioce was more than the family who ranked it #1 because they wanted to be at your #2 choice more than any other school?

Really, you just want a system where you can take risks over a system that better matches families that are serious about the school they rank #1 (because they have to be serious)? That is a major part of the problem right there.

What irks me about your proposal is that you seem to think there is some sort of moral failing in not attending a school you ranked number 1.

That and the fact you don't listen to any of the criticism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
2. On what are you basing this idea that a family would put their #2 choice first? Please give a specific scenario and reasons a family would do this, if you know you're probably opting out of your #1 if you don't rank it #1, explain to me the reasons that a family would put their #1 as #2? Especially if their #2 is very popular and will likely fill up with #1s?

When my kids were in fifth grade I put Deal #1 for sixth even though they said they weren't accepting any OOB kids. I figured if I get an excellent lottery number I'll be high on the waitlist, who knows what will happen, and it doesn't cost me anything. Under your proposal that would have been a very foolish thing to do, it would pretty much have prevented me from getting in anywhere unless I got into Deal. What if I had drawn #1 in the lottery? I'd have given up a chance for a spot at Deal.

Exactly, it would have been foolish. Why are you celebrating a system where you get rewarded because it didn't cost you anything? Why if you got #1 in the lottery and were waitlisted for Deal, why do you deserve whatever your #2 chioce was more than the family who ranked it #1 because they wanted to be at your #2 choice more than any other school?

Really, you just want a system where you can take risks over a system that better matches families that are serious about the school they rank #1 (because they have to be serious)? That is a major part of the problem right there.