Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. Every year there is at least one poster on DCUM who posts something like this. Because your very basic understanding is clearly superior to the Nobel prize winning algorithm designed to prevent gaming and reward only true preference.

This is the Pete Buttigieg effect: people who don’t know Harvard types think everyone should be super-impressed by them. While people who are or know Harvard types are capable of asking smart questions about problems and having a conversation about pros and cons.

This is absolutely true. The OP did not do this, though; she suggested a system that has been used in the past, and discarded in favor of the current, more efficient system.

In essence, the Op is asking, "Hey, you know hat thing that we used to have, that worked worse than this? Hows about we do that again? Here's a bunch of reasons that have already been discredited that we should do so."

It was also gamed regularly. People who knew someone at the school would be offered a slot despite their wait list position, people who showed up repeatedly would get a slot when someone took pity on them. Centralizing and standardizing eliminated cheating and the perception of cheating not to mention the disruptive September shuffle. If you weren’t ‘playing’ the old lottery system you have NO idea how bad it was.

THANK YOU. I feel like the lottery skeptic PP truly has no idea what was really going on. On the face of it, sure, it feels like it's more fair to give kids more bites at the apple, but it doesn't increase the size of the apple and really just spread the misery out over many months (March-October) rather than providing answers to a lot of people immediately. I don't think that the PPs who were not part of the old system understand the stress that was the first few weeks of school. I am personally glad that it's gone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. Every year there is at least one poster on DCUM who posts something like this. Because your very basic understanding is clearly superior to the Nobel prize winning algorithm designed to prevent gaming and reward only true preference.

This is the Pete Buttigieg effect: people who don’t know Harvard types think everyone should be super-impressed by them. While people who are or know Harvard types are capable of asking smart questions about problems and having a conversation about pros and cons.

This is absolutely true. The OP did not do this, though; she suggested a system that has been used in the past, and discarded in favor of the current, more efficient system.

In essence, the Op is asking, "Hey, you know hat thing that we used to have, that worked worse than this? Hows about we do that again? Here's a bunch of reasons that have already been discredited that we should do so."

It was also gamed regularly. People who knew someone at the school would be offered a slot despite their wait list position, people who showed up repeatedly would get a slot when someone took pity on them. Centralizing and standardizing eliminated cheating and the perception of cheating not to mention the disruptive September shuffle. If you weren’t ‘playing’ the old lottery system you have NO idea how bad it was.

Anonymous wrote:Why can't the algorithm be made public???
People would be able to study it properly instead of arguing on how to make it better without knowing what is inside.

If you really care put in a FOIA request. I think you’re more than a little paranoid. What do you think you will find exactly?

Why can't the algorithm be made public???
People would be able to study it properly instead of arguing on how to make it better without knowing what is inside.

I like the lottery. It's a fair system for doling out what is inevitably a scarce resource. And, frankly, most municipalities wouldn't bother with a lottery system (let alone such a well designed one). Most areas would just tell people they're going to whatever school they happen to be zoned for, and if they dont like it, they can send their kids to private school. At least here you don't have to live in a rich neighborhood to get into a good public school.