4 ms·

> Europeans are more willing (trained and socialized) to sacrifice individual preferences in favor of the "greater good". That may be the general case, but in

• elygre 8y ago
  Well, maybe. From the article, the judge argued that allowing the swap would enable strategizing: > So to allow trading would be to enable strategic behavior in future years. This would make the workings of the lottery system less clear. But it could also give an unfair advantage to students that are better at strategizing — and to students that have more resources to make good strategic decisions. I would argue that there is a "greater good" at play, and that while this particular instance would not change anything, allowing it would open the door for future problems. I then believe that Europeans are more willing to accept that consequence than Americans are. (YMMV, not science, just a feeling, etc) (edit: formatting the quote)
  • lobotryas 8y ago
    I just don't see the judge's argument. By that logic we should only allow people who pass a rigorous certification to invest on the stock market. Casual investors should be banned because they will just lose money and that's (somehow) unfair.
    • Tijdreiziger 8y ago
      The point of the stock market is to speculate. The point of the educational system is not.
      • IncRnd 8y ago
        Exactly! So why not let more students go to the schools that are their choices (and their parents)? From the article, "...not all schools are the same. Some schools offer music and dance classes, others offer more sports classes." How could forcing students to speculate at non-core subjects that don't interest them (and lie beyond their talents) be better for them or for the common good?
        • chrisbennet 8y ago
          The answer to your question is in the article.
          • IncRnd 8y ago
            Not an answer, a dismissal, of that question is in the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is an extraordinary claim to say that disadvantaging many is for the common good.
• nulbyte 8y ago
  > voluntarily better their individual positions in a way that wouldn't affect the positions of others Except that it does affect the positions of others, by pushing them down the list. If there were another opening at someone's preferred school, that doesn't mean that someone would get it. Others likely want it, and one may be ranked higher. But by voluntarily swapping in this way, the results of each of the schools' lotteries are discarded, and others are disadvantaged as a result. One way to keep it fairer would be to modify the algorithm to rank and swap in such cases. Ranking would be necessary, because it could be that three people in school B want to attend school A, while only two people in school A want to attend school B.
  • IncRnd 8y ago
    > Except that it does affect the positions of others, by pushing them down the list. If there were another opening at someone's preferred school, that doesn't mean that someone would get it. Others likely want it, and one may be ranked higher. But by voluntarily swapping in this way, the results of each of the schools' lotteries are discarded, and others are disadvantaged as a result. You're creating a strawman and arguing against that. I am talking about the exact situation that is covered in the article. This is what the article says: Suppose a student loses the lottery at their number one school (school A). But they win the lottery at school B. And suppose that another student likes school B best. But loses the lottery at school B, and wins the lottery at school A. Then these students won each other’s jackpot. And so they both want to trade. The article continues: With these trades, more than 600 further students could get a place at their top choice school, it later turned out. So many students wanted to trade. This prospective trade wouldn't disadvantage anyone. It would only swap positions to increase people's choices and positions.
  • IncRnd 8y ago
    > Ranking would be necessary, because it could be that three people in school B want to attend school A, while only two people in school A want to attend school B. That is exactly what I wrote, "That is some sort of perversion of personal greed into a form that instead limits what others may have." Do you honestly not see the injustice with choosing to disadvantage all five instead of only one in your example?