Sentences with phrase «lottery loser»

In case you're one of the «open to discussion» folks, however, you might read the various charter lottery loser studies.

High - risk lottery winners on average commit crimes with a total expected sentence of 35 months, compared to 59 months among lottery losers.

Because the oversubscribed charter schools in our sample admit students via random lotteries, comparing the outcomes of lottery winners (most of whom enrolled in a charter school) and lottery losers (most of whom did not) is akin to a randomized - control trial of the kind often used in medical research.

For example, high - risk middle - school lottery winners are 18 percentage points more likely than lottery losers to be enrolled in CMS in their 10th - grade year.

High - school lottery winners attend schools that are demographically very similar to the schools attended by lottery losers, while middle - school winners attend schools that are less African American and higher income on average.

The average social cost of the crimes committed by high - risk lottery winners (after adjusting the cost of murders downward) is $ 3,916 lower than for lottery losers, a decrease of more than 35 percent.

A fourth study by Christina Tuttle and colleagues found no difference in student perceptions of the disciplinary environment among middle school KIPP lottery winners relative to lottery losers.

Table 7 reports the mean follow - up rate for lottery losers along with estimates of win - loss differentials.

Also, students in voucher - accepting schools systematically could do better than lottery losers and still vouchers might lower overall system performance.

In practice, about a fifth of lottery winners never attend a charter school, and some lottery losers eventually end up in a charter school (by entering a future admissions lottery, gaining sibling preference when a sibling wins the lottery, or moving off a waitlist after the offers coded by our instrument were made).

Yet, when I and a group of researchers from Harvard, MIT, Duke and the University of Michigan subsequently tracked down the admission lottery winners, and compared their outcomes to the lottery losers, we found large differences in achievement.

We reviewed records for both lottery losers and winners, which we defined as students immediately accepted at Noble or offered one of the first 10 waitlist positions.

It compared outcomes of students who applied and were admitted to these schools through randomized admission lotteries (lottery winners) with the outcomes of students who also applied to these schools and participated in the lotteries but were not admitted (lottery losers).

In several other categories we see that the 8th grade lottery winners were «better» than the lottery losers.

The authors explain that although this may eliminate the concern with the CREDO study about family motivation, peer influence is still a potential bias, with lottery winners surrounded by classmates from similarly motivated families, while lottery losers are educated with many peers who did not apply to a choice school, and hence may not be as motivated (72).

Not exact matches

We all know that lotteries are a loser's game that taxes the poor, but Jerry and Marge Selbee made millions of dollars playing lotteries in...

But, as in any other lottery, the losers outnumber the winners a thousand to one.

Jurgen Klopp's side were the unfortunate losers in the spot - kick lottery and will look to exact some revenge on the Citizens by landing a huge blow to their Premier League title ambitions.

He could have bought reams of cards, picked out the winners and sold the rest, but instead Srivastava sent the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation two piles of 10 unscratched cards, one marked winners, one losers.

When comparing lottery winners and losers, we also control for prior achievement and the same set of demographic characteristics used in our broader analysis.

Students who won the lottery are more than 55 percentage points more likely than losers to attend their first - choice school in the first year, and on average spend an additional 1 to 1.5 years enrolled in that school overall.

My results reflect the average difference in outcomes between winners and losers across all of the lotteries conducted at each level.

If, for example, drug - market activity is concentrated within a few schools, we might expect large differences in criminality in the high school years that diminish as enrollment in the chosen school ends and lottery winners and losers return to the same neighborhoods.

With a large enough sample, a simple comparison of outcomes between winners and losers would identify the causal effect of winning the lottery.

Because the lottery is random, any differences in outcomes between lottery winners and losers can be attributed to the effect of enrolling in the G&T magnet program rather than one of these alternatives.

Fortunately, the observed characteristics of lottery winners and losers who remain in the district continue to be very similar.

Of the 542 lottery participants, only 440 students, including 331 winners (84 percent) and 109 losers (74 percent), remain in LUSD by 7th grade.

We find no statistically significant differences in the observed characteristics of lottery winners and losers, suggesting that the lotteries were in fact conducted in a random way.

For example, the quasi-experimental study by economists Tom Kane and Josh Angrist on Boston charter schools, which compared the winners and losers of charter admission lotteries, helped change the Massachusetts law that had blocked the creation of new charters.

Since the two groups of students - the lottery's winners and losers - had similar average abilities and family backgrounds, any subsequent achievement differences observed between them can be attributed to the effects of the vouchers.

But my data show that the incomes of the participating and nonparticipating families were roughly equal for both the lottery winners and losers, as well as for the choice, control, and noncomplying students.

As a measure of lottery quality, Table 3 reports differences in demographic characteristics and baseline scores between lottery winners and losers.

This table shows that charter lottery winners are about 15 percentage points less likely to switch than losers.

Among charter high school applicants, lottery winners are 5 percentage points less likely to be Hispanic and about 6 percentage points more likely to be black than losers.

They compared lottery winners with losers, controlling for the fact that families who applied for the lotteries were different from families who didn't.

Lottery winners and losers should be similar at the time the lotteries are held.

Among high school applicants, charter lottery winners are more likely to switch schools than losers, a marginally significant difference of 5 — 6 percentage points.

We found no significant differences between lottery winners and losers on characteristics, including gender, age at high school entry, and the math and reading scores and racial composition of their middle schools.

We use the NSC data throughout our analysis because they are available for both lottery winners and losers.

If lottery winners learned more than losers, the effectiveness of the voucher initiative would be clearly established and the voucher movement could use this information to convince skeptics.

Our main analyses control for students» age, gender, and the average test scores at their middle schools, but we obtain similar results from a simple comparison of lottery winners and losers, as we would expect given the use of the lottery.

Abdulkadiroglu et al. (2011) and Angrist, Pathak, and Walters (2013) found similar estimates of the impact of a year in a Boston area charter school whether they compared charter school admission lottery winners and losers or whether they compared charter attendees to regular public school students with similar observed characteristics.

The Credo study has been criticised for not comparing the results of children who have won charter - school lotteries with those who have not — a natural experiment in which the only difference between winners and losers should be the schooling they receive.

In her study, Ms. Hoxby found that, by the 3rd grade, the average charter school student was 5.3 points ahead of lottery «losers» on state exams in English and 5.8 points ahead in math.

To test whether the benefit of KIPP pre-K fades out over time, researchers compared the difference in lottery winners» and losers» scores in reading in kindergarten and again in second grade.

Lotteries that randomly select voucher winners and losers from a large pool of applicants provide a quasi-experimental approach and a step toward isolating voucher effects, but even these are subject to scrutiny and methodological critiques.

Researchers are now following the outcomes of winners and losers of these lotteries.

The losers feel like they are being forced back to one of those failing schools, and the winners feel like lottery winners.

Economists from MIT and Harvard, among other co-authors, found in one paper that voucher winners «were about 10 percentage points more likely than (lottery) losers to have completed eighth grade, primarily because they repeated fewer grades,» and that «on average, lottery winners scored about 0.2 standard deviations higher than losers.»

I really don't get the whole junior resource stock obsession, don't these losers know in just about every instance lottery tickets & scratch cards would be safer & cheaper..?!