It's assumed anyone that wants a trek is willing to be on the waiting list. Not to worry, 1400+ has almost no chance. Not sure why they even count them that high.
-- Joe Tavares NOTICE: This email is only intended for the recipient and not legally binding. Unauthorized use, publication, reproduction or disclosure of the content of this email is not permitted without my expressed permission. -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Donald S. Roberts" <donald@hummellawfirm.com> > > From: Jeffrey W. Knoll > > > You may be right, Jeff, I don't really know, but I am pretty sure > > > that the 1482 on the wait list that Philmont is reporting this year > > > is not significantly different than the number they usually have > > > on the waitlist. If so, then I'm not seeing the connection. > > > > I don't know... does everyone who fails to get a slot > > automatically get put > > on the wait list? My assumption was that some people didn't > > want to be > > bothered, especially at an unrealistic position, or that > > Philmont cut it off > > at some point. At least that's was my impression about the > > phone-in system. > > > Fair point, though I'm not sure where in the process Philmont > learns this prior to assigning the waitlist spots. I don't > recall anything on the lottery entry that said "I don't want > to be waitlisted." Do you? I rather got the impression it > was you got a trek, or you got waitlisted. I've never heard > from anyone who said they were told they were so far down they > didn't even get put on the list. Anything buzz your > recollection of the process to the contrary? > > In the phone in system, if you were pretty savvy and > didn't manage to get in during the first hour, you knew you > would be so far down the wait list you didn't bother. So I would > think there would have been MORE, not LESS, who wanted a spot > but didn't get as far as the waitlist under the old phone in. > Now, you enter the lottery if you are interested, end of story. > > There may be something in your statement that the refund policy > has changed, though, to be honest, I had thought that was the > policy for our troop trek in 2003, you can get reimbursed if > someone takes your slot. In any case, even if it is a new > policy, I'm not sure enough folks know about it to be a factor. > > I suppose the bottom line is there are probably a lot of factors. > Some things we do know. 2005 was a jambo year, and the numbers > tracked very closely with 2001, another jambo year. 2005 was > the first lottery year. Somewhere around 1500 is what we usually > hear on this mailing list is the number on the waitlist. So far, > the only "anomoly" year we've discussed here is 2006, so far as > how deep on the wait list we go. I'd say we don't quite have > a statistical sample to truly draw a conclusion. > > It is also a possible factor that the lottery system is lowering > the commitment level on the waitlist as well as the treks awarded > list. Under the phone in system, > the ones who did their homework, were really committed to getting > a slot and thought about how to "work" the phone in system, could > significantly improve their chances of getting a slot. Thus, the > ones who REALLY are committed to go to Philmont tended to already > have a slot, or be VERY low on the wait list, and did not drop out. > Now, with a truly random process, units that weren't committed enough > to "work" the phone procedures, who just threw in the lottery > entry, faced with now making the $ commitment drop out, when in the > past they'd never have gotten into that position in the first place. > 2007 is the first year EVER that our troop failed to get a trek. We > worked the phone in system and managed every time under that system. > > Hmm, I'm beginning to convince myself that may well be a very > strong factor. Yes, we do know that some units, even with the > commitment factor, still couldn't get a trek, but I think we > should be talking in terms of tendency not absolute. > > Another potential factor not mentioned is HH. It may be that a lot > more waitlist crews are taking the HH option rather than holding out > for Philmont. > > Regards > Don Roberts > 03, 05 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Scouting E-mail Discussion Lists @ usscouts.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe at http://usscouts.org/lists/ > Listserv Commands at http://usscouts.org/lists/lc.asp > ------------------------------------------------------- > Send listserv commands to: listserv@troop47.com > Send postings to: philmont@troop47.com > List FAQ found at: http://usscouts.org/lists/faq.asp > List Administrator: philmont_owner@troop47.com > ------------------------------------------------------- > As you gather around this virtual campfire with fellow > Scouts and Scouters, do your best to be trustworthy, > loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, > cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- Scouting E-mail Discussion Lists @ usscouts.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe at http://usscouts.org/lists/ Listserv Commands at http://usscouts.org/lists/lc.asp ------------------------------------------------------- Send listserv commands to: listserv@troop47.com Send postings to: philmont@troop47.com List FAQ found at: http://usscouts.org/lists/faq.asp List Administrator: philmont_owner@troop47.com ------------------------------------------------------- As you gather around this virtual campfire with fellow Scouts and Scouters, do your best to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. -------------------------------------------------------Received on Tue Feb 14 14:35:41 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 26 2006 - 11:59:42 CDT