The New York Post published an opinion piece about the byzantine high school selection system. As someone who’s helped well over a hundred students through this system, it really is byzantine. There are over four hundred non-charter public high schools in the city, plus dozens of charter high schools. In eighth grade, students can complete a “Round 1” form where they rank the high schools they are most interested in. Each of those schools have different criteria for judging admission: some are based on your grades, test scores, or attendance; others, on the level of interest you show by attending information sessions; others, on a special test you take for admission; others on a portfolio you submit; others on an interview you do; others on geography; and finally many combine several of the above. Just as you rank the schools, the schools rank you. Then an algorithm is done to match students with schools. Just imagine having to research all those schools, understand each one’s admissions priorities, and then complete all those applications!
Sound complicated? We’re not done yet. In a separate process, there are the specialized high schools (think Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, etc.) which have their own test, the SHSAT, which you take for admission. Admission is based solely on this one test, and many people study for years. (A sad waste of talent.)
No, we’re still not done yet. Based on the SHSAT and your Round 1 form, you get a school assignment in March, which could have 2 schools (if you got into one of each, you get to choose), 1 school (if you got into one “normal” school and one specialized school), or 0 schools (if you were not placed with any of your Round 1 schools nor did you score high enough on the SHSAT). At this point, you can complete the Round 2 form, in which the same matching process is used as Round 1, but with those schools that are left over. (Usually, not the good ones.)
If the Round 2 process doesn’t work out, you are automatically placed into a local school that has space. But it’s still not over. You can appeal your choice if something went wrong. You can also apply separately to charter schools (yes, they’re in another totally separate system), which are decided by random lottery, but the more you apply to, the better your chances.
All of which is to say, the process is truly, incredibly complicated. (I also simplified it, leaving out LaGuardia School of the Arts, private schools, and many intricacies of appealing your placement.) As the Post‘s opinion piece justly points out, this process dramatically favors more affluent students who have much better coaching and access to information. (Let alone that they often speak better English.)
You might think, at this point, that I agree with the author that we should abolish this system. After all, it clearly favors affluent students and takes a lot of time for everyone. But there is one key problem: nothing better has been proposed. At least the current system gives students a chance to go to a better school. At BEAM, we can coach students on how to get into a great school that will challenge them, and we have tremendous success. Some families find their way on their own. Compare to a system that just places students by geography, in a city that is highly segregated (by race and income) — what chance would low-income students have then for access to these schools?
This is a subtle issue. Maybe a system based only on geography would help, because then there might be some mixed-income schools (although I find that unlikely). Maybe the current system has another downside, “creaming” the best students from low-performing schools, leaving them worse off. These are interesting questions, questions that deserve study. But it’s not worth changing a system that offers some kids incredible opportunities unless you’ve done a very careful examination of the trade-offs, and we frankly have no idea!
So what should we do? If more students had real advising on navigating the high school system, they could be vastly more successful at getting into great schools. There are so many big mistakes that students make all the time: not filling in all 12 spots on the Round 1 form, for example, or incorrectly judging what school to apply to. (We had a student who decided by looking at schools’ graduation rates, not realizing he’d ranked a dual-language school specifically for English Language Learners, a decision that he is now stuck with for 9th grade even though he does not speak fluent Spanish!) Just as we need more guidance counselors for college applications, help with the high school application process might create a system that offers tremendous opportunities for all students, regardless of background.
Consider Learning 
Wow. I had no idea this was a thing; it sounds kind of insane, though I can see what might’ve motivated it. (Is it a recent development? I’d been under the impression that at least my local high school was region-based, but I could believe having missed it all due to the whole 7-12 high school thing.)
It was revised to the current form in 2004. Before that, you would by default get your zoned school, but you had the option of applying to up to five other schools. I don’t know a whole lot about that system, however.
Your analysis at the end leaves out an important factor that could, depending on circumstances (and I don’t know enough to say it does), tip the balance towards preferring a geometric system. Namely, from your description, it sounds like the process places an enormous cost on _all_ students involved (perhaps not monetary, but in time and worry). You do point out that spending years on studying for SHSAT has a huge cost. I would argue that the cost of having to deal with applications is also high.
Certainly sufficiently better outcomes can justify better (more fair, for example) processes. But fairness and outcomes are not the only criteria along which processes should be judged.
Yes, that’s a good point. My experience is that for ~1-2 months it is a significant preoccupation next to school itself.