Cargando…

A field evaluation of a matching mechanism: University applicant behavior in Australia

The majority of undergraduate university applications in the state of New South Wales—Australia's largest state—are processed by a clearinghouse, the Universities Admissions Centre (UAC). Applicants submit an ordered list of degrees to the UAC, which applies a matching algorithm to allocate uni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guillen, Pablo, Kesten, Onur, Kiefer, Alexander, Melatos, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9802117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36712791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac010
_version_ 1784861623933992960
author Guillen, Pablo
Kesten, Onur
Kiefer, Alexander
Melatos, Mark
author_facet Guillen, Pablo
Kesten, Onur
Kiefer, Alexander
Melatos, Mark
author_sort Guillen, Pablo
collection PubMed
description The majority of undergraduate university applications in the state of New South Wales—Australia's largest state—are processed by a clearinghouse, the Universities Admissions Centre (UAC). Applicants submit an ordered list of degrees to the UAC, which applies a matching algorithm to allocate university places to eligible applicants. Applicants receive advice on how to construct their degree preference list from multiple sources including individual universities. This advice is often confusing and misleading. To evaluate the performance of the current system, we run a large sample (832 observations) online experiment with experienced participants in a choice environment that mimics the UAC application process, and in which truth telling is optimal. We vary the advice received across treatments: no advice, the UAC advice only, an instance of misleading university advice only, and both the UAC and the misleading university advice together. Overall, 75.5% of participants fail to behave in their best interest. High rates of applicant manipulation persist even when applicants are provided with the UAC's accurate advice. Students who attend nonselective government high schools are more prone to use strictly dominated strategies than those who attend academically selective government high schools and private high schools.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9802117
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98021172023-01-26 A field evaluation of a matching mechanism: University applicant behavior in Australia Guillen, Pablo Kesten, Onur Kiefer, Alexander Melatos, Mark PNAS Nexus Social and Political Sciences The majority of undergraduate university applications in the state of New South Wales—Australia's largest state—are processed by a clearinghouse, the Universities Admissions Centre (UAC). Applicants submit an ordered list of degrees to the UAC, which applies a matching algorithm to allocate university places to eligible applicants. Applicants receive advice on how to construct their degree preference list from multiple sources including individual universities. This advice is often confusing and misleading. To evaluate the performance of the current system, we run a large sample (832 observations) online experiment with experienced participants in a choice environment that mimics the UAC application process, and in which truth telling is optimal. We vary the advice received across treatments: no advice, the UAC advice only, an instance of misleading university advice only, and both the UAC and the misleading university advice together. Overall, 75.5% of participants fail to behave in their best interest. High rates of applicant manipulation persist even when applicants are provided with the UAC's accurate advice. Students who attend nonselective government high schools are more prone to use strictly dominated strategies than those who attend academically selective government high schools and private high schools. Oxford University Press 2022-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9802117/ /pubmed/36712791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac010 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the National Academy of Sciences. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Social and Political Sciences
Guillen, Pablo
Kesten, Onur
Kiefer, Alexander
Melatos, Mark
A field evaluation of a matching mechanism: University applicant behavior in Australia
title A field evaluation of a matching mechanism: University applicant behavior in Australia
title_full A field evaluation of a matching mechanism: University applicant behavior in Australia
title_fullStr A field evaluation of a matching mechanism: University applicant behavior in Australia
title_full_unstemmed A field evaluation of a matching mechanism: University applicant behavior in Australia
title_short A field evaluation of a matching mechanism: University applicant behavior in Australia
title_sort field evaluation of a matching mechanism: university applicant behavior in australia
topic Social and Political Sciences
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9802117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36712791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac010
work_keys_str_mv AT guillenpablo afieldevaluationofamatchingmechanismuniversityapplicantbehaviorinaustralia
AT kestenonur afieldevaluationofamatchingmechanismuniversityapplicantbehaviorinaustralia
AT kieferalexander afieldevaluationofamatchingmechanismuniversityapplicantbehaviorinaustralia
AT melatosmark afieldevaluationofamatchingmechanismuniversityapplicantbehaviorinaustralia
AT guillenpablo fieldevaluationofamatchingmechanismuniversityapplicantbehaviorinaustralia
AT kestenonur fieldevaluationofamatchingmechanismuniversityapplicantbehaviorinaustralia
AT kieferalexander fieldevaluationofamatchingmechanismuniversityapplicantbehaviorinaustralia
AT melatosmark fieldevaluationofamatchingmechanismuniversityapplicantbehaviorinaustralia