A School Choice Compromise: Between Immediate and Deferred Acceptance

Harless, Patrick (2014): A School Choice Compromise: Between Immediate and Deferred Acceptance.

Abstract

School assignment procedures aim to improve student welfare, but must balance efficiency and equity goals and provide incentives for students to report their preferences truthfully. Debate centers largely on two rules: immediate acceptance (IA), the so-called Boston mechanism, and deferred acceptance (DA). IA's strength is efficiency, while DA is touted for its superior strategic properties. Thinking of these as extremes, we advocate a compromise rule, immediate-acceptance-with-skips (IA+), which slightly modifies IA to achieve better strategic properties while retaining efficiency. IA+ proceeds in rounds of applications and, like IA, �finalizes assignments in each round. However, unlike IA or DA, IA+ allows students to "skip" applications to schools with no remaining capacity. We show that IA+ is efficient and less manipulable than IA+. Unfortunately, IA+ violates solidarity properties that both IA and DA satisfy. Considering robustness, we �find that each of the three rules satisfies a different set of three natural invariance properties.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: School choice; deferred acceptance; immediate acceptance; immediateacceptance-with-skips; Boston mechanism
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C78 - Bargaining Theory ; Matching Theory; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement; H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government ; Intergovernmental Relations > H75 - State and Local Government: Health ; Education ; Welfare ; Public Pensions; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Institutions > I28 - Government Policy

References

Abdulkadiroglu, A. and Che, Y.-K. (2010). The role of priorities in assigning indivisible objects: A characterization of top trading cycles. Mimeo.

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Che, Y.-K., and Yasuda, Y. (2011). Resolving conflicting preferences in school choice: The "Boston mechanism" reconsidered. American Economics Review, 101:399-410.

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Che, Y.-K., and Yasuda, Y. (2014). Expanding "choice" in school choice. American Economics Journal. Forthcoming.

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Pathak, P. A., and Roth, A. E. (2005a). The New York City high school match. American Economics Review: Papers and Proceedings, 95(2):364-367.

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Pathak, P. A., and Roth, A. E. (2009). Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in matching with indifferences: Redesigning the New York City high school match. Technical Report w14864, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Pathak, P. A., Roth, A. E., and Sonmez, T. (2005b). The Boston public school match. American Economics Review: Papers and Proceedings, 95(2):368-371.

Abdulkadiroglu, A., Pathak, P. A., Roth, A. E., and Sonmez, T. (2006). Changing the Boston school choice mechanism: Strategyproofness as equal access. Technical Report w11965, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Abdulkadiroglu, A. and Sonmez, T. (2003). School choice: A mechanism design approach. American Economic Review, 93(3):729-747.

Afacan, M. O. (2013). Alternative characterizations of Boston mechanism. Mathematical Social Sciences, 66:176-179.

Alcalde, J. (1996). Implementation of stable solutions to marriage problems. Journal of Economic Theory, 69(1):240-254.

Balinski, M. and Sonmez, T. (1999). A tale of two mechanisms: Student placement. Journal of Economic Theory, 84:73-94.

Barbera, S. and Jackson, M. O. (1995). Strategy-proof exchange. Econometrica, 63(1):51-87.

Chen, Y. (2012). Characterizing the Boston mechanism. Mimeo.

Chen, Y. (2014). When is the Boston mechanism strategy-proof? Mathematical Social Sciences, 71:43-45.

Chen, Y. and Kesten, O. (2013). From Boston to Chinese parallel to deferred acceptance: Theory and experiments on a family of school choice mechanisms. Mimeo.

Chen, Y. and Sonmez, T. (2006). School choice: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Theory, 127(1):202-231.

Dogan, B. (2013). Responsive affirmative action in school choice. Mimeo.

Dubins, L. E. and Freedman, D. A. (1981). Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley algorithm. The American Mathematical Monthly, 88(7):485-494.

Dur, U. (2012). Characterization of the top trading cycles mechanism for the school choice problem. Mimeo.

Dur, U. (2013). The modified Boston mechanism. Mimeo.

Ehlers, L. and Klaus, B. (2012). Strategy-proofness makes the difference: Deferred acceptance with responsive priorities. Mimeo.

Erdil, A. and Ergin, H. (2011). What’s the matter with tie-breaking? Improving efficiency in school choice. American Economics Review, 98(3):669-689.

Ergin, H. (2002). Efficient resource allocation on the basis of priorities. Econometrica, 70(6):2489{2497.

Ergin, H. and Sonmez, T. (2006). Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism. Journal of Public Economics, 90:215-237.

Featherstone, C. (2013). Rank efficiency: Investigating a widespread ordinal welfare criterion. Mimeo.

Featherstone, C. and Niederle, M. (2008). Ex ante efficiency in school choice mechanisms: An experimental investigation. Technical Report w41618, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Gale, D. and Shapley, L. (1962). College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, 69(1):9-15.

He, Y. (2012). Gaming the Boston school choice mechanism in Beijing. Mimeo.

Kesten, O. (2006). On two competing mechanisms for priority-based allocation problems. Journal of Economic Theory, 127:155-171.

Kesten, O. (2010). School choice with consent. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3):1297-1348.

Kesten, O. (2012). On two kinds of manipulation for school choice problems. Economic Theory, 51(3): 677-693.

Klaus, B. and Klijn, F. (2013). Local and global consistency properties for student placement. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 49:222-229.

Kojima, F. and Manea, M. (2010). Axioms for deferred acceptance. Econometrica, 78(2):633-653.

Kojima, F. and Unver, M. U. (2014). The \Boston" school-choice mechanism: An axiomatic approach. Economic Theory, 55(3):515-544.

Kumano, T. (2013). Strategy-proofness and stability of the Boston mechanism: An almost impossibility result. Journal of Public Economics, 105:23-29.

Mennle, T. and Seuken, S. (2014). The adaptive Boston mechanism. Mimeo.

Miralles, A. (2008). School choice: The case for the Boston mechanism. Mimeo.

Morrill, T. (2013a). An alternative characterization of the deferred acceptance algorithm. International Journal of Game Theory, 42:19-28.

Morrill, T. (2013b). An alternative characterization of top trading cycles. Economic Theory, 54(1):181-197.

Morrill, T. (2013c). Making efficient school assignment fairer. Mimeo.

Morrill, T. (2013d). Two simple variations of top trading cycles. Mimeo.

Pais, J. and Pinter, A. (2008). School choice and information: An experimental study on matching mechanisms. Games and Economic Behavior, 64: 303-328.

Papai, S. (2000). Strategyproof assignment by hierarchical assignment. Econometrica, 68(6):1403-1433.

Pathak, P. A. and Sonmez, T. (2008). Leveling the playing field sincere and sophisticated players in the Boston mechanism. American Economics Review, 98(4):1635-1654.

Pathak, P. A. and Sonmez, T. (2013). School admissions reform in Chicago and England: Comparing mechanisms by their vulnerability to manipulation. American Economics Review, 103(1):80-106.

Roth, A. E. (1982). The economics of matching: Stability and incentives. Mathematics of Operations Research, 7(4):617-628.

Roth, A. E. (2008). Deferred acceptance algorithms: History, theory, practice, and open questions. International Journal of Game Theory, 36(3-4):537-569.

Roth, A. E. and Sotomayor, M. (1990). Two-sided matching: A study in game-theoretic modeling and analysis. Econometric Society Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thomson, W. (1983a). The fair division of a fixed supply among a growing population. Mathematics of Operations Research, 8:319-326.

Thomson, W. (1983b). Problems of fair division and the egalitarian solution. Journal of Economic Theory, 31:211-226.

Thomson, W. (2009). Consistent allocation rules. Monograph.