Josue Ortega, Gabriel Ziegler, R. Pablo Arribillaga
{"title":"Unimprovable Students and Inequality in School Choice","authors":"Josue Ortega, Gabriel Ziegler, R. Pablo Arribillaga","doi":"arxiv-2407.19831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Efficiency-Adjusted Deferred Acceptance (EADA) mechanism corrects the\nPareto-inefficiency of the celebrated Deferred Acceptance (DA) algorithm,\nassigning every student to a weakly more preferred school. Nonetheless, it is\nunclear which and how many students do not improve their DA placement under\nEADA. We show that, despite all its merits, EADA never benefits pupils who are\neither assigned to their worst-ranked schools or unmatched under DA. It also\nlimits the placement improvement of marginalized students, preserving school\nsegregation. The placement of the worst-off student under EADA may be\nunreasonably bad, even though significantly more egalitarian allocations are\npossible. Finally, we provide a bound on the expected number of unimprovable\nstudents using a random market approach. Our results help to understand why EADA fails to reduce the inequality\ngenerated by DA in empirical evaluations of school choice mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":501188,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - ECON - Theoretical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - ECON - Theoretical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2407.19831","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Efficiency-Adjusted Deferred Acceptance (EADA) mechanism corrects the
Pareto-inefficiency of the celebrated Deferred Acceptance (DA) algorithm,
assigning every student to a weakly more preferred school. Nonetheless, it is
unclear which and how many students do not improve their DA placement under
EADA. We show that, despite all its merits, EADA never benefits pupils who are
either assigned to their worst-ranked schools or unmatched under DA. It also
limits the placement improvement of marginalized students, preserving school
segregation. The placement of the worst-off student under EADA may be
unreasonably bad, even though significantly more egalitarian allocations are
possible. Finally, we provide a bound on the expected number of unimprovable
students using a random market approach. Our results help to understand why EADA fails to reduce the inequality
generated by DA in empirical evaluations of school choice mechanisms.