Dorm augmented college assignments

Mustafa Oǧuz Afacan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-024-01510-9

2024-02-14

Social Choice and Welfare

Abstract:In college assignments, a common practice is that students receive their dorm allocation after the realization of college placements. This causes wasted resources and unfair allocation. To fix this, we consider a college assignment problem where students simultaneously receive their college and dorm assignments. We first introduce the so-called " Dorm Augmented Deferred Acceptance " ( DDA ) and show that it is stable and efficient. However, it is not student-optimal stable. We then introduce our next mechanism, " Student-Improving Dorm Augmented Deferred Acceptance " ( SDDA ). It is mainly built on DDA , but with some extra steps to neutralize the student-harming rejection cycles. We show that SDDA is student-optimal stable, efficient, and unanimously preferred to DDA by students. Stability and strategy-proofness are incompatible, implying that neither of these mechanisms is strategy-proof. None of these mechanisms is more manipulable than the other; hence SDDA improves the students' welfare without an extra strategic cost.

economics,social sciences, mathematical methods

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper explores the problem of combining university allocation with dormitory allocation. In current practice, students are first allocated to universities and then apply for dormitories, which leads to resource waste and unfairness. The author proposes a new mechanism called "Dormitory Deferred Acceptance" (DDA) that simultaneously considers both university and dormitory allocation to address the above issues. Although DDA is stable and effective, it is not student-optimal stable. Therefore, they propose an improved mechanism called "Student-Improving Dormitory Deferred Acceptance" (SDDA), which improves student welfare without increasing strategy costs and is student-optimal stable, effective, and more popular than DDA. However, neither of these mechanisms has strategic proofness, i.e., students may benefit from false preference reporting. The paper also discusses the trade-off between fairness and stability, as well as comparisons with existing mechanisms.