Abstract:Discovery program (DISC) is a policy used by the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE) to increase the number of admissions of students from low socio-economic background to specialized high schools. This policy has been instrumental in increasing the number of disadvantaged students attending these schools. However, assuming that students care more about the school they are assigned to rather than the type of seat they occupy (\emph{school-over-seat hypothesis}), our empirical analysis using data from 12 recent academic years shows that DISC creates about 950 in-group blocking pairs each year amongst disadvantaged students, impacting about 650 disadvantaged students every year. Moreover, we find that this program does not respect improvements, thus unintentionally creating an incentive to under-perform. These experimental results are confirmed by our theoretical analysis. In order to alleviate the concerns caused by DISC, we explore two alternative policies: the minority reserve (MR) and the joint-seat allocation (JSA) mechanisms. As our main theoretical contribution, we introduce a feature of markets, that we term high competitiveness, and we show that under this condition, JSA dominates MR for all disadvantaged students. We give sufficient conditions under which high competitiveness is verified. Data from NYC DOE satisfies the high competitiveness condition, and for this dataset our empirical results corroborate our theoretical predictions, showing the superiority of JSA. Given that JSA can be implemented by a simple modification of the classical deferred acceptance algorithm with responsive preference lists, we believe that, when the school-over-seat hypothesis holds, the discovery program can be changed for the better by implementing the JSA mechanism, leading in particular to aligned incentives for the top-performing disadvantaged students.

Corrigendum to "Affirmative action in school choice: A new solution" [Math. Social Sci. 92 (2018) 1-9].

On the Equivalence of Two Competing Affirmative Actions in School Choice

Corrigendum to “affine Matrix Rank Minimization Problem Via Non-Convex Fraction Function Penalty” [J. Comput. Appl. Math. 336 (2018) 353–374]

Reforms meet fairness concerns in school and college admissions

School Choice: An Experimental Study (Vol 127, Pg 202, 2006)

Correction for Xie et al., Assortative mating without assortative preference

Misalignment between Test Scores and Colleges' Preferences: Chinese College Admission Reconsidered

Multi-District School Choice: Playing on Several Fields

School Choice with Multiple Priorities

From Boston to Shanghai to Deferred Acceptance: Theory and Experiments on a Family of School Choice Mechanisms

Corrigendum to “on Non-Uniqueness in Mean Field Games”

Affirmative Action: One Size Does Not Fit All

Discovering Opportunities in New York City's Discovery Program: Disadvantaged Students in Highly Competitive Markets

Correction: Su Et Al. Sociocultural Adaptation Profiles of Ethnic Minority Senior High School Students in Mainland China: A Latent Class Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6942

Corrections to “Pareto-Based Multiobjective Machine Learning: an Overview and Case Studies” [may 08 397-415]

Dynamic Reserves in Matching Markets

Matching inequality and strategic behavior under the Boston mechanism: Evidence from China's college admissions

Corrigendum to “A conservative linear difference scheme for the 2D regularized long-wave equation” [Appl. Math. Comput. 342 (2019) 55–70]

Fairness of the Boston Matching Mechanism in China's College Admissions

Rejoinder to the Response <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0812.2330" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2330">arXiv:0812.2330</a> to 'Comment on a recent conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model'

Corrigendum: Dynamics of a reaction-diffusion-advection modelfor two competing species