Paper detail

Affirmative Action Policies for Top-k Candidates Selection, With an Application to the Design of Policies for University Admissions

We consider the problem of designing affirmative action policies for selecting the top-k candidates from a pool of applicants. We assume that for each candidate we have socio-demographic attributes and a series of variables that serve as indicators of future performance (e.g., results on standardized tests). We further assume that we have access to historical data including the actual performance of previously selected candidates. Critically, performance information is only available for candidates who were selected under some previous selection policy. In this work we assume that due to legal requirements or voluntary commitments, an organization wants to increase the presence of people from disadvantaged socio-demographic groups among the selected candidates. Hence, we seek to design an affirmative action or positive action policy. This policy has two concurrent objectives: (i) to select candidates who, given what can be learnt from historical data, are more likely to perform well, and (ii) to select candidates in a way that increases the representation of disadvantaged socio-demographic groups. Our motivating application is the design of university admission policies to bachelor's degrees. We use a causal model as a framework to describe several families of policies (changing component weights, giving bonuses, and enacting quotas), and compare them both theoretically and through extensive experimentation on a large real-world dataset containing thousands of university applicants. Our paper is the first to place the problem of affirmative-action policy design within the framework of algorithmic fairness. Our empirical results indicate that simple policies could favor the admission of disadvantaged groups without significantly compromising on the quality of accepted candidates.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.