3 ms·
Win-win swaps could be done automatically by the lottery system. This eliminates the non-fairness objection (as this optional upgrade can happen to anyone). It
by air7 9y ago
Win-win swaps could be done automatically by the lottery system. This eliminates the non-fairness objection (as this optional upgrade can happen to anyone). It does theoretically create room for strategizing though: If there is a very popular school that I don't want to go to, it makes sense to put in down as option #3 or #4 because if I get it, I might slingshot back into my #1-#3 options.
- emn13 9y ago...and that would reduce efficiency again. It's not at all clear that the loss of efficiency from false preferences is smaller than the loss caused by students getting each others preferences. In fact, the article is a little too kind to the option of trading places. It presents a clean choice between fairness and efficiency: trading harms the former while boosting the latter. In fact, trading will reduce future efficiency due to strategizing; it may well be that trading is a straight-up de-optimization in all but the current round.
- vanderZwan 9y ago> It does theoretically create room for strategizing though And that is the exact issue with it: it would soon be common knowledge that you should do so, and then the people who don't consciously try to game the system would be at a disadvantage. In general that seems to be the goal: devising a system that cannot be gamed in any other way than giving your honest preference. In other words, ensure that the system is a self-enforcing protocol. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/08/self-enforcing.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/08/self-enforcin...