[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1810.04087.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants

Author

Listed:
  • L'aszl'o Csat'o
  • Csaba T'oth
Abstract
A methodology is presented to rank universities on the basis of the lists of programmes the students applied for. We exploit a crucial feature of the centralised assignment system to higher education in Hungary: a student is admitted to the first programme where the score limit is achieved. This makes it possible to derive a partial preference order of each applicant. Our approach integrates the information from all students participating in the system, is free of multicollinearity among the indicators, and contains few ad hoc parameters. The procedure is implemented to rank faculties in the Hungarian higher education between 2001 and 2016. We demonstrate that the ranking given by the least squares method has favourable theoretical properties, is robust with respect to the aggregation of preferences, and performs well in practice. The suggested ranking is worth considering as a reasonable alternative to the standard composite indices.

Suggested Citation

  • L'aszl'o Csat'o & Csaba T'oth, 2018. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," Papers 1810.04087, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2020.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1810.04087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.04087
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caterina Calsamiglia & Guillaume Haeringer & Flip Klijn, 2010. "Constrained School Choice: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1860-1874, September.
    2. Lundy, Michele & Siraj, Sajid & Greco, Salvatore, 2017. "The mathematical equivalence of the “spanning tree” and row geometric mean preference vectors and its implications for preference analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 197-208.
    3. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tayfun Sönmez, 2003. "School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 729-747, June.
    4. Péter Biró & Sofya Kiselgof, 2015. "College admissions with stable score-limits," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(4), pages 727-741, December.
    5. Haeringer, Guillaume & Klijn, Flip, 2009. "Constrained school choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 1921-1947, September.
    6. Julio González-Díaz & Ruud Hendrickx & Edwin Lohmann, 2014. "Paired comparisons analysis: an axiomatic approach to ranking methods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 139-169, January.
    7. András Telcs & Zsolt Tibor Kosztyán & Ádám Török, 2016. "Unbiased one-dimensional university ranking -- application-based preference ordering," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 212-228, January.
    8. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2004. "The Measurement of Intellectual Influence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 963-977, May.
    9. Laszlo A. Koczy & Martin Strobel, 2010. "The World Cup of Economics Journals: A Ranking by a Tournament Method," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1018, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    10. Čaklović, Lavoslav & Kurdija, Adrian Satja, 2017. "A universal voting system based on the Potential Method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 677-688.
    11. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2018. "The flow network method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 621-656, December.
    12. Chao, Xiangrui & Kou, Gang & Li, Tie & Peng, Yi, 2018. "Jie Ke versus AlphaGo: A ranking approach using decision making method for large-scale data with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 239-247.
    13. Chebotarev, P. Yu., 1994. "Aggregation of preferences by the generalized row sum method," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 293-320, June.
    14. Mitri Kitti, 2016. "Axioms for centrality scoring with principal eigenvectors," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 639-653, March.
    15. László Csató, 2015. "A graph interpretation of the least squares ranking method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 51-69, January.
    16. Chung-Piaw Teo & Jay Sethuraman & Wee-Peng Tan, 2001. "Gale-Shapley Stable Marriage Problem Revisited: Strategic Issues and Applications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(9), pages 1252-1267, September.
    17. László Csató, 2013. "Ranking by pairwise comparisons for Swiss-system tournaments," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 21(4), pages 783-803, December.
    18. Pavel Yu. Chebotarev & Elena Shamis, 1998. "Characterizations of scoring methodsfor preference aggregation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 299-332, January.
    19. Martin Ravallion, 2012. "Mashup Indices of Development," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(1), pages 1-32, February.
    20. Christopher N. Avery & Mark E. Glickman & Caroline M. Hoxby & Andrew Metrick, 2013. "A Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(1), pages 425-467.
    21. Kolos Csaba Ágoston & Péter Biró & Iain McBride, 2016. "Integer programming methods for special college admissions problems," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1371-1399, November.
    22. Saisana, Michaela & d'Hombres, Béatrice & Saltelli, Andrea, 2011. "Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 165-177, February.
    23. Bozóki, Sándor & Csató, László & Temesi, József, 2016. "An application of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices for ranking top tennis players," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 211-218.
    24. Giora Slutzki & Oscar Volij, 2005. "Ranking participants in generalized tournaments," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(2), pages 255-270, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Csató, László & Tóth, Csaba, 2020. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 309-320.
    2. László Csató, 2019. "An impossibility theorem for paired comparisons," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 497-514, June.
    3. Petróczy, Dóra Gréta, 2021. "An alternative quality of life ranking on the basis of remittances," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. László Csató, 2017. "On the ranking of a Swiss system chess team tournament," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 17-36, July.
    5. Csató, László & Petróczy, Dóra Gréta, 2021. "On the monotonicity of the eigenvector method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(1), pages 230-237.
    6. Csató, László, 2019. "A characterization of the Logarithmic Least Squares Method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 212-216.
    7. D'ora Gr'eta Petr'oczy & L'aszl'o Csat'o, 2019. "Revenue allocation in Formula One: a pairwise comparison approach," Papers 1909.12931, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    8. Csató, László, 2019. "Journal ranking should depend on the level of aggregation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    9. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2018. "The flow network method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 621-656, December.
    10. Csató, László, 2017. "European qualifiers to the 2018 FIFA World Cup can be manipulated," MPRA Paper 82652, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. S. S. Dabadghao & B. Vaziri, 2022. "The predictive power of popular sports ranking methods in the NFL, NBA, and NHL," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2767-2783, July.
    12. Kóczy Á., László, 2010. "A magyarországi felvételi rendszerek sajátosságai [Specific features of Hungarys system of school and university admissions]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 142-164.
    13. László Csató, 2018. "Characterization of the Row Geometric Mean Ranking with a Group Consensus Axiom," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 1011-1027, December.
    14. László Csató, 2019. "Axiomatizations of inconsistency indices for triads," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 280(1), pages 99-110, September.
    15. Klijn, Flip & Pais, Joana & Vorsatz, Marc, 2019. "Static versus dynamic deferred acceptance in school choice: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 147-163.
    16. Chen, Siwei & Heo, Eun Jeong, 2021. "Acyclic priority profiles in school choice: Characterizations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 22-30.
    17. Flip Klijn & Joana Pais & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Preference intensities and risk aversion in school choice: a laboratory experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-22, March.
    18. Kumano, Taro, 2013. "Strategy-proofness and stability of the Boston mechanism: An almost impossibility result," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 23-29.
    19. Tong Wang & Congyi Zhou, 2020. "High school admission reform in China: a welfare analysis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(3), pages 215-269, December.
    20. Kojima, Fuhito, 2013. "Efficient resource allocation under multi-unit demand," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-14.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1810.04087. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.