Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Why Do Students Lie and Should We Worry? An Analysis of Non-truthful Reporting

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.13718 v2 pith:3RB6XAHU submitted 2023-02-27 econ.GN q-fin.EC

classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords studentsadmissionbeliefspreferencesanalysisfindlargelynon-truthful
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

A core aspect in market design is to encourage participants to truthfully report their preferences to ensure efficiency and fairness. Our research paper analyzes the factors that contribute to and the consequences of students reporting non-truthfully in admissions applications. We survey college applicants in Denmark about their perceptions of the admission process and personality to examine recent theories of misreporting preferences. Our analysis reveals that omissions in reports are largely driven by students' pessimistic beliefs about their chances of admission. Moreover, such erroneous beliefs largely account for whether an omission led to a missed opportunity for admission. However, the low frequency of these errors suggests that most non-truthful reports are "white lies" with minimal negative impact. We find a novel role of personality and individual circumstances that co-determine the extent of omissions. We also find that estimates of students' demand are biased if it is assumed that students report truthfully, and demonstrate that this bias can be reduced by making a less restrictive assumption. Our results have implications for the modeling of preferences, information acquisition, and subjective admission beliefs in strategy-proof mechanisms

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Trading off performance and human oversight in algorithmic policy: evidence from Danish college admissions

    cs.CY 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simple machine learning models predict college completion better than GPA or human rankings in Danish admissions, and most of the benefit of AI admissions comes from models that remain interpretable.

Pith tools