School Choice in Chile

References

• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: A mechanism design approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):729–747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che YK, Yasuda Y (2015) Expanding “choice” in school choice. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 7(1):1–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE (2005a) The New York City high school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(2):364–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE (2009) Strategy-proofness vs. efficiency in matching with indifferences: Redesigning the New York City high school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(5):1954–1978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE, Sönmez T (2005b) The Boston public school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(2):368–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che YK, Pathak PA, Roth AE, Tercieux O (2017) Minimizing justified envy in school choice: The design of New Orleans’ OneApp. NBER Working Paper 23265, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Andersson T, Dur U, Ertemel S, Kesten O (2018) Sequential school choice with public and private schools. Working paper, Tommy Andersson Department of Economics, Lund University.Google Scholar
• Anderson R, Ashlagi I, Gamarnik G, Rees M, Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver M (2015) Kidney exchange and the alliance for paired donation: Operations research changes the way kidneys are transplanted. J. Appl. Anal. 45(1):26–42.Google Scholar
• Alon N, Bronfman S, Hassidim A, Romm A (2018) Redesigning the Israeli medical internship match. ACM Trans. Econom. Comput. 6(3):1–28.Google Scholar
• Arnosti N (2015) Short lists in centralized clearinghouses. Proc. 16th ACM Conf. Econom. Comput., (ACM, New York), 751.Google Scholar
• Artemov G, He Y, Che Y-K (2017) Strategic “mistakes”: Implications for market design. NBER Working paper, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Shi P (2014) Improving community cohesion in school choice via correlated-lottery implementation. Oper. Res. 62(6):1247–1264.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Braverman M, Hassidim A (2014) Stability in large matching markets with complementarities. Oper. Res. 62(4):713–732.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Nikzad A, Romm AI (2019) Assigning more students to their top choices: A comparison of tie-breaking rules. Games Econom. Behav. 115:167–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aygün O, Turhan B (2020) Dynamic reserves in matching markets. J. Econom. Theory 188:105069.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azevedo EM, Leshno JD (2016) A supply and demand framework for two-sided matching markets. J. Political Econom. 124(5):1235–1268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baswana S, Chakrabarti PP, Chandran S, Kanoria Y, Patange U (2019) Of stable marriages and graphs, and strategy and polytopes. J. Appl. Anal. 49(5):338–354.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Bellei C (2013) El estudio de la segregación socioeconómica y académica de la educación chilena. Estudios Pedagógicos. (Valdivia) 39(1):325–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biró P (2008) Student admissions in Hungary as Gale and Shapley envisaged. Working paper, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
• Bodoh-Creed AL (2020) Optimizing for distributional goals in school choice problems. Management Sci. 66(8):3657–3676.Link, Google Scholar
• Calsamiglia C, Güell M (2018) Priorities in school choice: The case of the Boston mechanism in Barcelona. J. Public Econom. 163:20–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Combe J (2018) Teacher assignment and minimal envy mechanisms. Preprint, submitted March 3, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3126964.Google Scholar
• Combe J, Tercieux O, Terrier C (2016) The design of teacher assignment: Theory and evidence. Working paper, Ecole polytechnique.Google Scholar
• De Haan M, Gautier PA, Oosterbeek H, Van der Klaauw B (2015) The performance of school assignment mechanisms in practice (Institute for the Study of Labor), Working paper no. 9118, IZA Institute of Labor Economics.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delacrétaz D (2020) Processing reserves simultaneously. Working paper, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
• Dubins LE, Freedman DA (1981) Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley algorithm. Amer. Math. Monthly 88(7):485–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dur U, Wiseman T (2019) School choice with neighbors. J. Math. Econom. 83:101–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dur U, Morrill T, Phan W (2019) Family ties: School assignment with siblings. Working paper, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
• Dur U, Pathak PA, Sönmez T (2016b) Explicit vs. statistical preferential treatment in affirmative action: Theory and evidence from Chicago’s exam schools. NBER Working paper no. 22109, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Dur U, Duke S, Parag K, Pathak PA, Sönmez T (2016a) Reserve design: Unintended consequences and the demise of Boston’s walk zones. J. Political Econom. 126(6):2457–2479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehlers L (2010) School choice with control. Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche en Economie Quantitative Working Paper 13-2010.Google Scholar
• Ehlers L, Hafalir IE, Yenmez MB, Yildirim MA (2014) School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds vs. soft bounds. J. Econom. Theory 153:648–683.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gale D, Shapley LS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Amer. Math. Monthly 69(1):9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gautier PA, De Haan M, Van Der Klaauw B, Oosterbeek H (2016) Eerste analyse matching en loting voortgezet onderwijs amsterdam 2016. Working paper, Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
• Gonczarowski YA, Nisan N, Kovalio L, Romm A (2019) Matching for the Israeli “Mechinot” gap-year programs. Working paper, Harvard University.Google Scholar
• Guillen P, Kesten O (2012) Matching markets with mixed ownership: The case for a real-life assignment mechanism. Internat. Econom. Rev. 53(3):1027–1046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hafalir IE, Yenmez MB, Yildirim MA (2013) Effective affirmative action in school choice. Theoret. Econom. 8(2):325–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hassidim A, Romm A, Shorrer R (2018) Need vs. merit: The large core of college admissions markets. Working paper, Bar Ilan University.Google Scholar
• Hassidim A, Romm A, Shorrer R (2021) The limits of incentives in economic matching procedures. Management Sci. 67(2):951–963.Link, Google Scholar
• Hatfield JW, Milgrom PR (2005) Matching with contracts. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(4):913–935.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamada Y, Kojima F (2015) Efficient matching under distributional constraints: Theory and applications. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(1):67–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kojima F (2012) School choice: Impossibilities for affirmative action. Games Econom. Behav. 75(2):685–693.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kojima F, Pathak PA, Roth AE (2013) Matching with couples: Stability and incentives in large markets. Quart. J. Econom. 128(4):1585–1632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kurata R, Hamada N, Iwasaki A, Yokoo M (2017) Controlled school choice with soft bounds and overlapping types. J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 58:153–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kwon H, Shorrer R (2020) Justified-envy minimal mechanisms in school choice. Working paper, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
• Larroucau T, Rios I (2018) Do “short-list” students report truthfully? Strategic behavior in the Chilean college admissions problem. Preprint, submitted September 1, 10.13140/RG.2.2.10082.79045.Google Scholar
• Larroucau T, Martinez M, Neilson C, Rios I (2021) Non-obvious mistakes and the role of information in college admissions. Working paper, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
• Manjunath V, Turhan B (2016) Two school systems, one district: What to do when a unified admissions process is impossible. Games Econom. Behav. 95:25–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MINEDUC (2018) Estadisticas de la educacion 2017. Report, Ministerio de Educación, República de Chile, https://centroestudios.mineduc.cl/wp-content/uploads/sites/100/2018/12/ANUARIO-MINEDUC_VERSION-BAJA.pdf.Google Scholar
• Pycia M, Yenmez M (2015) Matching with externalities. Working paper, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
• Rees-Jones A (2018) Suboptimal behavior in strategy-proof mechanisms: Evidence from the residency match. Games Econom. Behav. 108:317–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rees-Jones A, Skowronek S (2018) An experimental investigation of preference misrepresentation in the residency match. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115(45):11471–11476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rios I, Larroucau T, Parra G, Cominetti R (2020) Improving the Chilean college admissions system. Oper. Res. 69(4):1186–1205.Link, Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1984) The evolution of the labor market for medical interns and residents: A case study in game theory. J. Political Econom. 92(6):991–1016.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Peranson E (1984) The redesign of the matching market for American physicians: Some engineering aspects of economic design. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89:748–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2004) Kidney exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 119(2):457–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shorrer S, Sóvagó S (2017) Obvious mistakes in a strategically simple college admissions environment. Working paper, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
• Sönmez T, Switzer TB (2004) Matching with (branch-of-choice) contracts at the United States military academy. Econometrica 81(2):451–488.Google Scholar
• Sönmez T, Yenmez MB (2020) Affirmative action with overlapping reserves. Working paper, Boston College.Google Scholar
• Valenzuela JP, Bellei C, De los Ríos D (2014) Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system. The case of Chile. J. Ed. Policy 29(2):217–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villalobos C, Valenzuela JP (2012) Polarización y cohesión social del sistema escolar chileno. Rev. Anal. Econom. 27(2):145–172.Google Scholar
• Wormald G, Flores C, Sabatini F, Trebilcock MP, Rasse Figueroa A (2012) Cultura de cohesión e integración en las ciudades chilenas. Revista invi 27(76):117–145.Crossref, Google Scholar