Selection Procedures in Competitive Admission

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.12653
• Title: Selection Procedures in Competitive Admission
• Author: Nathan Hancart (University of Oslo)
• Classification: econ.TH (Economic Theory)
• Publication Date: October 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12653

Abstract

Two identical firms compete to attract and hire from a pool of candidates of unknown productivity. Firms simultaneously post a selection procedure which consists of a test and an acceptance probability for each test outcome. After observing the firms' selection procedures, each candidate can apply to one of them. Both firms have access to a limited set of feasible tests. The firms face two key considerations when choosing their selection procedure: the statistical properties of their test and the selection into the procedure by the candidates. I identify two partial orders on tests that are useful to characterise the equilibrium of this game: the test's accuracy (Lehmann, 1988) and difficulty. I show that in any symmetric equilibrium, the test chosen must be maximal in the accuracy order and minimal in the difficulty order. Intuitively, competition leads to maximal but misguided learning: firms end up having precise knowledge that is not payoff relevant. I also consider the cases where firms face capacity constraints, have the possibility of making a wage offer and the existence of asymmetric equilibria where one firm is more selective than another.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Questions

This paper investigates how firms optimally choose selection procedures in competitive admission markets. Specifically, when two identical firms compete to hire from a pool of candidates with unknown productivity, firms must simultaneously consider the statistical properties of tests and the self-selection behavior of candidates.

Significance of the Problem

1. Practical Relevance: This problem has important applications across multiple domains including labor markets and university admissions
2. Theoretical Value: Fills a gap in information design theory within competitive environments
3. Policy Implications: Provides theoretical foundations for understanding how competition affects selection quality

Limitations of Existing Research

Existing literature primarily focuses on:

• Competition under fixed testing technologies (e.g., Chade et al., 2014)
• Optimal test design for individual firms
• Test accuracy alone while neglecting the difficulty dimension

Research Innovations

This paper endogenizes test design into a competitive model for the first time, introduces the concept of test "difficulty," and analyzes how candidate self-selection affects equilibrium outcomes.

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Framework: Constructs a game-theoretic model of firm competition through posted selection procedures
2. Test Classification: Identifies two important dimensions of tests—accuracy and difficulty
3. Equilibrium Characterization: Proves that in symmetric equilibrium, firms must select tests that are maximal in accuracy and minimal in difficulty
4. Extended Analysis: Analyzes the impact of capacity constraints and wage competition on equilibrium outcomes
5. Existence Results: Provides equilibrium existence conditions for various test sets

Methodological Details

Task Definition

Input: Distribution of candidate types F, set of feasible tests T Output: Test t and acceptance rule α chosen by firms Objective: Find subgame perfect equilibrium

Model Architecture

Basic Setup

• Participants: Two identical firms, continuum of candidates
• Timeline:
  1. Firms simultaneously post selection procedures s = (t, α)
  2. Candidates observe and choose which firm to apply to
  3. Firms decide whether to hire based on test results

Test Technology

Each test t is a binary-signal Blackwell experiment:

• Monotonicity: π_t(θ) is monotonically increasing in type θ
• Internality: π_t(θ) ∈ (0,1) for almost all θ

Payoff Functions

Firm i's payoff: $v(s, s', \phi) = \int_\Theta \phi(s, s', \theta)\theta[\pi_t(\theta)\alpha(h) + (1-\pi_t(\theta))\alpha(l)]dF$

Technical Innovations

1. Partial Orders on Tests

Accuracy Partial Order (Lehmann, 1988): Test t is more accurate than test d if and only if for all θ > θ': $\frac{\pi_t(h|\theta)}{\pi_t(h|\theta')} \geq \frac{\pi_d(h|\theta)}{\pi_d(h|\theta')}$

Difficulty Partial Order (Newly Introduced): Test t is more difficult than test d if and only if for x = h,l and θ > θ': $\pi_t(x|\theta)\pi_d(x|\theta') \geq \pi_d(x|\theta)\pi_t(x|\theta')$

2. Selection Effects Analysis

• Positive Selection: High-productivity candidates prefer certain tests
• Negative Selection: Low-productivity candidates prefer certain tests

Key Insights:

• More accurate tests generate positive selection
• Easier tests generate positive selection under specific conditions

Main Theoretical Results

Core Theorems

Theorem 1 (Zero Profit): In any symmetric equilibrium, firm profit equals max{0, ½Eθ}

Theorem 2 (Accuracy Maximization): The test used in symmetric equilibrium must be maximal in the accuracy partial order

Theorem 3 (Difficulty Minimization): The test used in symmetric equilibrium must be minimal in the difficulty partial order

Intuitive Explanation

Competition drives firms to select tests that most precisely identify low-quality candidates, but this learning is "misguided"—firms acquire precise information that is not payoff-relevant.

Extended Analysis

1. Capacity Constraints

When firms face capacity constraints:

• Firms use more difficult tests
• Strategy shifts from "screening out low-quality" to "screening in high-quality"

Proposition: Under strict capacity constraints, firms use the most difficult feasible test.

2. Wage Competition

When firms can offer wages:

• Firms use the most difficult test
• Competition shifts from acceptance probabilities to wage levels

3. Asymmetric Equilibria

Under capacity constraints, "two-tier" equilibria may emerge:

• One firm becomes an "elite firm," hiring only high-quality candidates
• Another becomes a "safety firm," hiring lower-quality candidates

Applications and Examples

Binary Type Case

When candidate types are binary, the equilibrium test is: $\arg\max\left\{\frac{\pi_t(\bar{\theta})}{\pi_t(\underline{\theta})} : t \in \arg\min_{d \in T_i} \frac{1-\pi_d(\bar{\theta})}{1-\pi_d(\underline{\theta})}\right\}$

Cost Constraints

Under posterior-separable cost functions:

• Cost constraints necessarily bind
• Posterior expected productivity for high signals equals zero

Related Work

Competitive Private Information Markets

• Rothschild and Stiglitz (1976): Insurance markets
• Guerrieri et al. (2010): Search equilibrium
• This paper's contribution: Endogenizes information acquisition technology

Selection Procedure Design

• Chade et al. (2014): University admissions competition
• Alonso (2018): Labor market selection
• This paper's innovation: Incorporates test difficulty dimension

Information Intermediaries

• Lizzeri (1999): Certification intermediaries
• This paper's distinction: Firms are both information collectors and decision-makers

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Excessive Learning: Competition drives firms to over-invest in information acquisition, but in the wrong direction
2. Test Characteristics: Equilibrium tests exhibit high accuracy but low difficulty
3. Environmental Sensitivity: Capacity constraints and wage competition significantly alter equilibrium test characteristics

Policy Implications

1. Efficiency Loss: Pure competition may reduce selection efficiency
2. Regulatory Role: Appropriate capacity limits may improve selection quality
3. Institutional Design: Must balance competition with selection efficiency

Limitations

1. Binary Signal Assumption: Real-world test results are typically continuous
2. Symmetric Firm Assumption: Actual firms often exhibit heterogeneity
3. Complete Information Assumption: Candidates may not fully observe selection procedures

Future Directions

1. Extend to multi-signal and continuous signal cases
2. Consider firm heterogeneity and product differentiation
3. Incorporate peer effects and network externalities
4. Empirically test theoretical predictions

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation: First to endogenize test design into competitive models
2. Conceptual Contribution: The test "difficulty" concept has significant theoretical value
3. Deep Results: Reveals information acquisition distortions caused by competition
4. Rigorous Analysis: Clear mathematical derivations and complete proofs
5. Broad Applicability: Results apply to multiple practical domains

Weaknesses

1. Restrictive Assumptions: Binary signal and symmetric firm assumptions are strong
2. Empirical Gap: Lacks empirical evidence supporting theoretical predictions
3. Insufficient Welfare Analysis: Limited analysis of social welfare impacts
4. Dynamic Absence: Does not consider repeated games and reputation effects

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides new perspectives on information design and competition theory
2. Practical Value: Offers guidance for firm recruitment and education policy
3. Extensibility: Provides rich directions for subsequent research

Applicable Scenarios

1. Labor Markets: Firm recruitment and talent selection
2. Education: University admissions and scholarship selection
3. Financial Markets: Credit approval and risk assessment
4. Public Policy: Government project applications and resource allocation

References

1. Lehmann, E.L. (1988). Comparing location experiments. The Annals of Statistics.
2. Blackwell, D. (1953). Equivalent comparisons of experiments. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics.
3. Chade, H., Lewis, G., & Smith, L. (2014). Student portfolios and the college admissions problem. Review of Economic Studies.
4. Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J. (1976). Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets. The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

This paper makes significant contributions to theoretical economics, particularly at the intersection of information design and competition theory. Its core insight—that competition may lead to "maximal but misguided learning"—has important value for understanding selection mechanisms in practice.