英文文献：Are University Admissions Academically Fair?-大学录取在学术上公平吗?
英文文献作者：Debopam Bhattacharya,Shin Kanaya,Margaret Stevens
英文文献摘要：
High-profile universities often face public criticism for undermining academic merit and promoting social elitism through their admissions-process. In this paper, we develop an empirical test for whether access to selective universities is meritocratic. If so, then the academic potential of marginal candidates -- the admission-threshold -- would be equated across demographic groups. But these thresholds are difficult to identify when admission-decisions are based on more characteristics than observed by the analyst. We assume that applicants who are better-qualified on standard observable indicators should on average, but not necessarily with certainty, appear academically stronger to admission-tutors based on characteristics observable to them but not us. This assumption can be used to reveal information about the sign and magnitude of differences in admission thresholds across demographic groups which are robust to omitted characteristics, thus enabling one to test whether different demographic groups face different academic standards for admission. An application to admissions-data at a highly selective British university shows that males and private school applicants face significantly higher admission-thresholds, although application success-rates are equal across gender and school-type. Our methods are potentially useful for testing outcomebased fairness of other binary treatment decisions, where eventual outcomes are observed for those who were treated.

知名大学经常面临公众的批评，因为它们在招生过程中削弱了学术价值，助长了社会精英主义。在这篇论文中，我们开发了一个实证检验是否进入选择性大学是任人唯贤的。如果是这样的话，那么在不同的人口群体中，边缘候选人的学术潜力(即录取门槛)将是相等的。但是，当批准决策所基于的特征比分析师所观察到的更多时，就很难确定这些阈值。我们假设，在标准可观察指标上更有资格的申请者，平均而言(但不一定是肯定的)应该在导师面前显得更有学术实力，这是基于他们可以观察到的特征，而不是我们。这一假设可用于揭示不同人口统计学群体的入学门槛差异的标志和大小信息，这些信息对省略特征具有鲁棒性，从而可以检验不同人口统计学群体是否面临不同的入学学术标准。一所选拔性很强的英国大学的入学申请数据显示，男性和私立学校的申请者面临着显著更高的录取门槛，尽管申请成功率在性别和学校类型上是均等的。我们的方法对测试其他二元治疗决定的基于结果的公平性有潜在的用处，在这些决定中，观察那些被治疗的人的最终结果。