Quote:
Originally Posted by dukedg
I think it is hard to make a simple model of the bid matching process with all the unknown pieces. My problem with the "artificially" low quotas is the quota additions. At all the schools I've been involved with (granted, only three) the QAs are based on PNM preference, not helping the smaller chapters.
I tried to make a model with A and B, but I think the quota additions don't model correctly with only two chapters. Instead, if you think of a cluster of stronger-recruiting chapters and a cluster of weaker-recruiting chapters, then the problem becomes more clear. There will be women who get to pref that only preffed at two or three of the stronger-recruiting chapters. EVEN IF the campus uses the idea that QAs go to the smaller chapter, that would be the smaller of the strong cluster.
Then what happens is some of the stronger-recruiting chapters end up with quota +15, which still leaves the smaller chapters behind, even if they technically made quota.
If, as Titchou said, quota is now about matching as many women as possible to as many chapters as possible, then I can accept that we are saying it is no longer a tool to try to keep chapters at relatively the same sizes. Then, however, we should no longer judge our chapters on whether or not they made quota.
|
Right, there was a long thread on QA's a while back, and I got attacked for the opinion that we should just let women go bidless if they pref two (three, on some campuses) strong recruiting chapters and aren't high enough on anybody's list. As long as someone missed quota, there would be opportunities for COB.