It is well known that after struggling through first year at UofT, students are then granted admission to their preferred Program of Study (POSt) only if they pass certain criterion.
At UTSG, the top X% of students are admitted to the CS POSt. This means the students are directly competing with each other for the limited spots in the program. At UTSC, students with a cumulative GPA greater than 3.0 (~ 75%) will be admitted to the POSt. Comparatively, this means that students at UTSC gets admitted into the CS POSt independently of each other.
Let us first consider a fictitious simple model that can represent the UTSG CS POSt admission game. Suppose that there’s only one space available for the CS program and Alice, Bob, and Charlie are the last contenders to be considered. If each of the three of them decide to study, then they each have a 33.3% chance of making it to the program. However, they could also choose to sabotage another student. Suppose that Alice and Bob are enemies, if Alice decides to sabotage Bob, then Bob’s admission likelihood would decrease to 10%, and Alice’s likelihood raises to 40% (this implies Charlie’s likelihood gets raised to 50% and it makes sense since Alice didn’t spend time to study for her exams!). If Alice and Bob both decide to sabotage each other, then they will split the 50% that’s left over (Charlie again has 50% chance) which gives them 25% each.
UTSG POSt Game
| Study | Sabotage | |
| Study | 33.3%, 33.3% | 10%, 40% |
| Sabotage | 40%, 10% | 25%, 25% |
Given the set up, it is easy to apply the game theory analysis to this game. As a student, you can either choose to study or sabotage student such that you gain some advantage over the other. Here it is clear that regardless of what the other student does, sabotaging will yield a higher score. Thus, sabotaging is actually the dominant strategy for both Alice and Bob. If we suppose that Alice and Bob are logical enemies and they follow the rules of game theory, then they would adopt to their dominant strategy. This is clearly a ridiculous outcome, as it would make more sense for students to sabotage each other than to study!
Now let us consider the following fictitious UTSC CS POSt admission game. Where the admission likelihood of any student is independent of other students.
UTSC POSt Game
| Study | Sabotage | |
| Study | 80%, 80% | 50%, 60% |
| Sabotage | 60%, 50% | 30%, 30% |
The difference at UTSC is that sabotaging other does not increase your chance of being admitted to the POSt. On the contrary, since you’re not studying, then you actually lower your chance. Again, applying game theory analysis to this game, the dominant strategy for both Alice and Bob would be to study. This should be the expected behavior of students at a University.
To summarize, I argue that the UTSC CS POSt method is one that is better than UTSG’s in terms of what is the expected outcome from their respective students. On one hand, the UTSG POSt creates a “zero-sum thinking” environment where students think that in order to achieve success, others must suffer. While at UTSC, students will more likely to work, study, and help each other to improve their own chances of getting accepted, and during that process also elevate their peers.
Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022022115572226
https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/10034
Great read. I loved the comparison between UTSG and UTSC POSt. I also agree with your conclusions that at UTSC we’re more friendly and like to support each other ?.
Thank you! Yes indeed, we’re all in this together #wildcats
> “At UTSC, students with a cumulative GPA greater than 3.0 (~ 75%) will be admitted to the POSt.”
Ah yes. 3.0, now it’s up to 3.2, Remember back when CS POSt was 2.5?
Haha this post is great! Friends of my friends are my friends 🙂
This is a pretty funny post, enjoyed reading it.
Creative application of game theory into something we can all relate to! I totally agree that getting into POSt should not be a “competitive” game, for the reasons that you outlined. “Sabotaging” other students creates a very competitive and depressive environment, and it is shown to be a case in competitive places such as University of Waterloo and Asian universities, with suicidal rates increasing every year. With POSt admissions requirements like UTSC, it decreases the chances of the formation of a hostile environment, and definitely increases the wellness of all students.
Yeah, that’s exactly the idea! A healthy and friendly education environment will increase the wellness and success of us! 🙂
Excellent post! You found a great application of game theory that was hiding right under our noses the whole time.
Thanks for reading everyone!