Higher Education

April 6, 2021May 1, 2013 by admin

The members of Matching in Practice are involved in a large-scale mapping of matching practices in education and related markets in Europe. If you have comments on some of the descriptions included herein or want to contribute comments or expertise, please contact us.

Countries or regions with available information are coloured blue, please click on each country or region for related profile. A list of profiles on higher education can be found here.

BELGIUM
Who is in charge?	Individual institutions, within regulatory guidelines.
Restrictions on preference
Matching procedure	Open access, except in select tracks.
Priorities & Quotas	None, except in select tracks.
Tie-breaking	None, except in select tracks.

Germany
Who is in charge?	(a) and (b) Clearinghouse. (c) Universities.
Restrictions on preference	(a) Applicants apply directly to the clearinghouse. Applicants can apply for a place in only one of the subjects offered in the centralized match. Applicants are allowed to submit one rank order list containing at most six universities for each part of the procedure. The two rank-order lists from an applicant can be completely different. (b) Applicants can apply to and rank-order up to 12 programs. (c) No restrictions concerning number of subjects and universities
Matching procedure	(a) Boston mechanism for the priority-based part. The remaining seats are allocated among remaining applicants using the university-proposing deferred-acceptance mechanism. (b) University-proposing deferred-acceptance algorithm where first step of algorithm takes place in real time. (c) Applications and admissions at the level of the universities
Priorities & Quotas	(a) Quota for students with excellent grades from high school (20% of seats) and quota for students with longest waiting times (20% of seats). The remaining 60% are allocated according to applicants’ and universities’ preferences. (b) and (c) Universities set their own rules (Zulassungsordnung) within the legal framework of the states.
Tie-breaking	(a) Several tie-breaking rules such as handicaps, parents living close by etc., lottery. (b) + (c) Left to decide by each individual university and state laws.

Italy
Who is in charge?	Ministry of Education, together with the universities. Decentralized for private universities.
Restrictions on preference	None, except for the constraint imposed by the impossibility to take the entry exams of different universities that organize their exams on the same day.
Matching procedure	Students are free to choose among all the degree programs into which they got admitted. If there is no cap on the number of students, public universities have to admit all students who apply.
Priorities & Quotas	Based on exam results for degree programs with an entrance exam.
Tie-breaking	The tie-breaking rule for degree programs with a legal cap on the number of students is set by the Ministry of Education (typically: results obtained in subsections of the test, final grade in high school and date of birth). Set by universities for other degree programs.

Ukraine
Who is in charge?	Ministry of Education and Science and universities
Restrictions on preference	Max. 5 programs without an ordering of these programs.
Matching procedure	Semi-centralized procedure, equivalent to first three steps of the college-proposing deferred acceptance procedure.
Priorities & Quotas	Priorities are based on the External Independent Test results, and school marks. In some cases, universities are allowed to organize additional exams. Some students (with health problems, from Chernobyl area, orphans, etc.) are admitted before all other applicants.
Tie-breaking	There are almost no ties (because the range for the EIT results is large); there are several rules for tie-breaking.

Hungary
Who is in charge?	A non-profit governmental organisation.
Restrictions on preference	There is no restriction, but the applicants are charged for every item in their lists after the third one.
Matching procedure	A score-limit algorithm based on the student-proposing Gale-Shapley algorithm.
Priorities & Quotas	The scores of the students are coming from their grades and central entrance exams, with some additional scores for competitions, language certificates, or social and medical conditions.
Tie-breaking	There is no tie-breaking, students with equal scores are either rejected or accepted together (‘equal treatment policy’).

UK
Who is in charge?	Universities and UCAS.
Restrictions on preference	Applicants can apply to a maximum of 5 degree tracks (with some exceptions). They are not asked to rank their choices.
Matching procedure	The actual matching is largely decentralized but manages congestion by imposing constraints on applicants’ behavior.
Priorities & Quotas	Medical schools have quotas for domestic and international students. For the rest, universities have complete freedom to evaluate applicants (interviews are common).
Tie-breaking	Left to decide by each individual university/college.

Ireland
Who is in charge?	Universities/institutes and the central applications office (CAO).
Restrictions on preference	Applicants can apply to a maximum of 10 courses in order of preference, for different degree levels (level 8 and level 7/6).
Matching procedure	4 rounds for matching (different categories of students qualify for different rounds). The algorithm used in each round is the college-proposing Deferred Acceptance algorithm.
Priorities & Quotas	Priorities are given to students with higher scores on the Leaving School Examination (LCE). Some universities have quotas for students with disabilities, students from socio-economically disadvantaged background, mature students, and FETAC applicants.
Tie-breaking	A randomly-generated number is assigned to every student.

France
Who is in charge?	The clearinghouse APB (voluntary participation) and the programs
Restrictions on preference	Students can rank at most 12 programs per type of institution (technological faculties of state universities, other faculties of state universities, preparatory schools, technical high schools) and at most 36 in total.
Matching procedure	An undisclosed matching algorithm is applied three times with manual rounds in between where students can temporarily or definitively accept offers.
Priorities & Quotas	Selective programs use either state-determined criteria or criteria chosen by the institution itself. Non-selective programs use geographical priorities.
Tie-breaking	Selective programs can choose a tie-breaking rule. Non-selective programs must use the rank of the program in the student preference list and random draws.

Secondary Schools

November 6, 2018May 1, 2013 by admin

Countries or regions with available information are coloured blue, please click on each country or region for related profile. A list of profiles on secondary schools can be found here.

BELGIUM (FR)
Who is in charge?	The CIRI (Commission Interréseaux des inscriptions, Inter-network Registration Commission), which depends on the CFB.
Restrictions on preference	Parents can list up to 10 schools in decreasing order of preference. Children are eligible for admission at all schools as long as their parents agree with the educational project of the school.
Matching procedure	Multi-stage procedure with some decentralized and centralized aspects. The first stage procedure corresponds to the Boston (first-preference-first) mechanism. The second stage is a variant of the student-proposing Deferred Acceptance algorithm but with a tie-breaking rule that depends on the position of the school in students’ wish list.
Priorities & Quotas	Students can benefit from priorities (sibling, special need, …) only at the school of their first choice. There is a quota of 20.4% for students coming from a socially disadvantaged primary school.
Tie-breaking	Ties are broken based on a student-specific composite index that depends on geographical and pedagogical characteristics, as well as (in the second stage) on the position of the school in the student’s wish-list.

Finland
Who is in charge?	The Finnish National Board of Education oversees the allocation process.
Restrictions on preference	At most 5 programs.
Matching Procedure	Sequential version of the school-proposing Gale-Shapley.
Priorities & Quotas	Upper secondary schools compute a composite score based on prior academic record and performance on an entry exam. Weights are decided by individual schools. Vocational schools can in addition give bonus points, and thus award a higher composite score, for ranking them first or second and to achieve gender balance.
Tie-breaking	Preferences, academic performance and other criteria are used as tie-breakers (different tie-breakers for upper secondary and vocational schools).
Other features	A student can receive both vocational and upper secondary school certificates. Gender balancing system can award higher composite score to the minority sex in vocational schools.

Spain
Who is in charge?	The municipalities.
Restrictions on preference	Parents can only list a limited number of school (usually in the range from 6 to 10).
Matching Procedure	Boston Mechanism.
Priorities & Quotas	Priority number based on neighborhood, sibling status and/or socioeconomics.
Tie-breaking	Fair unique lottery.

Italy
Who is in charge?	Each school governing body, but local authorities can serve as coordinator at a local level.
Restrictions on preference	One application per student to be sent to the school of first choice. Students can indicate up to 2 other schools in their application forms.
Matching procedure	Decentralized admissions. In case the first chosen school does not have a seat for the student, the principal forwards the demand to one of the other schools.
Priorities & Quotas	Decentralized admissions. In case the first chosen school does not have a seat for the student, the principal forwards the demand to one of the other schools.
Tie-breaking	Set by school governing body.

France
Who is in charge?	Districts (France is divided into 30 districts).
Restrictions on preference	Varies across districts. Students can only apply to schools within their districts.
Matching Procedure	The assignment uses a variant of the school-proposing deferred acceptance algorithm (with restrictions on the number of schools that can be ranked). There is a second round for students who were unassigned in the first round.
Priorities & Quotas	There are no quotas for minorities. Priorities vary across districts. They are based on a score that depends on a combination of geographic, academic, social and strategic factors.
Tie-breaking	Given the way priorities are defined, tie-breaking is usually not needed. In some districts, the date of birth is used as a tie-breaking rule.
Other features	In many districts, applications benefit from extra points at schools that are ranked first.

Hungary
Who is in charge?	A governmental information centre (KIR), assisted by another NPO (Educatio Kht.), and overlooked by the Educational Office of the Ministry.
Restrictions on preference	No restriction, students may (and are encouraged to) supply preference lists of any length.
Matching Procedure	Centralised process that follows the student-proposing Gale-Shapley mechanism.
Priorities & Quotas	Left to decide by each individual school under certain restrictions. When creating its ranking list, a school may consider only the grades of the students from primary school or can require participation in the centralised written tests and can also conduct interviews. The weighting of the above three scores must comply with the regulation (e.g. the weight of the interview score cannot be more than 25%).
Tie-breaking	Schools must provide strict rankings.

UK (Scotland)
Who is in charge?	Admission to schools is devolved to local authorities.
Restrictions on preference	One school in the catchment area (with no opportunity to supply a preference) or a “placing request” for a school outside the catchment area. Multiple placing requests can be made but a parent must indicate their first choice among these (and this is the only preference that can be expressed).
Matching Procedure	If the parent is satisfied with the catchment area school, then the child will normally be placed there. Placing requests are not guaranteed to be met, though family circumstances such as siblings already at the school are considered. when local authorities make decisions.
Priorities & Quotas	Individual local authorities may set their own priorities when it comes to granting placing requests. These are not published at national level.
Tie-breaking	N/A.

Ireland
Who is in charge?	Individual schools.
Restrictions on preference	None.
Matching procedure	Mostly decentralized admissions. Some centralized enrollment in a few regions.
Priorities & Quotas	Left to decide by the schools.
Tie-breaking	Large heterogeneity, i.e. various rules applied.

Germany
Who is in charge?	Shared responsibility of schools and districts.
Restrictions on preference	In districts allowing choice, parents can express their preferences for up to three schools, but some districts restrict preferences to one or two schools (at a time).
Matching procedure	Varies across States and districts but variants of the first-preference-first mechanism are common; admission decisions are typically taken by schools (decentralized). Manual coordination is used in some districts to improve the final allocation.
Priorities & Quotas	States provide guidelines for acceptable criteria for priorities and quotas. Districts can add further constraints. It is common for schools to have their own admission criteria (within guidelines).
Tie-breaking	Schools (or districts when some district level coordination is used) can use lotteries or manual decisions.

Sweden
Who is in charge?	Local authorities (municipalities) administer the application process while admissions are made by individual schools.
Restrictions on preference	Depends on the local administration of enrolment but in general one can list several options in decreasing order.
Matching procedure	Mostly non-algorithmic as long as legal and local guidelines are respected.
Priorities & Quotas	A limited number of seats set aside for students with special needs or social circumstances, and for Swedish students from abroad.
Tie-breaking	Decided by the school operator. Oversubscribed schools typically use grades to break ties.

Elementary Schools

August 20, 2019May 1, 2013 by admin

Countries or regions with available information are coloured blue, please click on each country or region for related profile. A list of profiles on elementary schools can be found here.

BELGIUM (FR)
Who is in charge?	Individual schools.
Restrictions on preference	None
Matching procedure	Decentralized applications and admissions at the level of the schools.
Priorities & Quotas	Left to decide by each individual school.
Tie-breaking	Left to decide by each individual school.

Estonia
Who is in charge?	Local authority in the case of intra-district schools; schools in the case of inter-district schools.
Restrictions on preference	Students apply to inter-district schools by taking their entrance examination. For intra-district schools students list up to three schools, but without preference ordering.
Matching procedure	Rural schools: Decentralized admission first-come-first-served basis. Inter-district: Decentralized school-proposing Deferred Acceptance. Intra-district: Sequential allocation based on the student’s set of acceptable schools with remaining capacity and where s/he has highest priority (by siblings or distance or both).
Priorities & Quotas	For inter-district schools there are no priorities or quotas. For intra-district schools the priorities are based on sibling status and distance from home.
Tie-breaking	Random lottery.

Spain
Who is in charge?	The municipalities.
Restrictions on preference	Parents can only list a limited number of school (usually in the range from 6 to 10).
Matching procedure	Boston Mechanism.
Priorities & Quotas	Priority number based on neighborhood, sibling status and/or socioeconomics.
Tie-breaking	Fair unique lottery.

Italy
Who is in charge?	Each school governing body, but local authorities can serve as coordinator at a local level.
Restrictions on preference	One application (to one school) per student to be sent within a deadline specified by the central government.
Matching procedure	Decentralized, but schools are asked to coordinate to match offer and demand.
Priorities & Quotas	Decentralized, but schools are asked to coordinate to match offer and demand.
Tie-breaking	Set by school governing body.

Sweden
Who is in charge?	Local authorities (municipalities).
Restrictions on preference	No legal restrictions, but most municipalities allow children to rank at most three schools.
Matching procedure	Non-algorithmic as long as legal and local guidelines are respected.
Priorities & Quotas	Priorities based on submitted preferences and (relative) distance. Local variations based on, e.g., sibling priority exist.
Tie-breaking	Local variations.

Hungary
Who is in charge?	A non-profit governmental organisation.
Restrictions on preference	There is no restriction, but the applicants are charged for every item in their lists after the third one.
Matching procedure	A score-limit algorithm based on the student-proposing Gale-Shapley algorithm.
Priorities & Quotas	The scores of the students are coming from their grades and central entrance exams, with some additional scores for competitions, language certificates, or social and medical conditions.
Tie-breaking	There is no tie-breaking, students with equal scores are either rejected or accepted together (‘equal treatment policy’).

UK (Scotland)
Who is in charge?	Admission to schools is devolved to local authorities.
Restrictions on preference	One school in the catchment area (with no opportunity to supply a preference) or a “placing request” for a school outside the catchment area. Multiple placing requests can be made but a parent must indicate their first choice among these (and this is the only preference that can be expressed).
Matching procedure	If the parent is satisfied with the catchment area school, then the child will normally be placed there. Placing requests are not guaranteed to be met, though family circumstances such as siblings already at the school are considered. when local authorities make decisions.
Priorities & Quotas	Individual local authorities may set their own priorities when it comes to granting placing requests. These are not published at national level.
Tie-breaking	N/A.

Ireland
Who is in charge?	Individual schools, within guidelines of department of education.
Restrictions on preference	None.
Matching procedure	Decentralized applications and admissions at the level of schools.
Priorities & Quotas	Left to decide by the schools.
Tie-breaking	Large heterogeneity in practice, priority-ranking, cut-off birth date, or lottery etc.

Germany
What is allocated?	Childcare places
Who is in charge?	Federal, state and local governments
Restrictions on preference	Varies across municipalities (from three up to unrestricted)
Matching procedure	Varies across municipalities; decentralised variants of the first-preference-first mechanism are common
Priorities & Quotas	Federal government sets legal framework; states provide guidelines for acceptable priority criteria and quotas. Municipalities can implement further rules
Tie-breaking	Facilities can use one of the criteria or manual decisions as tie-breaker
Other features	Large local variation in procedures and criteria

Executive Committee

April 7, 2021May 1, 2013 by admin

The current executive committee is made of Péter Biró (Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Caterina Calsamiglia (Barcelona IPEG) and Rustamdjan Hakimov (University of Lausanne&WZB Berlin).

Governance

January 17, 2014May 1, 2013 by admin

“Matching in Practice” is an informal research network of researchers interested in matching and assignment practices in education and related labour markets. In particular, the network does not, at this stage, have a legal identity, nor does it benefit from a grant (though members can and do use some of their research money to contribute to the activities of the network).

The network is coordinated by an Executive Committee made of three members, ideally based in three different European countries. The Executive Committee is responsible for identifying conference venues, managing the website and, more generally, for bringing life to the network and ensuring it meets its goals and the needs of the members. Researchers interested in joining the network are encouraged to write to the Executive Committee. Membership is fairly open at this stage, but it does involve a commitment to actively participate and contribute to the activities of the network.

A Conference Committee is in charge of soliciting contributions and arranging the scientific program of the biannual workshops that the network organizes. Workshops are hosted by members of the networks, on a rotating basis. The host is responsible for the logistics of the workshop organization and its funding.

Aim and Scope

January 17, 2014May 1, 2013 by admin

“Matching in Practice” was created in September 2010 to bring together the growing community of researchers in Europe working on the various aspects of assignment and matching in education and related labour markets, with a view to actively foster the interactions between the different strands of approaches used by these researchers (theory, experiments, analysis of field data, policy / market design) and aggregate expertise about the actual functioning of these markets in Europe.

To this end, the network includes researchers from computer science, economics (economics of education, market design, microeconomic theory, social choice, …) and sociology. Its main activities include the organization of two informal workshops per year, where members can receive feedback on work-in-progress and discuss other relevant developments in methods, data or in the policy arena, and the coordination of a data-collection effort to describe matching practices in Europe. In order to achieve the goals of community building and cross-field fertilization, frequent participation to the activities of the network is encouraged from members.

Higher Education in Belgium

March 19, 2018October 3, 2012 by admin

This country profile is part of a collective effort by the network members to map matching practices across Europe. If you find it useful and want to refer to it in your own work, please refer to it as “Cantillon, Estelle and Declercq, Koen (2012), University admission practices – Belgium, MiP Country Profile 9.”

Download full profile pdf

Relevant country background

Education policies in Belgium are organized at the (language) community level. There are three language communities in Belgium: Dutch (Flemish Community), French and German. The Flemish Community and the French-speaking Community share responsibility for the delivery of education in the bilingual Brussels Capital Region. There is no German-language institution of higher education.

Higher Education in Ireland

March 5, 2018September 3, 2012 by admin

This country profile is part of a collective effort by the network members to map matching practices across Europe. If you find it useful and want to refer to it in your own work, please refer to it as “Chen, Li (2012), University admission practices – Ireland, MiP Country Profile 8.”

Download full profile pdf

Relevant country background

Education in Irelandis divided into primary education (6-12 years old), secondary education (12- 17/18 years old), further and higher education (>17/18 years old). The National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) measures the knowledge and skills expected to be achieved at each level, making it easier to compare students’ qualification from different study tracks. The Department of Education and Skills (http://www.education.ie/) administers education policies at all levels, including aspects such as curriculum and syllabus, quality assurance and evaluation, as well as funding. The Higher Education Authority (HEA) acts as the advisory body to the Department of Education and Skills for policy planning and development related to higher education. In addition, it provides funding for the universities, institutes of technology, and a number of other institutions[1] (The university Act, 1997 [1], and The Institutes of Technology Act, 2006 [2]). The funding covers courses costs, research and capital/infrastructure investment. Most higher education providers are publicly funded, with the exception of a few private providers.[2]

Elementary Schools in Ireland

January 9, 2017September 3, 2012 by admin

This country profile is part of a collective effort by the network members to map matching practices across Europe. If you find it useful and want to refer to it in your own work, please refer to it as “Chen, Li (2012), Matching Practices for Elementary Schools – Ireland, MiP Country Profile 10.”

Download full profile pdf

Relevant country background

The Department of Education and Skills administrates education policies at all levels, including the organization of schools, hours to be taught, curriculum etc. There are three types of primary schools: state-funded primary schools, special schools, and private primary schools, with most being state-funded. Schools’ curriculum must cover languages, mathematics, social environmental and scientific studies, arts, sports, social, personal and health education, and religion (see Primary School Curriculum, 1999). There is however variation along linguistic and religious lines. Students and parents can choose religious schools (with most being Roman Catholic), non-denominational schools, multi-denominational schools and Gaelscoileanna, which are schools offering curriculum in Irish. Although schools in Ireland have historically largely been influenced by the Catholic Church, recent changes have been made to accommodate diversity.

Higher Education in UK

March 7, 2018June 3, 2012 by admin

This country profile is part of a collective effort by the network members to map matching practices across Europe. If you find it useful and want to refer to it in your own work, please refer to it as “Chen, Li (2012), University admission practices – UK, MiP Country Profile 7.”

Download full profile pdf

Relevant country background

Education in the UK has recently undergone a great deal of structural reforms. Currently, it is jointly regulated by the Department for Education (DfE) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). DfE was set up in May 2010 (taking over most of the responsibilities of the former Department for Children, Schools and Families) to organize education for children up to 19 years old. BIS regulates higher education.