Wouter Dessein Publications

Many US colleges now use test-optional admissions. A frequent claim is that by not seeing standardized test scores, a college can admit a student body it prefers, say, with more diversity. But how can observing less information improve decisions? This paper proposes that test-optional policies are a response to social pressure on admission decisions. We model a college that bears disutility when it makes admission decisions that "society" dislikes. Going test optional allows the college to reduce its "disagreement cost." We analyze how missing scores are imputed and the consequences for the college, students, and society.

US colleges often justify test-optional admissions policies as promoting diversity by reducing their reliance on standardized test scores. But a college that mandates test scores can decide how to use those scores. Wouldn't more information allow a college to make decisions it prefers? Indeed, this paper identifies a broad set of assumptions under which test-mandatory policies are always weakly better for colleges. We then discuss how alternative assumptions might rationalize test-optional policies.

An agent advises a principal on selecting one of multiple projects or an outside option. The agent is privately informed about the projects' benefits and shares the principal's preferences except for not internalizing her value from the outside option. We show that for moderate outside option values, strategic communication is characterized by pandering: the agent biases his recommendation toward “conditionally better-looking” projects, even when both parties would be better off with some other project. A project that has lower expected value can be conditionally better-looking. We develop comparative statics and implications of pandering. Pandering is also induced by an optimal mechanism without transfers