Case study - Student selection for last year of Industrial Engineer at Politecnico di Roma
-
Upload
armand-ryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
33 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Case study - Student selection for last year of Industrial Engineer at Politecnico di Roma
Case study - Student selection for last year of Industrial Engineer at Politecnico
di Roma
MCDA Summer School 2010Ecole Centrale de Paris
July 9, 2010
Agenda
1. Context2. Aim3. Decision process4. Model description5. Main steps6. Conclusions
2Case study - Student selection
1. Context• The selection process is changing from
paper based to paper based + interview
Case study - Student selection 3
GradesCover letterCV
GradesCover letterCVInterview
2. Aim• Affect at most 50 good students to the
different groups while keeping these homogeneous
– Numbers– Gender– Culture– Personalities
Case study - Student selection 4
3. Decision process• Sorting and ranking step– Separate students into categories– ‘Accepted’, ‘Recommended’ and ‘Rejected’
• Assignment step– Use the obtained ranking and remaining
information (gender, PT & P preferences)
Case study - Student selection 5
4. Model description
• Alternatives– Students
• Decision makers– Two that act like one
Case study - Student selection 6
4. Model description• Criteria
– Gap year– 3rd year grades– 4th year grades– Motivation– Personality– Project– Jobs– Professional track– Path– Gender– Culture– Personalities
Case study - Student selection 7
Evaluate good candidates
Assign students to groups
In case of problems
4. Model description
Case study - Student selection 8
4. Model description• Methods
– Sorting & ranking step: FlowSort 1
• Weights
– Elicited from the results of 2009– Higher importance of 4th year compared to 3rd year– Lower importance of Motivation compared to other
marks– Global higher importance of the marks compared to
grades
Case study - Student selection 9
1. P. Nemery de Bellevaux and C. Lamboray (2008), FlowSort : a flow-based sorting method with limiting and central profiles. *TOP (*Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research), Vol. 16-1, pp. 90-113.
3rd year 4th year Motivation Personality
Project Jobs
5% 15% 10% 22% 23% 27%
4. Model description• Importance of criteria (Decision tree 1)
10
1. Quinlan, J. R. (1993) C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Case study - Student selection
4. Model description• Parameters (FlowSort)
Case study - Student selection 11
Criterion 3rd yr 4th yr Motivation
Personality
Project Jobs
Weight 5% 15% 10% 22% 23% 27%
Indifference thresh
0 0 0 0 0 0
Preference thresh 12 7 3 3 3 3
Profile 1 30 30 5 5 5 5
Profile 2 24 27 3 3 3 3
Profile 3 21 25 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Profile 4 18 18 1 1 1 1
4. Model description• Profiles based on 2009 results (FlowSort)
Case study - Student selection 12
4. Model description• Validation of the model on 2009 results
Case study - Student selection 13
5. Main steps• Sorting of the 2010 students (using
FlowSort)
Case study - Student selection 14
5. Main steps• Sorting of the 2010 students (using
FlowSort)
Case study - Student selection 15
38 st.
3 st.
9 st.
5. Main steps• Assignment procedure– Affectation of the selected students to groups– Determine the capacity of each path for
F/M
Case study - Student selection 16
14
f
f
NC
14
m
m
NC
),( mf CC
:
:
m
f
N
N Number of selected females
Number of selected males
Algorithm
(1) Start with student rank:1 (r=1)
(2) If he/she has made a choice;For the gender (M/F) of the student, check path’s
capacity• If there is capacity, assign the student to the path • Else go to the next choice
Else, put the student to the waiting list
(3) Let r = r+1. Continue with step 2.
If student is in waiting list: affectation to the path with minimum students
17Case study - Student selection
An Example - Affectation
Case study - Student selection 18
Path Female(Capacity:3)
Male(Capacity:8)
SCM 1, 7, 9 2, 5
SFM 3 6
IP 4
MID 8
If we have a student,Rank: 10 Female & Path: SCM
Wait until all assignments are finished
• Affectation to Paths for Students of 2010
Case study - Student selection 19
Path Female(Capacity:3)
Male(Capacity:8)
Total(Capacity:11
)
SCM 1, 14, 15 2, 5, 8, 10, 19, 20, 22, 25
11
SFM 3, 38 6, 13, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40
10
IP 18, 26 4, 7, 11, 12, 17, 24, 27, 35
10
MID 16, 29, 39 23, 9, 21, 28, 31, 34, 41 10
5. Main steps
• Step 1. Sorting in 3 groups (Accepted, Recommended, Rejected)
• Step 2. Ranking for the first 2 groups to present to the DM
• Step 3. Application of the assignment procedure
Case study - Student selection 20
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
• Homogeneity
Number of students in each path, gender √ Cultures, variety of personalities X
• Number of selected students
Maximum of 50 from the best categories
Case study - Student selection 21
6. Conclusions
• A student is rejected if– He/she cannot satisfy the minimum requirements– He/she is ranked below 50
• A student cannot enter his/her preferred path if
– The capacity is full with higher ranked students
Case study - Student selection 22
Thank you for your attention
Case study - Student selection 23
Appendices• PROMETHEE II Ranking (for the 2009
results)
Case study - Student selection 24
Appendices• Tree rules (for the 2009 results)
Case study - Student selection 25
Appendices• Decision tree (using results from our
model)
Case study - Student selection 26
Appendices• Tree rules (using results from our model)
Case study - Student selection 27
Appendices
Case study - Student selection 28
An example - Affectation
If we have a student,Rank: 9 Female & Path: SCM
Path Female(Capacity:3)
Male(Capacity:8)
SCM 1, 7 2, 5
SFM 3 6
IP 4
MID 8