Date
Publisher
arXiv
Public institutions increasingly procure AI systems whose design they cannot inspect or change. In higher education, proprietary Early Warning Systems (EWS) leave colleges with few options beyond adjusting model outputs to address inequity. This raises the question of how fairness work is coordinated among vendors, institutions, advisors, and students with unequal power to change these systems? Using student records from a public college in Ontario, Canada, we evaluate six post-hoc fairness interventions on a research EWS under simulated procurement constraints. We compare fairness, accuracy, and demographic disparities, introducing error-type profiling to trace how interventions redistribute false positives and false negatives. Interventions redistributed disparities without consistently reducing them. Two implementations favored already-advantaged groups because they used group size to define disadvantage; small, marginalized groups remained poorly served. These findings show how procurement constraints and implementation choices shape the possibilities for fairness work. We call the resulting condition fairness theatre; dashboard metrics converge while groups' error burdens persist or worsen.
Study at a glance
- Question: Can post-hoc fairness adjustments effectively reduce inequities in vendor-controlled early warning systems?
- Setting and data: Public college in Ontario, Canada, 2008–2023, 168,550 first-semester intake student records.
- Method: Evaluates six post-hoc algorithmic fairness interventions on calibrated outputs of an XGBoost classifier replicating an early warning system (Model or benchmark evaluation).
Why it matters
Proprietary early warning systems in higher education leave institutions unable to inspect or adjust models, raising concerns that predictions may distribute scarce advising resources unfairly across student populations.
Key findings
- Post-hoc fairness interventions redistributed disparities without consistently reducing them, leaving error burdens for marginalized groups intact or worse while dashboard metrics appeared to improve.
- Two methods directed corrections toward already-advantaged groups because they used smaller group size to define disadvantage, widening the residency gap in positive prediction rates.
- Aggressively pursuing statistical parity through conformal prediction forced half of all students to be flagged, overwhelming advising capacity and cutting true positive rates by 0.30 to 0.37.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
