Why Does Voluntary Participation Distort Educational Outcomes? An Institutional Analysis of School Based Decision-Making Programs in India

Abstract

Educational programs that aim to improve decision making and financial understanding are often designed around voluntary participation. The underlying assumption is that students who are interested, motivated, or capable will naturally choose to take part, allowing programs to identify talent and generate meaningful engagement. However, large scale evaluations of educational and financial literacy initiatives frequently report modest or uneven impact even when curriculum quality and institutional intent are strong. This raises a prior and less examined question: whether participation rules themselves influence who enters these programs and whose ability becomes visible. This paper examines how voluntary and mandatory participation structures shape selection, competition, and observed outcomes in school based decision making programs. The analysis draws on direct involvement in two contrasting initiatives conducted in an Indian secondary school between 2023 and 2025. The first was an eligibility based mandatory financial literacy program implemented through quizzes and structured group discussions. The second was a voluntary skill based competition that relied entirely on opt in participation. Rather than evaluating curriculum content or long term learning outcomes, the paper focuses on participation funnels, competition density, and patterns of performance that emerged under different institutional designs. Across both cases, participation appeared to impose non academic costs that varied significantly across students. These included fear of public underperformance, social exposure, and reputational risk. In the voluntary setting, students with low perceived cost of participation were more likely to opt in, while several capable students chose not to participate despite demonstrating skill in informal settings. As a result, competition was uneven and observed performance reflected the characteristics of those willing to enter rather than the underlying distribution of ability. In contrast, mandatory participation removed the initial decision to opt in and shifted attention toward performance once the activity began. Although not all participants were equally engaged, competition was deeper, outcomes were less predictable, and several strong performers emerged from students who had not previously been identified as high achievers. The comparison suggests that voluntary participation can unintentionally select for visibility rather than ability, while mandatory participation within a defined group can reduce self selection bias and allow latent capability to surface. This does not imply that compulsory participation is universally preferable or that motivation is irrelevant. Instead, it highlights how assumptions about rational self selection can fail in real educational contexts where social dynamics and perceived costs shape behavior. By situating these observations alongside existing concerns in the literature about participation bias and program evaluation, the paper argues that participation design is an underexamined factor in understanding why well intentioned educational programs often struggle to identify or develop talent. The analysis is limited by its qualitative scope and reliance on approximate figures, but it offers a grounded framework for thinking about how institutional rules influence observed outcomes even before instruction begins.

Introduction

This study explores how participation structures—voluntary vs. mandatory—affect student engagement, competition, and the discovery of ability in school-based programs. Observations from Indian schools revealed that program outcomes are not solely determined by curriculum quality or student motivation; rather, who participates matters greatly.

• Mandatory participation (Deepshikha Financial Literacy Initiative) exposed a broad pool of students, including those initially hesitant or less confident. Many of these students performed strongly once participation was unavoidable, leading to high competition density and more accurate assessment of ability.

• Voluntary participation (Cubing competition) attracted only students willing to opt in, often those with little to lose socially or reputationally. As a result, many capable students abstained, producing low participation, uneven competition, and underrepresentation of talent.

The key insight is that voluntary programs introduce self-selection, filtering out students who might perform well but perceive social or reputational costs. Mandatory participation does not guarantee effort but ensures that hidden ability surfaces and observed outcomes better reflect actual skill.

Implications: Program evaluations that ignore participation rules may misattribute weak outcomes to curriculum or motivation, when in fact the design of participation itself shapes who is assessed and what is observed. This insight is relevant beyond schools, applying to any system relying on voluntary engagement.

Limitations: The study is observational, context-specific, and based on approximate data; it identifies mechanisms rather than offering generalizable conclusions.

Conclusion

This paper argues that participation rules do more than shape engagement levels; they determine who is allowed to be visible. Across the two cases examined, mandatory participation acted as a leveling mechanism, compelling a wide range of students to enter a competitive space regardless of confidence, social standing, or perceived ability. In contrast, voluntary participation filtered entrants not by skill alone, but by their tolerance for reputational risk. The most consequential outcome of this difference was not the number of participants, but the composition of the participant pool. In the mandatory setting, several high-performing students who were otherwise quiet, anxious, or socially reserved emerged as top performers—students who would likely have remained invisible under a voluntary model. Conversely, the voluntary competition primarily surfaced students who were already confident, publicly expressive, or socially insulated from the cost of failure. This suggests a structural asymmetry in how merit is discovered. When participation depends on willingness, institutions risk conflating confidence with competence. High-achieving students with more to lose, those whose academic identities are already publicly defined may rationally opt out to avoid the reputational damage of underperformance. As a result, voluntary systems tend to reward those least constrained by social risk rather than those with the highest latent ability. If educational programs continue to privilege opt-in models without accounting for these non-monetary costs, they may unintentionally construct a meritocracy that selects for visibility rather than talent. Designing fair evaluative environments, therefore, requires not only measuring performance accurately, but also lowering the social barriers that prevent capable individuals from participating at all.

References

[1] Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 5–44. [2] Lusardi, A., Michaud, P. C., & Mitchell, O. S. (2017). Optimal financial literacy and saving for retirement. Journal of Political Economy, 125(2), 431–477. [3] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results volume IV: Financial literacy. OECD Publishing. [4] World Bank. (2014). Financial capability surveys around the world: Insights from the demand side. World Bank Group. [5] Manski, C. F. (1995). Identification problems in the social sciences. Harvard University Press. [6] Dunning, T. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design based approach. Cambridge University Press.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Karan Aggarwal. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.