https://ojs.sgsci.org/journals/jissh <p><em><strong>Journal of Integrated Social Sciences and Humanities</strong></em> (JISSH) is a multidisciplinary platform dedicated to the exploration and dissemination of innovative research at the intersection of social sciences and humanities. With a focus on interdisciplinary collaboration, JISSH aims to foster a vibrant scholarly community that engages with complex societal issues through an integrated lens, encompassing diverse perspectives from the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, literature, philosophy, and related disciplines.</p> <p>The journal provides a comprehensive platform for scholars, researchers, and practitioners to publish and access high-quality, original research that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. JISSH welcomes contributions that address critical social and cultural phenomena, historical developments, philosophical inquiries, and contemporary human experiences, offering a forum for rigorous academic inquiry and intellectual exchange. <strong>ISSN(Online): 3041-069X</strong></p> Global Science Publishing en-US Journal of Integrated Social Sciences and Humanities 3041-069X https://ojs.sgsci.org/journals/jissh/article/view/670 <p>As we all know, the university entrance examination system will distribute the limited educational resources. Many countries around the world have set up various institutions to connect students with universities, each aiming to achieve fairness, efficiency and merit-based selection in different ways. In recent years, economists have paid more attention to the design of markets and matching theory in their studies of admission systems. Deferred Acceptance algorithm and other mechanisms have been employed to improve the stability and reduce the strategic behaviour of allocation. This paper studies university admission systems in the United States, the United Kingdom and China. This paper studies how these systems allocate university seats and assesses their efficiency in terms of market-equilibrium theory. Based on the previous studies and policies, this paper examines the effect of these admission rules on behaviour and allocation outcomes. Different modes of admission have been shown to have various trade-offs among fairness, efficiency and strategic depth. Centralised Matching Systems reduce manipulation and improve stability, but decentralised Systems offer more flexibility at the cost of efficiency.</p> Zixin Xu Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Integrated Social Sciences and Humanities 2026-07-13 2026-07-13 0015 0015 10.62836/jissh.v3i3.0015 https://ojs.sgsci.org/journals/jissh/article/view/669 <p>In recent years, China’s fertility rate has continued to decline and the degree of aging has deepened. How to encourage childbirth through policy means has become a focus of social concern. The special additional deduction policy for children’s education introduced in the individual income tax reform in 2019 is regarded as an important tax tool for encouraging childbirth. This paper, based on the relevant data of population statistics and tax implementation in recent years, and in combination with the theory of income and substitution effect, public goods and human capital, and the principle of tax fairness, analyzes the internal mechanism and practical problems by which this policy affects the willingness of families to have children. The study finds that although the policy can positively encourage childbirth by increasing disposable income, it is constrained by problems such as low deduction standards, narrow coverage, a failure to reflect the rising cost of raising multiple children, and the exclusion of low-income groups, resulting in insufficient overall incentive intensity and uneven policy effects. Based on this, this paper proposes optimization suggestions such as refining standards by region and stage, expanding coverage throughout the entire cycle, strengthening multi-child incentives, and benefiting low-income families, in the hope of enhancing the fertility support effectiveness of individual income tax policies.</p> Xilin Jin Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Integrated Social Sciences and Humanities 2026-07-13 2026-07-13 0014 0014 10.62836/jissh.v3i3.0014