> "start times is something the district had wanted to do for a long time" So, was the real motivation here one of efficiency and cost-savings then?
and the response was:
"No, as far as I know having later school start times for high schoolers was the main objective, and that was the strongest one in the solution that was chosen by Boston when they used our algorithm."
"It clearly stated that cost-savings was one of the outcomes to be balanced, but not the motivation."
However, I'm still not entirely convinced this was purely done "for the students".
even in this article it claims it "started as a cost-calculation algorithm".
So please, no, you don't get to change the motivation from cost-calculation/savings to "later times for students" by trying to re-purpose such an algorithm, even if it does benefit students in such a way (albiet with other negatives that the community felt outweighed the benefit to students).
Although, what i didn't understand was that the opposition was "15 percent the public school population" and only from wealthy families, which changes the perspective somewhat.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18059535
> "start times is something the district had wanted to do for a long time" So, was the real motivation here one of efficiency and cost-savings then?
and the response was:
"No, as far as I know having later school start times for high schoolers was the main objective, and that was the strongest one in the solution that was chosen by Boston when they used our algorithm."
"It clearly stated that cost-savings was one of the outcomes to be balanced, but not the motivation."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18059535
However, I'm still not entirely convinced this was purely done "for the students".
even in this article it claims it "started as a cost-calculation algorithm".
So please, no, you don't get to change the motivation from cost-calculation/savings to "later times for students" by trying to re-purpose such an algorithm, even if it does benefit students in such a way (albiet with other negatives that the community felt outweighed the benefit to students).
Although, what i didn't understand was that the opposition was "15 percent the public school population" and only from wealthy families, which changes the perspective somewhat.