1,403 karma · joined April 25, 2011
The problem with a gap hour (from the point of view of a teacher) is that it forces the teacher to stay in school when they don't necessarily have to. It reduces flexibility in their schedule.
Early in his career, it was done by hand, with large sheets of paper and moving cards around until all the pieces fit. Later, a couple of software companies came around, and they had this service where he would show up at an office, discuss the constraints with an operator, and choose among a handful options for the final schedule.
However, the crux of the problem was never the scheduling itself, but the accommodating of constraints which, given that teachers are in-class for 18-20h a week, but school is open for 30h/w, can get complicated pretty quickly. Some examples:
- Every teacher wanted to have one day with very light load, 1-2h max, so they could run other chores at home. Some people were very specific about this (i.e. they needed early Tuesday off), while others didn't care that much. - Nobody could just have a no-class day, due to administrative and legal reasons. - Having a gap hour without class was a big NO, because it adds to the time requirements without delivering actual teaching, so it was to be avoided at all costs. - All things equal, senior teachers outranked their junior peers in terms of choosing class levels, lab vs lecture, etc. - Some teachers had their own children attend the same school, and nobody wanted to teach their own kids (nor would the kids)
All in all, no matter how much time and effort he sunk into scheduling to everyone's liking, there was no perfect solution, and every single year there were aggravated teachers who would raise hell. He was called inhumane by someone who claimed the right to a free hour every morning to drop off her own kid, but only got her wish 4 days out of 5. He had peers stop talking to him over class level choices. The only reason he kept doing it was because the director was his close friend, and he asked my dad repeatedly. But he didn't wish that job on his worst enemy.
Edit: Thanks for supporting housing even against your financial interests. I’m on the same boat (across the bay). In my case I just want to live somewhere walkable without breaking the bank.
By contrast, Seattle has been building to keep up with demand and has been able to manage prices much more effectively. We could have had a Tokyo of the West. Instead, we're left with an emptying shell of a self-agrandizing suburb.
It comes to mind an experiment carried in France where they sent fake housing applications where the only difference between two sets of applicants was a Muslim-sounding name vs a Christian one. The results showed a much higher response rate for the latter, despite everything else being equal. I can't find the original, but found this similar one working with job applications (https://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22384).
Not to negate the main point about "showing up", but there's more to it. When I've had the chance to hire someone and there are two similar candidates, I preferred to choose the one with the lower ranked school credentials. My thinking is that if this person has reached the same level of achievements with less environmental help, they probably have more grit and get-it-done in them than the candidate from the top school. Much more than that can be done in a systemic way, but it's a start.
So I wouldn't say that the oil market is broken, as much as it has never really worked as a close-to-ideal market.
- Lockdown in northern Italy: People ran to the south taking the virus with them. - Schools closing, folks asked to work from home in Madrid: Families drive to the coast where bars and restaurants are full.
I agree that in a place where compliance with social distance measures is high (I'm thinking South Korea, Japan), that would be enough. But that doesn't work everywhere.