NCAA college football pseudo-playoff non-conference games scheduling via constraint and Integer Programming

NCAA Division I-A College Football post-season play is currently determined by a controversial BCS Bowl system. Due to the massive differences in compensation for playing in differing bowl games, heated debates arise every year as to who deserves places in the prestigious BCS bowl games. Without a round-robin approach, in which every team plays every other, there would be no absolute measure of which teams deserve BCS births. We developed a scenario involving a pseudo-playoff system to be implemented at the end of regular season conference play to create unique matchups to increase comparisons of teams across the nation. The system was modeled twice, once using Integer Programming techniques and again with Constraint Programming techniques. Instances of the two models were implemented on the 2010 NCAA football season and compared on their performance. Lastly, we discussed how certain matchups of the resulting solutions would have affected the outcomes of the season and perhaps the assignment of post-season bowl games

Science is, sometimes, political

​ The New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS) is deeply concerned by the impact of the new US administration. ‘We’ve  just  gone  two  weeks  with  the  new  US  administration  and  we  are  witnessing  a  geopolitical  shakeup  that  is  without  precedent’, said NZAS President Craig Stevens. ‘The rise of social media has reduced the time for a community to respond to an event down to mere minutes. At the same time, communities are both many - and global. The radical changes being made by the Trump administration ripple across the globe in the blink of a smart-phone.’ As an independent body seeking to promote science, the NZAS has six main aims (www.scientists.org.nz) – each one is and will be impacted by the radical changes being wrought by one of the planet’s dominant nations. This dominance feeds through into economic influence, migration, regional stability and science. We seek to promote science in New Zealand. Science is now global, scientists come from all-over and go all-over. We collaborate, we consolidate, we share knowledge, we discover – globally. The world would not be sure that the climate is changing rapidly due to greenhouse gas emissions without the efforts of scientists of all nationalities. Science and the scientific community cannot tolerate discrimination against people on the basis of their place of birth or religion. In fact, the Trump Administration's travel ban has horrified the global scientific community. This ban is completely immoral in the context of the current international refugee crisis. It will also retard scientific progress in the United States and the rest of the world at just the time when our civilisation needs science the most. We seek to increase public awareness of science and expose  pseudo-science.  The US Administration is using new, and seriously partisan, media to deconstruct science. It's happened before with abhorrent consequences. We debate and influence government science policy. With science being central to so many aspects of our lives, in particular those that we all have in common such as climate and health, these debates cross borders. We seek to improve working conditions for scientists, including gender and ethnic equality. This is completely central to societal advances of the last decade, largely facilitated by global communications and social media, enabling battles to be fought and won with contributions from all over the planet. And these fighters seek open knowledge, transparency, justice, and quality of life for all. We promote free exchange of knowledge and international co-operation. A couple of weeks ago this seemed a given. Today, that this is so much less certain is remarkable in itself. And finally we encourage excellence in science. Excellence comes in many forms – academic excellence is just one, and usually insufficient on its own to be good for much. We put forward the idea that in this age, everyone is a scientist – or part of the science ecosystem. This doesn't mean everyone has to read up on Rutherford and Salk, but rather they everyone should be able to value – and be able to participate in – the search for truth and understanding. Stevens comments: ‘There are so many, many challenges facing our species. Population, climate, equality, health, environment and more besides. It’s one thing to make science struggle to support and justify its activities – that is only appropriate. It is quite another to actively hunt it down and tear down truths.’ Late last year the NZAS chose to target the theme of science in society, for 2017. What we didn’t realize was that this was going to become street-warfare. In the coming months there will be global demonstrations (in NZ see @ScienceMarch_NZ on twitter). This is not just scientists protesting about science funding – it is about the serious consequences for all of us if science – and other forms of scholarship – are ignored and undermined. 2017 is also an election year and a time when we need to support the values we want for the future. The comfort some of us are lucky enough to experience in NZ naturally enough drives complacency. But the time for complacency has passed. If  you  think  science  is  apolitical,  then  ask  yourself  whether  you  also  believe  science  can  work  under  all  political  regimes

Continued change amongst the positive news for science

​ The 2016 Budget is good news for Investigator-led (Marsden Fund) and Health research, where additional support adds to well-evolved funding processes. Elsewhere, it looks like there will be continuing change for the New Zealand science system. The Marsden Fund, which supports investigator-led research will be increased and should see success rates exceed 10% in the next couple of years. NZAS President Craig Stevens says, ‘This is a positive signal for New Zealand’s fundamental research community, but we see a need to get closer to 15-20% success rates to really provide an engine for the nation’. This increase, combined with the boost to health research already signalled, will efficiently increase research productivity in these areas. Elsewhere the budget shows how the government is implementing its National Statement of Science Investment (NSSI). The Innovative New Zealand initiative looks to restructure a number of aspects of how science in New Zealand is funded including contestable funding and support for large, nationally significant components of the research sector. Stevens says ‘we hope that the Innovative NZ initiative sticks with the NSSI itself and supports impact in the environment and society sectors, and not just research with direct immediate economic return. Science is often about the long-game. ‘The Endeavour  Fund  repackages  the  MBIE  contestable  fund  with  some  additional  support,  although  the  additional  funds  appear to be compensating for an earlier redirection of funding to the National Science Challenges. Stevens says ‘we are relieved the Government has seen that the MBIE process needs to be improved, as we have real concerns about this funding model in terms of efficiency and process.’ Stevens says, ‘We  hope  these  changes  put  scientists  in  the  centre  of  decision  making’.  For example, The  Catalyst  Fund  seeking to strengthen international collaborations is proving to be a complex, highly prescribed process. On the whole I think New Zealand scientists are really good at building international links and you have to wonder if the laudable NSSI goals in this area might be achieved simply by better supporting scientists and let them naturally build these collaborations.’ Of concern is the budget signal of uncertainty for CRI science and scientists, as what was known as Core Funding evolves into the Strategic Science Investment Fund. Stevens says ‘It is positive that the government sees that key elements within the New Zealand science system need to be handled in particular ways. We’ll need to wait and see how the Strategic Science Investment Fund is rolled out before we fully understand the impact.

Elementary principals' perspectives in developing and sustaining professional learning communities.

The purpose of this study was to answer through the perceptions of experienced elementary principals, how do elementary principals develop and sustain an evolving professional learning community? Based on the interviews of nine elementary principals, with phenomenology as a research method, the study sought to answer this research question. The data after analysis resulted in seven themes emerging from the data.The emerging themes to answer how elementary principals develop professional learning communities were; (1) Time, (2) Right People-Right Places, (3) There Will Be Struggles, and (4) Must Be Able to See the Gifts. The three themes that emerged to answer how elementary principals sustain professional learning communities were; (5) Utilize Outside Support, (6) Lead from the Back, and (7) Sustain the Feeling of Community