Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

news.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 458 posts

Re: Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

#141

Post by monocasa »

adamnemecek wrote: post #69
VLM wrote: post #5

Do we like to tell ourselves the purpose of school is academics or athletics? If athletics, school must start as early as possible, so "away" outdoor games can be held outside in sunlight and "away" teams can get home at a reasonable hour. If academics, school should start as late as possible, so students (and instructors!) can do class prep immediately before class and/or sleep in. Its interesting that the only acce…

How could athletics be the purpose of school?

From my school (an affluent top tier high school), the athletics department did have a larger say than academics.

I think it had more to do with how loud and how much energy athletics had towards getting their way (and the parents reeeally cared about football. This was hardcore SEC territory), vs how much spare time the teachers had. I don't think it was explicitly pro athletics vs academics, but it certainly was systemically.

Re: Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

#142

Post by Spooky23 »

tmuir wrote: post #115
imjk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember nothing worse in High School than waking up showering and getting dressed for school, only to have PE class first period.

What was so traumatizing about the showers available to you in high school? Because I certainly remember first period gym, and I just took a shower afterwards. Then I was right as rain.

It’s an awkward time for many kids. Personally, I dreaded the experience.

Re: Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

#143

Post by tmuir »

InitialLastName wrote: post #43
taneq wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't take 12 years to teach a kid calculus and literature and their prerequisites.

Right, it's more that our society has decided that humans have no value until they're at least 18 (hell, with college degree requirements that age is approaching 22), so we have to store them somewhere until then.

Does it make your nebulous conspiracy theory more believable or less believable when you consider that the age of 18 is generally when people's bodies have reached full maturity?

Personally, if my 22 year old self travelled in time three years backwards to meet 17 year old me, and then travelled 20 years forward to present day to me current me, I have no doubt 18 year old me would the odd man out in this triplet.

Re: Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

#144

Post by WhompingWindows »

Balgair wrote: post #98

This study was done on college students, not elementary and HS students, college students at Cal . There are a lot of caveats here and trying to apply them to elementary education is good, but outside the scope. Aside: If you really want test scores to improve, give the kids food. My SO is an educator and she's had kids come in that only get food at school. All weekend they may only eat a bag of Cheetos, sometimes up…

Yes, feeding low-income students is critical. However, we have to ask if the school-lunches provided are indeed better than a bag of Cheetos? I worked in the top 3 worst middle school in my state in the poorest city in my state, and I found their school lunches to largely be processed carbs like pizza, burger+fries with no veggies. The veggies that were on offer were in tiny sauce-containers that hardly any of the kids grabbed. Furthermore, those veggies were usually carrots or cucumbers, the former of which is high in glycemic index, and the latter of which contains hardly any micronutrients. So, from a nutritional perspective, yes the calories are good for the low income students, but the food was still terrible for them overall.

Re: Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

#145

Post by [deleted] »

endymi0n wrote: post #10

I used to have lots of problems getting up early and always championed later times. Growing up through my twenties, it was great seeing finally seeing more and more evidence for a later school start and I was hopeful for future teens. But it wasn't until my first kid that I finally understood that school doesn't start this early because it's good for the learning experience. It starts this early so parents can get th…

[deleted]

Re: Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

#146

Post by WhompingWindows »

timerol wrote: post #2

Looking at the chart in the middle of the article brings up more questions than it answers. Maybe it's the weird 3D perspective, but it looks like all groups get better grades in evening classes. Furthermore, it looks like finches do better in all categories than larks, and owls always do the worst. This seems to argue against the points that the article puts forth.

I wouldn't mistake the findings from the media relations writer from the actual authors' findings:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23044-8

Re: Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

#148

Post by tmuir »

war1025 wrote: post #132
tmuir wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was so traumatizing about the showers available to you in high school? Because I certainly remember first period gym, and I just took a shower afterwards. Then I was right as rain.

Probably the effort of getting ready once and then having to get ready again. Not traumatizing, just a pain. Some people are particular about their routines.

All people are particular about their routines. Some to greater degrees than others.

Are you familiar with the phrase: "There are two types of jobs, those you shower before, and some you shower afterwards."

Re: Poor Grades Tied to Class Times That Don’t Match Our Biological Clocks

#149

Post by maxerickson »

zanny wrote: post #130
briandear wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.K. gets a “paid” holiday? So why are salaries in the U.K. so much lower than the US? Seems like the only one paying for holidays is the worker.

According to Gallup in 2013 the median incomes in the US and UK were $15,500 and $12,400 adjusted. Considering that US citizens pay on average 10% of earnings on healthcare where the UK doesn't that makes it more akin to $14,000 vs $12,400. Except here is something you didn't know - that British citizen isn't paying income tax at all. Their 0% bracket goes all the way to about $16,000 USD Today. That US citizen is pa…

From http://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-househol... ?

I would expect self reported income like that to be based on take home pay (so after taxes). And for many in the US, they will have health benefits that they don't include in the self reported figure (they may not even realize the amount their employer pays). That's hard to account for compared to the "everybody can use the NHS" included in the UK figure.

Post reply on HN