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

Let Teenagers Sleep In

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 317 posts

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#281

Post by pseudalopex »

matwood wrote: post #80
captainmuon wrote: post #11

Wouldn't the average teenager just stay up even longer? It's not like they are hardcoded to wake up at a certain clock time. I think it would make much more sense to change the content of school during those years to reflect the interests of students better. Let them take a break, do something practical, do projects, etc. instead of trying to cram facts into their heads. A lot of stuff I headed to learn when I was 13…

> Wouldn't the average teenager just stay up even longer? It's not like they are hardcoded to wake up at a certain clock time. Additionally, what about the teens who do get up early? I feel like these studies are sometimes trying to explain something that really is simple to understand. Kids stay up later today because there is so much more keeping them awake. If they stay up late, then they need to sleep later to ge…

Delayed sleep in adolescence has been observed in controlled settings, across levels of technological development, and even in other mammals.

School schedules currently require many teenagers to get up before the sun just to get to classes, let alone before-school activities.

The proposal is to start classes no earlier than 8:30. According to the statistics in the article, 14% of schools already do. 90% would have to change their start times by an hour or less. That's also around the time most adults arrive at work.

The few early risers can find something to do with the extra time, be happy for their friends, and take comfort in the lower rate of car accidents.

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#282

Post by closeparen »

leetcrew wrote: post #278
closeparen wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If kids can’t get themselves to school by their teenage years, something is horrifically wrong with your urban planning. A school should serve the houses 1-2 miles around. My daily treks to middle and high school were parades of pedestrians, bikes, and kick scooters through the suburban streets.

> If kids can’t get themselves to school by their teenage years, something is horrifically wrong with your urban planning. i mean, according to the general sentiment of HN at least, there is something horrifically wrong with urban planning in the US. in the meantime, the schools need to settle on a "least terrible" schedule.

You don’t need to ban cars, build dense multifamily buildings, dig subways, live close to a central business district, etc. to be in a position where kids can walk to school. That’s still perfectly compatible with suburbia.

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#283

Post by pseudalopex »

DenisM wrote: post #269
Zak wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the consequences (both formal and informal) if a student slept in? People can do things that are both unpleasant and harmful to them for extended periods of time if subjected to sufficient coercion, social pressure, or reward.

No one ever complained about poor performance due to lack of sleep the way modern-day "owls" do. I don't think it matters how they (we) were forced to observe the regime, only that it yielded the result - lark sleep and good performance for near 100% of students. My point is that the "owl" thing is environmental. To answer your question, tardy students would be admonished by the teacher/supervisor/monitor and possibl…

You didn't mention when you woke up or when classes started. An hour can make a world of difference.

Selection based on academic performance usually means above-average intelligence, which is still an asset when you're tired. It also means you were selected partly based on how well you dealt with your previous schools' start times.

You mentioned this was long ago. The subject is better studied now and people are more aware of it. Even still, a lot of people insist it's a matter of discipline. Would it have been socially acceptable for someone to complain about it publicly or even among their friends? Did most have anything to compare it to?

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#284

Post by ItsMe000001 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #196
ItsMe000001 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't, unless you keep a completely unnatural and very strenuous artificial light environment. Not just any light source either. This is worse than people who can't eat most foods and have to have an extremely picky diet, because at least they can do that anywhere and can create a stash of food. To expect this of anyone is ignorant and cruel, IMO. > Unless you think you'd never resynchronize after moving across…

What do you do throughout the year as sunrise and sunset vary? For most of us there is a 4-5 hour difference in sunset between June and December.

Unfortunately I fail to see the connection between your reply and what I wrote. I said zeitgebers are set by the sun, so what is your point?

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#285

Post by emodendroket »

emodendroket wrote: post #221
humanrebar wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universal childcare costs a lot more than 50 billion a year.

According to the Washington Post around $90b. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/06/the-9...

(I feel like it goes without saying, but the idea that $90b for a program that would seriously improve many people's lives is unthinkable but another $50b for what is already, a few times over, the world's largest military budget, for a country facing no serious threats to its own security, is a trifle not even worth serious discussion is a false one, if you ask me).

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#286

Post by projektfu »

noobermin wrote: post #148
yurishimo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not necessarily that they become failures but rather that they are being deprived of the mental capacity to reach their full potential every day. They would be more successful if they got more sleep, so it makes sense to give teens a couple more hours to benefit society as a whole, even if only marginally.

I don't think my point is clear so let me restate it. 75% is a majority of people. 75% of people aren't deficient in some way, as far as I know, staying up all night as teens and living a life didn't make them maladjusted or deprived in some sense. Moreover, I don't know or feel like there is evidence that high performers in society sleep more than anyone else. The whole "sleep more" mantra feels like the "eat less f…

Percent of adults aged 20 and over with overweight, including obesity: 71.6% (2015-2016) Source: CDC FastStats.

So, if a supermajority is overweight, is it actually just normal, and we shouldn't be concerned?

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#287

Post by DenisM »

pseudalopex wrote: post #283
DenisM wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one ever complained about poor performance due to lack of sleep the way modern-day "owls" do. I don't think it matters how they (we) were forced to observe the regime, only that it yielded the result - lark sleep and good performance for near 100% of students. My point is that the "owl" thing is environmental. To answer your question, tardy students would be admonished by the teacher/supervisor/monitor and possibl…

You didn't mention when you woke up or when classes started. An hour can make a world of difference. Selection based on academic performance usually means above-average intelligence, which is still an asset when you're tired. It also means you were selected partly based on how well you dealt with your previous schools' start times. You mentioned this was long ago. The subject is better studied now and people are more…

You’re right about the selection bias, there was a competitive aspect in the admission process. But it wasn’t all competition, a brainy owl kid would only need to rise so high before being swept into the school.

I’m pretty sure they would complain. Also they would point out something about learning much better in the evening than morning like the owls do, and that never happened. We had kids complaining about not enough hours in the day, for example.

I think there’s a lot of insight to be gained from the pre-iPhone days of various boarding institutions with diffferent selection criteria - STEM, religious, military, arts (?), wealth.

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#288

Post by st26 »

closeparen wrote: post #228
leetcrew wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rules made by 55 year old early risers that only need 6 hours of sleep a night who have become school officials are just cruel and unusual punishment to a chunk of teenagers out there. In a better world there could be a class action lawsuit to make this stop--but its still considered okay to promote "early to bed, early to rise" and flat-out discriminate against people with sleep disorders. tbh, i doubt the time th…

If kids can’t get themselves to school by their teenage years, something is horrifically wrong with your urban planning. A school should serve the houses 1-2 miles around. My daily treks to middle and high school were parades of pedestrians, bikes, and kick scooters through the suburban streets.

something is horrifically wrong with your urban planning

Ok, agreed. Now what?

But seriously, this is the state of affairs for much of the country.

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#289

Post by st26 »

lamontcg wrote: post #154

I used to need 9.5 hours of sleep as a teenager and probably had diagnosable delayed sleep phase disorder. Rules made by 55 year old early risers that only need 6 hours of sleep a night who have become school officials are just cruel and unusual punishment to a chunk of teenagers out there. In a better world there could be a class action lawsuit to make this stop--but its still considered okay to promote "early to be…

Just throwing in my anecdata, used to be a late riser (often after ten), had a kid and now I wake up a bit after six. Sleeping in is after eight. I just have to get up when he does.

If I had to guess, I'd wonder if school conventionally starts early because pre-teens are up early.

Re: Let Teenagers Sleep In

#290

Post by IC4RUS »

lamontcg wrote: post #171
IC4RUS wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like of a 'just so' story, as evolution is not usually considered to act at the group level, but instead at the individual level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection And some evolutionary biologists, like Dawkins, argues that it really acts on genes rather than the individual. So, I might be missing some of the claim, but I find it unlikely that teenagers would stay up later to be away from adul…

You've misunderstood Dawkins. You can still get completely unselfish individual traits out of selfish gene selection (like the entire chapter on runt gene selection). It looks like group selection, Dawkins only argues that the mechanism is selfish genes. Even he seems to have forgotten he wrote about that though.

That's true, I just meant to express (over-simplistically) that he argued that the mechanism is at the gene-level, which is even farther away from group-selection mechanisms.

The sections about emergent group-level behavior are really fascinating too.

Post reply on HN