4 ms·

I was in a boarding school with hundreds of other teenagers. My classmates never* slept in (always attended the first class), and I’ve never seen anyone sleepin

by DenisM 8y ago

I was in a boarding school with hundreds of other teenagers. My classmates never* slept in (always attended the first class), and I’ve never seen anyone sleeping in from other classes/groups. We went to classes and were in a good shape, I don’t recall anyone complaining. There was one exception - a classmate that I believe was secretely drinking alcohol. Even for him it was an exception to sleep in. Also I’ve see the monitor looking for the sleepers, like that guy, so the problem was not entirely unknown. We were not selected based on our sleep, but on academic performance. This was long ago and we were poor enough to allow no electronic devices whatsoever, alcohol was forbidden, and lights-out were strictly enforced. Not much spare food either after dinner. The “teenage owl” thing has to be almost entirely environmental in order to explain my experience.

Zak 8y ago
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.
- DenisM 8y ago
  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 possible written up. After several incidents (and several escalation layers in between) they would be expelled. Never happened in practice.
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    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?
    - DenisM 8y ago
      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.
  - Zak 8y ago
    If the majority of students are owls by nature, and everyone was being coerced into a lark schedule, how would you know if that had a detrimental effect or not? There's no control group.
    - DenisM 8y ago
      Because they functioned just fine on lark schedule.
      - Zak 8y ago
        I'm sure that's true for certain values of "just fine". Would you notice, however, if to the extent such things could be quantified, on average, students were falling 10% short of their potential? 20%? Would you notice a 10% increase in mild to moderate mental health issues within the student population? We're not talking about differences so dramatic an untrained observer would notice a problem. Your observations are sufficient to say that severe, acute harm from putting teenagers on a lark schedule is unlikely, or at least rare. The article doesn't say that there's acute harm, just that a later schedule is better for the health and academic performance of students.
        DenisM 8y ago
        Fair enough. I was thinking more about modern-day adult owls with their "look at me, I can't function without coffee, ha-ha" jokes. 10-20% degradation wouldn't be visible that way, especially given that people came in with huge academic variance already and there is no baseline to work with.

by DenisM 8y ago

Zak 8y ago

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.

DenisM 8y ago
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 possible written up. After several incidents (and several escalation layers in between) they would be expelled. Never happened in practice.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  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?
  - DenisM 8y ago
    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.
- Zak 8y ago
  If the majority of students are owls by nature, and everyone was being coerced into a lark schedule, how would you know if that had a detrimental effect or not? There's no control group.
  - DenisM 8y ago
    Because they functioned just fine on lark schedule.
    - Zak 8y ago
      I'm sure that's true for certain values of "just fine". Would you notice, however, if to the extent such things could be quantified, on average, students were falling 10% short of their potential? 20%? Would you notice a 10% increase in mild to moderate mental health issues within the student population? We're not talking about differences so dramatic an untrained observer would notice a problem. Your observations are sufficient to say that severe, acute harm from putting teenagers on a lark schedule is unlikely, or at least rare. The article doesn't say that there's acute harm, just that a later schedule is better for the health and academic performance of students.
      - DenisM 8y ago
        Fair enough. I was thinking more about modern-day adult owls with their "look at me, I can't function without coffee, ha-ha" jokes. 10-20% degradation wouldn't be visible that way, especially given that people came in with huge academic variance already and there is no baseline to work with.