5 ms·

I think what made Saturday mornings so special was that you were in school for 5 days right before it. For a kid, 5 days is a long time. For a 5 year old kid,

I think what made Saturday mornings so special was that you were in school for 5 days right before it. For a kid, 5 days is a long time. For a 5 year old kid, a 5 day school week is the equivalent of a 30 year old working for 30 days straight, then imagine you have a 12 day vacation. That's how time felt, and why those first few hours of Saturday morning were so cherished, it signaled the beginning of a weekend of possibilities.

taneq 1y ago
And as a parent you realise that they put those cartoons on so the kids had something to do while you got a bit of a sleep-in for once. ...and to sell toys to those kids while you weren't watching, of course. ;)
MontgomeryPy 1y ago
Yes. It was the only time and place to see cartoons as a kid then. Missed Saturday AM TV? Gotta wait until next Saturday AM. As for ad effectiveness, wow, every single kid in your class saw that new HotWheels car advertised.
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
My first day of school was the day before I turned 7... first grade. I didn't go to kindergarten because in my rural school, it was only a half day program, my mom didn't have a car to pick me up when the school day ended (school bus only in the mornings and afternoons). Perhaps things are screwed up a bit more fundamentally if we're sending 5 yr olds to school. Or maybe it's not about the education, maybe everyone needs the government-funded daycare. It amazes (and frightens, just a little) me that you talk about it casually as if it should be the norm.
- kergonath 1y ago
  > Perhaps things are screwed up a bit more fundamentally if we're sending 5 yr olds to school. I don’t know, I went to school at 3 and I turned out fine. Same for my kids. It’s good to be with other children at that age. > It amazes (and frightens, just a little) me that you talk about it casually as if it should be the norm. It is the norm here. If anything, 5 is quite old to start school. The alternative is one of the parents giving up their career because the vast majority of people cannot afford full-time day care. But there’s not only that. At that age children need stimulating environments and learn a lot, fast by being with others in a secure environment. You really see the difference between those who started at 3 and those who started at 6 in terms of cognitive, social, and motor development.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >I don’t know, I went to school at 3 and I turned out fine. This anecdote is not just as problematic as most anecdotes, I think it is more so. The point of public education is allegedly not that "kids turn out fine" (whatever that means), but that they receive a minimum education. If you got 4 years more than me, was there 4 years' more worth of advantage bestowed upon you? If you merely approximated my level of education, then it would seem the government wasted 4 years worth of resources on you. Multiplied times every student in the nation, this is absolutely enormous. And that's not even counting the potential for psychological damage... you might be fine, slightly more resilient than some, but others might be suffering from any number of disorders that can't easily be traced back to early schooling. Less time to form family bonds, less time getting a more informal education, etc. >It is the norm here. If anything, 5 is quite old to start school. It wasn't the norm until quite recently. Even in the 1980s, it was not the norm. That you think it is a norm shows just how much such a policy can distort an entire population's perceptions. >At that age children need stimulating environments and learn a lot, fast by being with others in a secure environment. Such you are told. You assume it must be true. And yet, student performance at all age levels continues to decline, even as they're sent to school younger every decade. >You really see the difference between those who started at 3 and those who started at 6 in terms of cognitive, social, and motor development. The numbers don't support your claim.
    - deadbabe 1y ago
      These days if you aren’t putting kids into school very early they now become far more liable to turning into mindless iPad kids staring into a screen all day and having no social skills. The world is not as stimulating anymore where you can just go out and watch a chicken hatch or play on a dangerous playground with other kids and learn a lot about the world.
    - kergonath 1y ago
      > This anecdote is not just as problematic as most anecdotes, I think it is more so. This not an anecdote. Most European countries I know have mandatory school starting from 5 or 6, with the possibility of attending pre-primary school (with names that vary across countries) from 2 or 3, which most people tend to do for the reasons I mentioned. This worked for hundreds of millions of children, not just me. > The point of public education is allegedly not that "kids turn out fine" (whatever that means), but that they receive a minimum education. The point was that going to school before 5 was horrible. It’s not. A lot of kids do it and it works. > If you got 4 years more than me, was there 4 years' more worth of advantage bestowed upon you? You should take that chip off your shoulder. You are reading too much from what I wrote. I did not make a claim of superiority. > If you merely approximated my level of education, then it would seem the government wasted 4 years worth of resources on you. If you go down that path any public education is a waste of resources. The state (not the government) invested in my personal development and the ability of both my parents to remain in the workforce, if you really must think in monetary terms. > And that's not even counting the potential for psychological damage Right, prove it then. As I mentioned, this is the norm in many European countries, in which children do not seem to have much more psychological issues than in the US, for example. > It wasn't the norm until quite recently. Even in the 1980s, it was not the norm. That you think it is a norm shows just how much such a policy can distort an entire population's perceptions. You are way off. The law establishing public school for 3 years old children was voted in 1881 here. It became the norm when women had to enter the workforce and population concentration in cities weakened family links. This was way before 1980. > Such you are told. You assume it must be true. And yet, student performance at all age levels continues to decline, even as they're sent to school younger every decade. Amazing. It’s as if there were many factors at play. > The numbers don't support your claim. Which numbers do not?
alnwlsn 1y ago
Waiting the month from Thanksgiving to Christmas also took like half a year as a kid. If your birthday was in the summer, you'd be waiting a couple years for it. One school year felt like 3 or 4 years .
- radiofreeeuropa 1y ago
  I'm 40 and it's been getting faster consistently since my mid-20s or so. I'd say a year now feels about as long as 3 months did c. 10 years old. Summer rolls around and I blink and it's already getting too cold for the beach again. People come up with various reasons for it, with a popular explanation being novelty or something, but I've had a bunch of very novel years and it never seemed to make a difference. It's just a little faster every year. Kinda depressing to think that, by subjective perception of time, I'm likely already in the last 20% or so of my life.
  - deadbabe 1y ago
    It’s actually worse than that. If you live another 40 years, as a 5 year old that’s like knowing you will be dead at age 10, roughly the same amount of time perception.
  - nancyminusone 1y ago
    You might not believe me, but it seems like seconds on a clock tick by at least 25%-50% faster than when I was a kid.

taneq 1y ago

And as a parent you realise that they put those cartoons on so the kids had something to do while you got a bit of a sleep-in for once. ...and to sell toys to those kids while you weren't watching, of course. ;)

MontgomeryPy 1y ago

Yes. It was the only time and place to see cartoons as a kid then. Missed Saturday AM TV? Gotta wait until next Saturday AM. As for ad effectiveness, wow, every single kid in your class saw that new HotWheels car advertised.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

My first day of school was the day before I turned 7... first grade. I didn't go to kindergarten because in my rural school, it was only a half day program, my mom didn't have a car to pick me up when the school day ended (school bus only in the mornings and afternoons). Perhaps things are screwed up a bit more fundamentally if we're sending 5 yr olds to school. Or maybe it's not about the education, maybe everyone needs the government-funded daycare. It amazes (and frightens, just a little) me that you talk about it casually as if it should be the norm.

kergonath 1y ago
> Perhaps things are screwed up a bit more fundamentally if we're sending 5 yr olds to school. I don’t know, I went to school at 3 and I turned out fine. Same for my kids. It’s good to be with other children at that age. > It amazes (and frightens, just a little) me that you talk about it casually as if it should be the norm. It is the norm here. If anything, 5 is quite old to start school. The alternative is one of the parents giving up their career because the vast majority of people cannot afford full-time day care. But there’s not only that. At that age children need stimulating environments and learn a lot, fast by being with others in a secure environment. You really see the difference between those who started at 3 and those who started at 6 in terms of cognitive, social, and motor development.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >I don’t know, I went to school at 3 and I turned out fine. This anecdote is not just as problematic as most anecdotes, I think it is more so. The point of public education is allegedly not that "kids turn out fine" (whatever that means), but that they receive a minimum education. If you got 4 years more than me, was there 4 years' more worth of advantage bestowed upon you? If you merely approximated my level of education, then it would seem the government wasted 4 years worth of resources on you. Multiplied times every student in the nation, this is absolutely enormous. And that's not even counting the potential for psychological damage... you might be fine, slightly more resilient than some, but others might be suffering from any number of disorders that can't easily be traced back to early schooling. Less time to form family bonds, less time getting a more informal education, etc. >It is the norm here. If anything, 5 is quite old to start school. It wasn't the norm until quite recently. Even in the 1980s, it was not the norm. That you think it is a norm shows just how much such a policy can distort an entire population's perceptions. >At that age children need stimulating environments and learn a lot, fast by being with others in a secure environment. Such you are told. You assume it must be true. And yet, student performance at all age levels continues to decline, even as they're sent to school younger every decade. >You really see the difference between those who started at 3 and those who started at 6 in terms of cognitive, social, and motor development. The numbers don't support your claim.
  - deadbabe 1y ago
    These days if you aren’t putting kids into school very early they now become far more liable to turning into mindless iPad kids staring into a screen all day and having no social skills. The world is not as stimulating anymore where you can just go out and watch a chicken hatch or play on a dangerous playground with other kids and learn a lot about the world.
  - kergonath 1y ago
    > This anecdote is not just as problematic as most anecdotes, I think it is more so. This not an anecdote. Most European countries I know have mandatory school starting from 5 or 6, with the possibility of attending pre-primary school (with names that vary across countries) from 2 or 3, which most people tend to do for the reasons I mentioned. This worked for hundreds of millions of children, not just me. > The point of public education is allegedly not that "kids turn out fine" (whatever that means), but that they receive a minimum education. The point was that going to school before 5 was horrible. It’s not. A lot of kids do it and it works. > If you got 4 years more than me, was there 4 years' more worth of advantage bestowed upon you? You should take that chip off your shoulder. You are reading too much from what I wrote. I did not make a claim of superiority. > If you merely approximated my level of education, then it would seem the government wasted 4 years worth of resources on you. If you go down that path any public education is a waste of resources. The state (not the government) invested in my personal development and the ability of both my parents to remain in the workforce, if you really must think in monetary terms. > And that's not even counting the potential for psychological damage Right, prove it then. As I mentioned, this is the norm in many European countries, in which children do not seem to have much more psychological issues than in the US, for example. > It wasn't the norm until quite recently. Even in the 1980s, it was not the norm. That you think it is a norm shows just how much such a policy can distort an entire population's perceptions. You are way off. The law establishing public school for 3 years old children was voted in 1881 here. It became the norm when women had to enter the workforce and population concentration in cities weakened family links. This was way before 1980. > Such you are told. You assume it must be true. And yet, student performance at all age levels continues to decline, even as they're sent to school younger every decade. Amazing. It’s as if there were many factors at play. > The numbers don't support your claim. Which numbers do not?

alnwlsn 1y ago

Waiting the month from Thanksgiving to Christmas also took like half a year as a kid. If your birthday was in the summer, you'd be waiting a couple years for it. One school year felt like 3 or 4 years .

radiofreeeuropa 1y ago
I'm 40 and it's been getting faster consistently since my mid-20s or so. I'd say a year now feels about as long as 3 months did c. 10 years old. Summer rolls around and I blink and it's already getting too cold for the beach again. People come up with various reasons for it, with a popular explanation being novelty or something, but I've had a bunch of very novel years and it never seemed to make a difference. It's just a little faster every year. Kinda depressing to think that, by subjective perception of time, I'm likely already in the last 20% or so of my life.
- deadbabe 1y ago
  It’s actually worse than that. If you live another 40 years, as a 5 year old that’s like knowing you will be dead at age 10, roughly the same amount of time perception.
- nancyminusone 1y ago
  You might not believe me, but it seems like seconds on a clock tick by at least 25%-50% faster than when I was a kid.