<p>No romanigysyeys, teens circadian rhythms are meant to get up after eight. Which is why teens have such a problem. I’ve got good sources, I trust them.</p>
<p>^ Show me the sources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read things similar to what TesseractsFTW mentions.</p>
<p>My school starts at 7:55 most days (except Wednesdays we start at 8:55) and we end at 3. I like it this way…because if we ended later then I’d have to stay up with later. But I always have to be at my carpool’s house at 6:45 am, so even if we started later, I’d have to get up at the same time.
I’m used to little sleep, so in my opinion, it’s fine. But it might be rough for some other people.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a problem, I think people just aren’t motivated to wake up at 7 (or w/e) and go to school/work. It’s not natural.</p>
<p>Seriously, I want to see the sources. </p>
<p>Every single study I’ve ever seen has used ONLY American subjects. This means that they are highly subjected to very similar cultural conditions. </p>
<p>Show me one that uses more than Americans and I will believe that it is possibly natural, rather than cultural.</p>
<p>EDIT: I can tell you that I am in Costa Rica right now. The high school student in my host family starts school at roughly 6:30 AM. He said he doesn’t notice anyone very sleepy in the beginning of the day. This is partially why I believe it is merely cultural.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sleepforscience.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/94a9f6f63ae18bc30f3d2d0b005e42fa/pdf/carskadon_pediatrician1990.pdf[/url]”>http://www.sleepforscience.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/94a9f6f63ae18bc30f3d2d0b005e42fa/pdf/carskadon_pediatrician1990.pdf</a></p>
<p>[ADOLESCENT</a> SLEEP](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/adolescent.html]ADOLESCENT”>http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/adolescent.html)</p>
<p>[Falling</a> asleep in class? Blame biology - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/12/sleep.teenagers.school/index.html]Falling”>Falling asleep in class? Blame biology - CNN.com)</p>
<p>I think Stanford might be mildly reputable, but then again, I really don’t know… Stanford? Doesn’t sound familiar.</p>
<p>Interesting point, however, I’m going to go with the scholarly articles and scientific journals.</p>
<p>And stop editing already!</p>
<p>Yes, Stanford is reputable. That isn’t a study though, it’s only a statement. Plus, it was last updated 11 years ago- not exactly up-to-date. </p>
<p>The actual study used only Americans. </p>
<p>You can’t make a claim about biology when you don’t isolate a MAJOR variable like cultural influences.</p>
<p>EDIT:
Yes, I’m editing now only to irritate you.
Sorry, I don’t see the point in making a whole other post.</p>
<p>No I agree that culture does play a role, but I think the main cause is universal biological changes. How do you know it’s not the other culture that’s off, suppressing these biological changes from surfacing? </p>
<p>And really, the point is about American students.</p>
<p>wouldnt really matter, sleepwise. i would just be going to bed 1 hour later and sleeping in 1 hour more.</p>
<p>No, the point is not about American students when you claim something is natural. The point is about humans in general. </p>
<p>And I don’t know. But I want a study that uses MANY young adults from MANY cultures before it can be scientifically provable. Sorry that is common sense. </p>
<p>In no other way would we study only one country and then claim it was natural. For example, if we went to the Netherlands, measured all of their heights, and then claimed that it was biologically naturally for the average adult height to be 6’1", those scientists would be laughed out of academia. Why should sleep cycles be any different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t really make any sense if you think about how wildly different length of day is at different latitudes. At this time of year, East Lansing gets 40 extra minutes of visible light compared to Los Angeles.</p>
<p>My original post was based on a lecture given by UCLA’s Chancellor, btw.</p>
<p>That is why I used the example of where I live. I said we’re meant to get up at dawn, which varies by location.</p>
<p>I’m not arguing though- I’m going to bed. Need to be up at 6:30 tomorrow for school.</p>
<p>EDIT:
But again, I said show me a study that uses more than America and I will seriously reconsider my position. Until then, I think it is an American teens are lazy thing.</p>
<p>EDIT again:
I never said that changing start times wouldn’t change tardiness or whatever. I said that I don’t buy into the biologically we’re supposed to get up later thing. Once again, I will probably change my position if anyone shows me a study that uses various cultures.</p>
<p>Yes! (just from a personal point of view).</p>
<p>I would love to sleep in later.</p>
<p>Even though my school is 8:00 to 3:45…</p>
<p>Sports don’t get out until 6, and drama is usually 4:00 to 7:00… sometimes 7:00 to 10:00. Performances at 7:30, but you need to be there at 6, and it ends at 10.</p>
<p>Long days :P</p>
<p>I think there should be an early stream for people who tend to be early risers anyway, and a late stream that starts at around 9 for people who naturally sleep later. School would still get out at 4. That’s perfectly adequate and does still allow time for extracurriculars and homework. (Okay, that’s probably just my personal standpoint because I spend the afternoon sleeping instead of studying.)</p>
<p>My school used to start at 8:15 but I used to leave home at 5:30 to take tuitions. Even without tuitions I used to leave home at around 7 am so I never did get enough sleep.</p>
<p>Or we could stop putting unqualified people in certain classes, people could stop asking stupid questions, and teachers could stop assigning busy in-class work. We’d get through the material 2-3 times as quickly. </p>
<p>A school day could last from 10-1 and the same amount of stuff would get done.</p>