Sleep and older children

The trend away from strictly merit scholarships had started when I was
going to school (mid 50s). My dad thought that a scholarship should
be based on how good a student was academically, and not on how poor
the family was. The amount - yes could be adjusted by need, but not
whether the student got a scholarship. He called the need based aid
"needyships".

I wanted to attend a small private co-ed college, and so that is where
I applied - except that my mom went to an all girls school so she
insisted that I apply to two non-co-ed schools.. I got a 1/4 tuition
scholarship from the school my dad attended, but my mom had her own
reasons for not wanting me to go there, so she discouraged it. I
attended a top rated school (Oberlin), and it was a good fit for me.
But I did not find that attending of a top school made things
magically easier after graduation. I did find that making good grades
was much easier for me at the schools I attended after I graduated,
but a poor grade at a good school still didn't get me any extra
credit.

In the end, I got married right after school and didn't get back to
doing what I thought I had wanted to do (teach school) until about 18
years later. I ended up in a profession (industrial hygiene) that I
never could have reasonably anticipated because it wasn't an available
major in the days that I went to school. And I had to study to get
certification in the field totally on my own without the help of a
school curriculum.

When my own kids were ready to attend school, I was more interested in
having a school that was a good fit for them than I was in having them
attend a 'top' school. And we considered tuition costs in deciding
which schools to apply to.

All three girls ended up (eventually) at large universities, which I
would not have liked at all, but it was right for them at the time.
(University of Maryland, Virginia Tech and US Air Force Academy).
Even though they worked in hs, and even though one of them didn't have
really terrific hs grades, none of them had any problem getting into a
variety of schools.

But like with my dad, we were not in a position to qualify for
financial aid. USAFA of course doesn't require tuition payments. One
of them got married midway through her freshman year, and then she DID
qualify on the basis of need. And for one of them, my dh took a job
he hated so that he would have the money to pay for tuition.

One of them wanted to be an engineer and pilot, and she did that. One
of them wanted to be a vet and ended up majoring in math with an
occupation in computer security. One of them was interested in
computer programming and ended up majoring in math and is a
professional horse trainer and judge. She got her training for that
totally outside of college, although she did apply to several schools
who offered that option.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

toto wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:08:31 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toto wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:54:20 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

I got a lot more money
from scholarships than I ever could have saved with jobs
during high school that would have taken away from the
grades and activities that got me the scholarships.
Not necessarily. I had a free ride - full tuition and room and board,
yet I worked as a waitress 4 days a week during my junior and
senior year. You assume that you cannot keep up your grades and
your test scores, but that was not true of many of the kids I knew in
high school. We worked many hours, yet managed to get our schoolwork
done too. What suffered was extra-curricular activities and possibly
family time, but not our grades.
I don't assume that at all, but these days it's
hard to get a scholarship with grades alone. Those
extracurriculars are important, both if you want to be
admitted to competitive schools and if you want to be
more competitive for scholarship awards. I had above
a 4.0 GPA (from a good HS) and was awarded little
scholarship or grant money on that basis alone.

Yes, but why are only *competitive* schools options?

Didn't say they were the only options, but
it seems silly to me to assume one *won't* potentially
wish to attend a school that is difficult to get into.

There are plenty
of really good small colleges where scholarship money *is* still
available for good SAT scores and good grades, I believe. Sure, if
only Harvard, Yale and MIT are options, you may be right. But there
are other schols that educate kids well and actually unless you are
going into a field that requires the *old boy* network, I don't think
that most companies are necessarily going to look unfavorably on you
if you graduate from a bit lesser known school.

Sure, but the networking is useful in some
fields, and there are other things one might wish to
study where there are limited options to find the
appropriate instruction. Maybe those take you to a
competitive school and maybe they don't, but I hate
to close too many doors before I even get to the point
of making a choice! When I got to the point of choosing
schools, given what I wanted to do, the list was pretty
darned short.

Best wishes,
Ericka

grandma Rosalie

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Yep ;-) Apparently he practices around 4 hours per
day.

We know a couple of kids around here who are like that.

Did his parents sacrifice family time to help him pursue this passion?
It sounds like they did, if they were willing to allow his passion to
send his family traveling all over the country to audition.

I'm sure they did to some extent, but he also
seems to be a very balanced kid and in the newspaper
article about him he says that he enjoys spending time
with his family, so it doesn't sound to me like family
time was eliminated from his life (nor did he compromise
his academics, as he's an A student). I don't know his
family personally. I do know another family from the
area with a star athlete (Olympic), and they certainly
made some sacrifices, but they are also a very close
knit family who spend a significant amount of time
together (or at least they did before the kids were
all adults and living in other parts of the country
for school or jobs). So, I don't believe that pursuing
a passion, even at an elite level, necessarily means
giving up a reasonable amount of family time.

Well, for example, I could've put DD in gymnastics at age 5 when they
suggested she had olympic potential. Since I work full-time, she'd have
had to attended practice in the evenings. That would have been the type
of commitment that would've definetly interfered with family dinners
and required all other family members to bend around her schedule.
Something would've had to give to make that sort of commitment work -
whether sleep or chores or friendships.

Now maybe if I was a SAHM or could afford a nanny, then DD could manage
by doing gymnastics during afterschool hours and we could've found a
balance. But for those who work, if they're going to put their kids
into something that takes such a dedicated commitment, then finding the
balance you talk about is going to be tough, if not impossible.

You and I've both made the same decision to limit such
extracurriculars; that may also be limiting our kids' abilities to get
a scholarship for excelling in one particular area such as the kid who
is going to Julliard, or a kid who excels at basketball and gets a
sports scholarship, etc. Or the kid who in high school starts his own
business.

One of DD's friends has been in dance since she was a tot, and she's
very talented. She practices every single day afterschool (her mom is a
SAH). It's a huge commitment. On top of that, she gets straight A's, is
expected to do chores, spend a lot of family time, and also have a
social life (according to her mom, she lacked in this area until this
past year... her mom is encouraging her to make more friends).

Well, this kid stays up all hours of the night. Why? To squeeze in her
homework. And if she gets so much as an A-, the poor kid is a total
wreck. There's pressure from her parents to succeed, but mostly I think
it's now coming from her own self. She's very hard on herself, and puts
a ton of pressure on herself to achieve. Does her mom try to enforce an
earlier bedtime? Yes. Does this kid wait until her mom is asleep, then
get up to study some more, sometimes pulling all-nighters? Yep.

So I suspect the kid from Julliard - no matter what the newspapers said
- had to make some sacrifices to balance along the way. Who knows what
that is. Maybe his parents let him slack off on chores. Maybe he has
few friends. Maybe he's up all hours of the night obsessing about his
grades. We don't know. I know about DD's friend because they're very
close and I'm close to her mom so I hear the stories and I can observe
what really goes on in their family. I worry about the kid burning
out... but at the same time, I also understand her parents making the
sacrifices they have, backing their kid because she truly havs a gift
and a passion to pursue that gift. But I don't kid myself into thinking
they have it all... they certainly *don't* have balance!


I don't think anyone should do activities
just in order to get a scholarship.

I suspect a lot of parents do just that, but the reality is that only a
select few of these kids actually end up with the scholarship. I agree
it's not a great bet: for example the kid who might be fabulous at
ballet could get breasts or an injury, and then there goes her chances
for the few elite spots.


On the other hand,
I also don't think kids should be forced into activities
that they don't have any interest in. If my boys are
still dancing well into high school and wanted to continue
it to some degree in college, a scholarship wouldn't
seem all that unlikely to me (obviously, the equation
would be different for girl dancers).

Really? Even if they are only dancing seasonally for the nutcracker? I
would imagine, even if they are boys, that it would take a daily,
year-round commitment for your boys to get a dance scholarship.

With that said, we attend a local college's annual dance performance
each year. There is one single boy in the dance troupe, and yes, he got
a full-paid scholarship, yet this kid has never had any formal dance
training at all. He grew up in the inner city and taught himself,
dancing for handouts on the street during times he wasn't working his
job to help his family survive. He's a fabulous dancer and
choreographer - we go just to see him.


Beyond that,
even if you aren't elite enough at any particular
activity to get a merit scholarship for that activity
in particular, showing dedication to an interest and
making significant achievements in it plays a significant
role in both admissions and many scholarship applications.

No, it doesn't, or at least not anywhere near what most people think.
That's what I am saying.

Yes, the ones I'm speaking of I am privy to the
details (know the families), and I was speaking of
scholarship money. A good half of them are getting
some kind of scholarship that is merit related in one
way or another. As for amounts, the individual scholarships
vary depending on where they're going and which scholarship,
but range from around $1000 to $4-5k.

As I was saying... a drop in the bucket. (Not going to sneeze at it,
but... )

A number of these
scholarships were not awarded by the college. They were
things they applied for separately (which often cause
the college to readjust their awards, but if they're
taking the place of loans, the kids are still ahead to
get the other scholarships).

The college planner said this is a big misconception many parents have,
when planning for college. Most of these scholarships are paltry
amounts, like $600-1000, enough to buy a semester's worth of books.

Certainly there are a lot of these little
scholarships around. On the other hand, they do
add up! I definitely wouldn't (and don't) assume
that my kids will be able to rely on scholarship income
alone to make college feasible. I do think it likely
that with work, they'll be able to land some, which
seems in line with the experiences of local families
I know who've had graduating seniors over the last
few years.

Right. But in the end, no, the extracurriculars are probably costing
more than the amount you get back in scholarships! This is what I don't
think parents realize, when they sign junior up for all this stuff
because it'll help with the college applications or land him
scholarships. It's a gamble. Me? Unless my kid 1) truly has a gift, AND
2) is self-motivated to pursue that gift (passion), whether I support
him or not), then I'm all for opting for balance instead.


Do you really think that most teen jobs give
a good sense of whether or not kids want to be involved
in business?

Not those who've never held a part-time job.

Most of what I see and do in business
are things that most HS kids wouldn't even come into
contact with. I'm sure some jobs are like that, but
it would surprise me if very many have a lot of
exposure to, say, the sorts of things you'd likely
do with a BBA.

Most teen jobs teach the most important thing of all: the customer is
always right. :-)

Seriously, anyone with an MBA who's never worked in retail or held a
fast-food job is lacking some important experience, IMO. I'm in
marketing, and I can definetly say that my part-time mall jobs gave me
some good insights I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. You can study
marketing from a book, or work in an office... but you don't really
know marketing until you've been on the front-lines serving or selling
to the customer.

jen

toto wrote:

Yes, but why are only *competitive* schools options? There are plenty
of really good small colleges where scholarship money *is* still
available for good SAT scores and good grades, I believe. Sure, if
only Harvard, Yale and MIT are options, you may be right. But there
are other schols that educate kids well and actually unless you are
going into a field that requires the *old boy* network, I don't think
that most companies are necessarily going to look unfavorably on you
if you graduate from a bit lesser known school.

Very true, and to clarify, the reason I specifically sought out this
college planner to inquire about private colleges is because we live in
Boston and the kids have had a lot of exposure to Harvard, MIT, BC,
etc, since we take them out and about often to events and activities in
our local area. DD11 has already said MIT is her pick; DD13 has her eye
on Harvard or BC.

A lot could change the next few years, of course, as they are looking
at this through young eyes, and a lot depends on what they decide to
study, but I felt it was good to think it all through financially, just
in case!! Especially since their teachers have said if they keep up
their current level of performance, it is likely they would get in to
any of these places.

I've told my kids that college will be a joint decision. There will be
only so much $ - they will have to decide ultimately whether if they
want to go someplace like Harvard, they are willing to take on loans,
work, and/or live at home to swing it. I suspect one or both will want
to go on for an advanced degree, and they've already been told that the
money set aside will either have to last through that, or they'll have
to find their own way. There would be trade-offs. Ultimately, however,
if they got in and they really wanted to go, and they were fully aware
of the trade-offs and willing to make them, I wouldn't steer them away.


They're smart kids and I expect them to thoroughly analyze all their
options and make the right decision for them. Which could, of course,
be nowhere near us and far, far away ...

At any rate, I went to a state school and I did just fine! I do have a
plan when they're a bit older to take them back to my alma mater so
they get some exposure to that option too. Unfortunately, if they
attended it, the out-of-state tuition is nearly as bad. :-)

jen

Rosalie B. wrote:
All three girls ended up (eventually) at large universities,

I did too, and as I said, I really can't complain how things worked
out. I'm doing well.

With that said...

I had no idea what I wanted to do at the time. A large university
seemed like the right choice because that way I could experiment and
have a wealth of options to decide from. Once I did decide, however, it
turned out my field (English) was not a strength at this university! So
in the end, had I known from the beginning that was what I'd major in,
then I would have chosen a completely different school.

I honestly wouldn't mind if my kids are on the fence having them take a
year or two off before college to explore their options. Work, travel
the world, whatever. Especially travelling the world: I think such
experience is invaluable and better to do it while you're young. Maybe
take a few courses at community college just to explore options. I
think *ideally* one should only go to college once one knows what they
want to major in. Especially today, with the costs being so darn high.

Unfortunately, it's impractical because if the kids took a year off
they'd not be covered under my health insurance. :-( Therefore, the
next-best-bet is to give them exposure to lots of possibilities before
they graduate HS. Take them traveling. Encourage them to work (paid
positions or unpaid). Take them into the office. Take them to see a
lab, if research science is a possibility. Have them candy-stripe if
healthcare is a possibility. Etc....

I think such opportunities may even be more valuable than participating
in extracurriculars such as dance, theater, music, sports... things
that few people actually end up doing for a living!

jen

shinypenny wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
I'm sure they did to some extent, but he also
seems to be a very balanced kid and in the newspaper
article about him he says that he enjoys spending time
with his family, so it doesn't sound to me like family
time was eliminated from his life (nor did he compromise
his academics, as he's an A student). I don't know his
family personally. I do know another family from the
area with a star athlete (Olympic), and they certainly
made some sacrifices, but they are also a very close
knit family who spend a significant amount of time
together (or at least they did before the kids were
all adults and living in other parts of the country
for school or jobs). So, I don't believe that pursuing
a passion, even at an elite level, necessarily means
giving up a reasonable amount of family time.

Well, for example, I could've put DD in gymnastics at age 5 when they
suggested she had olympic potential. Since I work full-time, she'd have
had to attended practice in the evenings. That would have been the type
of commitment that would've definetly interfered with family dinners
and required all other family members to bend around her schedule.
Something would've had to give to make that sort of commitment work -
whether sleep or chores or friendships.

The lovely thing about music is that the practicing
is typically done at home, so while there are the weekly
lessons and the occasional ensemble rehearsals and concerts
outside of school, the practicing can be done pretty much
anytime the noise won't disturb others (and percussionists
can save some work to be done on a quiet practice pad, though
not all of it by a long shot). I spent a *LOT* of time on
music as a teen, but it didn't have nearly as much impact
on our family schedule as something like gymnastics would.
(Not that I'm suggesting no one should do competitive
gymnastics--just saying that music is easier schedule-
wise than a lot of other options.) The family we know
with the Olympic athlete did have to make more accommodations,
but they *were* able to do so. I don't have a problem with
making accommodations. I have a problem when it's not
possible to make accommodations so that the result is that
an important aspect of life is just left out or allowed
to atrophy. E.g., if it works for your family's constraints
to get time via family breakfast rather than family dinner,
hey, more power to you for finding a creative way out of a
bind.

Now maybe if I was a SAHM or could afford a nanny, then DD could manage
by doing gymnastics during afterschool hours and we could've found a
balance. But for those who work, if they're going to put their kids
into something that takes such a dedicated commitment, then finding the
balance you talk about is going to be tough, if not impossible.

I agree. That's one of the reasons I don't work
full time in an office. It makes it much more difficult to
find balance. If I needed to work full time outside the
home, then it would be likely something else in our lives
would have to give. I don't think we could manage some of
the things we do now. I'd make that choice if there was
a need, but at the moment, this is working for us. Life is
full of challenging choices to make. I feel very lucky
and privileged that we are able to make some choices that
aren't possible for others.

You and I've both made the same decision to limit such
extracurriculars; that may also be limiting our kids' abilities to get
a scholarship for excelling in one particular area such as the kid who
is going to Julliard, or a kid who excels at basketball and gets a
sports scholarship, etc. Or the kid who in high school starts his own
business.

I think that when a kid demonstrates talent and
passion and commitment to an activity, one tries to find
a way to support it and still maintain balance. The
overcommitment I work to avoid is the overcommitment
of signing up for all sorts of activities just because
they're all Good Things or because the Joneses do it
or Johnny wants to sample everything under the sun.
If and when you've got a real passion combined with
talent and commitment, then I think that's a different
story and you have to see where those things lead.
It makes it a lot more complicated if you have to find
a way to support a prodigy and still create an appropriate
family life, but it's been done before and will be done
again.

So I suspect the kid from Julliard - no matter what the newspapers said
- had to make some sacrifices to balance along the way. Who knows what
that is. Maybe his parents let him slack off on chores. Maybe he has
few friends. Maybe he's up all hours of the night obsessing about his
grades. We don't know. I know about DD's friend because they're very
close and I'm close to her mom so I hear the stories and I can observe
what really goes on in their family. I worry about the kid burning
out... but at the same time, I also understand her parents making the
sacrifices they have, backing their kid because she truly havs a gift
and a passion to pursue that gift. But I don't kid myself into thinking
they have it all... they certainly *don't* have balance!

And it's their family to manage as they please.
I can't speak to the percussion prodigy's family. I know
more about the athlete's family. They all made sacrifices
in that family, but they *DID* manage to maintain a
reasonable balance. Everything gave a little, but nothing
gave out. Did he spend some late nights? Probably. I did
on occasion as a teen as well--but they weren't a regular
feature, and I don't think they were with this family either,
given that they've said that they believe enough sleep is
essential, especially for teen boys who are growing like
weeds and athletes.

I don't think anyone should do activities
just in order to get a scholarship.

I suspect a lot of parents do just that,

Oh, I'm sure they do. I hear them talking! It
drives me nuts. And it's never the kids who seem to
love the activity whose parents are sitting out there
talking about how they're programming little Suzie so
that she'll get into the best schools. It makes me
want to shake them and say, "Can't you see your kid
is miserable in there?!"

On the other hand,
I also don't think kids should be forced into activities
that they don't have any interest in. If my boys are
still dancing well into high school and wanted to continue
it to some degree in college, a scholarship wouldn't
seem all that unlikely to me (obviously, the equation
would be different for girl dancers).

Really? Even if they are only dancing seasonally for the nutcracker? I
would imagine, even if they are boys, that it would take a daily,
year-round commitment for your boys to get a dance scholarship.

? They do dance regularly (twice a week minimum,
more on occasion, several weeks of full day camp in the
summer). However, professional male dancers often don't
*start* dancing until their teens. At this point, it's
just for fun for boys. Yes, they're learning things, but
they could start from nowhere at 13 and still be highly
competitive, if they chose to put in the work. My only
goal at this point is for them to have fun and for them
to be in a program where they're not learning bad habits
and where the faculty are not putting them at risk of
injury. If they choose to continue, the commitment
will likely increase, but the shortage of male dancers
is such that even if they were just good dancers, they
could likely get significant scholarship money at a
school that was maybe a second-tier dance school but a
good school at some other academic area if they wanted
to pursue a double major. The competition among female
dancers is *much* greater, and scholarships are *much*
harder to come by, and it's a real problem to start
"too late."

Beyond that,
even if you aren't elite enough at any particular
activity to get a merit scholarship for that activity
in particular, showing dedication to an interest and
making significant achievements in it plays a significant
role in both admissions and many scholarship applications.

No, it doesn't, or at least not anywhere near what most people think.
That's what I am saying.

I dunno. That certainly doesn't jibe with
what I'm seeing among the college-bound teens I know.
I don't know what most people think, so I don't know
if I'm in line with that or not, but I'm seeing a big
difference between the kids who have some kind of
extracurricular interest they've nurtured and those
who have similar grades but not much beyond academics.

Yes, the ones I'm speaking of I am privy to the
details (know the families), and I was speaking of
scholarship money. A good half of them are getting
some kind of scholarship that is merit related in one
way or another. As for amounts, the individual scholarships
vary depending on where they're going and which scholarship,
but range from around $1000 to $4-5k.

As I was saying... a drop in the bucket. (Not going to sneeze at it,
but... )

Hey, for us, a couple of scholarships in the
$2-3k range would certainly make a difference! It
could mean the difference between saying yes to the
slightly more desired and more expensive school vs.
a slightly less desirable but less expensive school.
(Not that more expensive necessarily equals more
desirable. Obviously, if the more desired school
is less expensive that's a no brainer! ;-) )

The college planner said this is a big misconception many parents have,
when planning for college. Most of these scholarships are paltry
amounts, like $600-1000, enough to buy a semester's worth of books.
Certainly there are a lot of these little
scholarships around. On the other hand, they do
add up! I definitely wouldn't (and don't) assume
that my kids will be able to rely on scholarship income
alone to make college feasible. I do think it likely
that with work, they'll be able to land some, which
seems in line with the experiences of local families
I know who've had graduating seniors over the last
few years.

Right. But in the end, no, the extracurriculars are probably costing
more than the amount you get back in scholarships! This is what I don't
think parents realize, when they sign junior up for all this stuff
because it'll help with the college applications or land him
scholarships. It's a gamble. Me? Unless my kid 1) truly has a gift, AND
2) is self-motivated to pursue that gift (passion), whether I support
him or not), then I'm all for opting for balance instead.

Well, as I said before, I don't believe in
flogging the kids to extracurriculars unless they
have the motivation anyway, so that's pretty much a
moot point for me. My rule is that we don't do stuff
if I have to flog you to get you to go or I don't see
that you are holding up your end of the bargain. You
don't feel like practicing piano? No problem! I can
find other uses for that time and money. Complaining
about going to dance? No problem. You can stay home
and play with your friends if you prefer.
Besides that, the funding is only one aspect.
I assume that my kids will want to *do* something
with their lives. The activities they do and the
schools that they attend and all that are just a
means to achieving their goals in life. It's not
clear what those goals will be in their lives yet,
but on the other hand, the things they choose to do
now are shaping their goals for the future. I think
it's imperative for them to be doing things that they
are passionate about and that they attempt to preserve
the options that might be necessary for them to
achieve their goals in the future. In my case, the
school that best suited my goals was a challenging
one to get into. What a shame it would have been
if I had made it a low priority to be able to
present a competitive application! Now, I might have
"wasted" some effort if it had turned out that the
school that best fit my goals was cheap and easy to
get into, but it didn't work out that way ;-)
Bottom line for me is that I do believe in
supporting a child's passion when they are demonstrating
the ability, motivation, and commitment to it. I just
believe that even in those situations, it is best to
work to find balance. Part of what gives in our family
to do that is that I don't work full time outside the
home. Others might choose differently, but that's what
we choose. Without it, we couldn't support some of the
activities that the kids want to do (and demonstrate
ability, motivation, and commitment to). I'd rather
see them have those opportunities than enjoy the
benefits of me working full time (for both myself
and the family) given the particulars of our situation.
I'm sure I might choose differently if the particulars
of the situation were different.

Do you really think that most teen jobs give
a good sense of whether or not kids want to be involved
in business?

Not those who've never held a part-time job.

Sorry, I'm not understanding what you're
saying here.

Most of what I see and do in business
are things that most HS kids wouldn't even come into
contact with. I'm sure some jobs are like that, but
it would surprise me if very many have a lot of
exposure to, say, the sorts of things you'd likely
do with a BBA.

Most teen jobs teach the most important thing of all: the customer is
always right. :-)

Hmmm...an awful lot of teens working those
jobs don't seem to have learned that lesson yet ;-)

Seriously, anyone with an MBA who's never worked in retail or held a
fast-food job is lacking some important experience, IMO.

Really? Personally, I haven't found it to
be a huge problem in my life ;-)

I'm in
marketing, and I can definetly say that my part-time mall jobs gave me
some good insights I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. You can study
marketing from a book, or work in an office... but you don't really
know marketing until you've been on the front-lines serving or selling
to the customer.

Could be for marketing. That's not my area. It
hasn't really been a problem for me.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer ) writes:
As I mentioned before, I looked up several studies,
with the general consensus being that the average teen needs
9-10 hours of sleep per night, and the "natural" bedtime is
around 11pm.

I disagree. I agree with the author of "Sleep Thieves" who
says the average adults functions best with 10 hours of sleep.
Teens need more. And I don't believe there's a "natural
bedtime" like that. People can adjust to any time zone.
Bedtimes are deeply affected by the use of electric lights
in the evening.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

snip most of post I agree with, or I believe we're close enough it'd
just be quibbling. ;-)


Could be for marketing. That's not my area. It
hasn't really been a problem for me.

What is your area?

jen

Ericka Kammerer ) writes:
Plus, getting
up late on Saturday means that you're actively resetting
your clock much later, making it that much more difficult
to fall asleep at a reasonable hour that night and that
much more difficult to get up when Monday rolls around
again. Part of managing your sleep schedule so that
it doesn't get out of hand and create more of a sleep
deficit means avoiding those wild swings in schedule
where possible.

Exactly. I wonder how much of that supposed
"natural" 11 PM bedtime for teens is caused by
sleeping in on previous days. (Sleeptime can
be shifted later relatively quickly, but it can
take many days to shift it back earlier again.)

"shinypenny" ) writes:
I also have a really hard time handling bicoastal business trips
- the time zone change is a killer.

Which coast are you on? I manage going west a 3 hour
time zone change by staying on my home time zone
schedule. Doesn't work well if you live in the
west, have to come east and are expected to be
at a meeting early in the morning.

shinypenny wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

snip most of post I agree with, or I believe we're close enough it'd
just be quibbling. ;-)


Could be for marketing. That's not my area. It
hasn't really been a problem for me.

What is your area?

Academically, my MBA and PhD specializations
were in information systems. The work I do now is
in quality management and consulting in the design/
implementation of quality management systems. I've
also worked in more technical areas in the past.
My research areas have been mostly in the social
impacts of information systems.

Best wishes,
Ericka