spent on lighting, thus conserving fuel for the war effort. A few years later, Great Britain followed suit. Later during the 1970 oil crisis, many countries, the United States among them, used the daylight saving system to conserve energy.

The idea of changing times to save energy is still a propellant to maintain daylight savings time. But essentially, it is a dead argument. Shifting times according to the sun to save energy might have made sense 100 years ago. But that was when air conditioning did not exist. Back then, more sunlight during the day meant for more play outside and less use of artificial lighting. But nowadays, it means more use of indoor air conditioning. Air conditioning is a huge hog of energy, equivalent in energy consumption to innumerable incandescent light bulbs. More sunlight during the day means more air conditioning.

Additionally, with the rise of fluorescent and LED lights, both of which have much lower energy consumption levels than incandescent bulbs, the need for electricity conservation is negated. So nowadays, with the advent of air conditioning and energy efficient lighting systems, shifting times does not give any advantage to energy consumption.

However, modern studies have shown that daylight savings time does impact energy use; but only by a margin of 1 percent, which averages to about 4 dollars per household in the United States. Already a horse over-beaten, DST is clearly obsolete in the aspect of energy saving. So, with the arguments of energy eliminated, the debate of DST can only be about convenience.

What makes the daylight saving system much more unwieldy is the fact that there is no international standard of daylight saving time, unlike the Greenwich standard time. Only a select few countries use DST, and within this group of countries, “fall back” and “spring forward” dates are not consistent. For example, the United States exited DST on November 5, but the United Kingdom had exited a week earlier on October 30. A month earlier on October 2 Australia, being in the southern hemisphere, had entered DST. So, within a month, these three countries would have their time differences changed three times.

This displays another obsolescence of DST. Back in the early 1900s, there was no need (and no means) to communicate with other time zones instantly. But now in the 21st century, with international companies needing to schedule online meetings, the DST presents a huge stumbling block for already busy businesspeople.

Also, with busy schedules along with restricted sleep schedules, any teen’s sleep cycle can be impacted by the bright rising sun in the morning.

“It messes up my sleeping schedule,” junior Nicole Bakar said.

Bakar also brought up a sad truth about changing clocks, adding “I don’t know how to change the clocks,” referencing the frustration of remembering to change the microwave’s or coffee maker’s clock.

Sophomore Niklas Kedefors has a different take on the issue.

“Our sleep cycles are already screwed up anyway” he blatantly stated, “and [daylight savings time] really makes a difference in the fall.”

But despite opinion, the facts of productivity being impacted by DST are clear, as shown by the New York Times. Statistics show that workplace injuries increase by 6 percent the weekdays after the shift, resulting in a combined loss of 2,600 workdays. Thus, the United States loses an estimated $434 million every year.

There are times when a good idea with good intentions expires. The daylight savings time system is an obvious example of this. Its uses have already been negated with the arrival of air condition and energy efficient appliances, thus leaving behind only its negative aspects of inconvenience. The system has very vague and questionable benefits with very clear downsides that are hurting the nation. Daylight savings time has run its course; it is no longer worth the hassle to get an hour more sunlight. It is only a matter of time before the globalized world realizes that standardization is a must.

Wrestling

February 17, 2017

The wrestling team is off to a powerful start with record of 3-0 so far.

“The wrestlers are doing very well. We have a wide mix of wrestlers, and they are all wrestling to their ability,” coach Eric Botelho said.

“Everyone’s working hard,” said team captain and senior Cole Friedlander.

Friedlander also took the opportunity to explain how matches are scored in a wrestling event. Points are earned by wrestlers for the amount of time they can get the opponent to be in contact with the ground. For example, a near-fall, when the opponent has one shoulder on the ground, will score the offender three points per second the opponent’s shoulder is on the ground. A meet’s winner is decided by adding up all the points scored by a team’s wrestlers.

The wrestling team had a recent tight victory over Terra Nova, who “was the toughest team,” coach Adam Bunzel said. “Now, we are looking good to win the league”.

“It’s great, everyone's working hard,” freshman Kyle Botelho said.

“Our team mentality is the same for every [team we compete against],” Friedlander said. “We believe the hardest working guy wins, and we have that mentality.”

Reported low meaningful participation is a threat to students’ growth

April 21, 2017

The results of last year’s Healthy Kids Survey display an otherwise unobservable and unnoticable side of student sentiment at Burlingame High School. Among the pages and pages of results, some worth bragging about and some not, was the response percentages of “meaningful participation at school.” Appallingly, the percentage of students reporting having meaningful participation was extraordinarily low, never surpassing 25 percent in any of the demographic, grade or gender groups.

The results mean that at most 25 percent of students think that participation at school is meaningful, meaning that at least 75 percent students think that participation at school is not meaningful.

“I think [that number] is pretty accurate,” Ryan Lowe, a sophomore who took the survey last year, said, reflecting upon his observations as a student in class.

Meanwhile, strangely enough, academic motivation at Burlingame is much higher, by a factor of two to three, reaching 48 percent in some demographics. One might think motivation and participation are directly correlated, but the numbers themselves directly disprove this assumption. The comparatively higher numbers are perplexing, especially when juxtaposed with the low participation numbers.

“It is clear that most students have high motivation to do well,” counselor Karen Latham said. “So students are motivated to do well to make their parents and teachers happy, but not always because they are completely engaged [in what they are learning].”

Sure enough, the percentage of students who expressed “high expectation adults” is higher than all the other percentages, peaking at 62 percent, providing evidence for Latham’s observation.

The implications of this data are chilling.

“The data suggest that they are not always sure what they are doing and how it connects with real life. They can’t connect their learning to real life,” Latham said.

Sophomore and freshmen English teacher Jenna Joseph reflects Latham’s analysis.

“I think students ultimately care about their outcome as in a grade and their future,” Joseph said. “Deep down, every kid wants to succeed, and want to do well, but it is different from in class engagement. The motivation may not translate to day to day in class participation.”

Latham and Joseph’s drawn conclusion is a bleak assumption of students’ mindsets. Unfortunately, their belief is confirmed when corroborated by the honest opinions of students.

“Most people aren’t ever fully engaged, even the good students,” Lowe said. “I think it is a problem. When students are given busy work, they have the mindset of ‘just get it over with’, not really seeing any further.”

The corroboration confirms that students are willing to do the busy work, work for an A in the gradebook, and satisfy the adults. However, at the same time not understand or simply do not see the meaning of what they are doing.

Flatly stated, this “learning” mindset is short-sighted, and a threat to the prospect of future growth. Students who see school as just a day-to-day grind are only blinding themselves to the purpose of school, which arguably is more of “to learn how to learn,” and less so learning facts. It is especially chilling that majority of high school students, as the survey reveals, have yet to see or understand the meaning of learning and experience beyond the letter grade. In an exterior post-high school post-college world, lives are simply judged by social participation and productivity, not graded on a letter scale.

A solution to this seemingly schoolwide issue will only come as the result of collaboration between students and teachers.

“Both students and teachers need to work together,” sophomore Gracy Burdick said. “Students need to care more, and teachers need to be more engaging.”

Teachers also have pressure to reform their classes or style as well, to combat the bipartisan issue.

“There already is a lot of information being taken in by the students, and we as teachers need to identify how it is relevant, and incorporate purpose more, even if takes us outside curriculum,” Joseph said. “I feel like teachers are confined by schedules and standards, sacrificing the space for discussion of importance.”

Whether students find the real world connections themselves or teachers blatantly explain them, the connections must be understood by growing students. Otherwise, students are stranded in their own bubble-like microcosm, forced to assemble and apply what they have “learned” to an exterior real world they cannot connect to.