On Analog Clocks

Rachelle Hampton, writing for Slate:

The fact that analog clocks have managed to stand the test of time in an increasingly digitized world is a bit of a wonder. While there may be nothing quite as charming as the quiet tick of a watch, the fact that teachers are adapting to the fact that a fair number of teenagers can’t read an analog clock isn’t another sign of corruption in The Youth. It means, as Nobel Prize Winner Bob Dylan once wrote, that times are a-changing. It doesn’t make sense for a teacher to waste precious class time to teach teenagers how to read an analog clock just so they can tell time during an exam. And if students can’t read traditional clock faces with relative ease by the time they’re sitting for exams, it means one of two things: Somewhere down the line their teacher prioritized other knowledge over doing countless worksheets on telling time, or they’ve just forgotten something they learned in elementary school once they tested out of that grade.

Kids in America who learn under Common Core standards are required to be taught how to read an analog clock in first or second grade; if kids in the U.K. are taught around the same time than it wouldn’t be entirely surprising to learn that they forgot how to do so by the time they’re teenagers. With the sheer amount of stuff kids are expected to know once state exams roll around, it’s understandable that they’d get a bit rusty on something they’re not using every day.

One of my saved watch faces on my Apple Watch is one of the analog ones. I like to think using an "old" way to tell time on a 21st century computer on my wrist is a bit whimsical, and it's cool. I was born in 1981, so I grew up with analog clocks; I know how to tell time. Digital clocks are fine too, but I'm comfortable reading the clock's hands.

One amusing aspect to analog clocks versus digital ones, at least in my experience, is how young people (read: teens and twentysomethings) don't understand "approximate" time. For example, if someone asks me what time it is and it's 3:15, more often than not I'll say it's "quarter after." Likewise, if it's 3:45, I'll say it's "quarter to." When I use these phrases, it seems to throw off people—I think most people nowadays are used to exact numbers. To them, it's not "ten to 4," it's "3:50." Digital timepieces have set the expectation for getting exact numbers as opposed to abstract (albeit correct) phrases.

Maybe I'm showing my age. My grandma told time this way, so I guess I picked it up subsconsciously.

(via The Loop)