School Uniforms hypothetical.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So why do you say that uniforms reduce how much the school clothes cost ?

Because obviously your school fucked it up. Simple economic practice: When you buy in bulk, you almost always save money. If a school buys six hundred basic monogrammed shirts and matching pants and distributed them out to the kids at minimal profit, if any, it would cost *far* less per kid than the average full set of school clothes.

Just because some schools can't do something as simple as a basic uniform system correctly is not an indightment of the system, it just shows the school administrative and financial departments are fucking morons...or they're just deliberately screwing the parents out of tons of cash.

[bilateralrope]

You appear to be the exception, it seems. Speaking from my experience, black trousers, a white shirt and black shoes are about as cheap as it gets, clothing-wise. The only uniform-specific item required was the tie - one of those lasted several years.

My school had pretty much the same thing for, except for the school jersey and the PE uniform (which was made out of some fancy material which caused us to really feel the wind).

The other issue I have about the cost argument is that when I went home I changed out of the uniform into other clothes which if there wasn't a uniform, I would of worn to school. Unless the uniform caused a reduction in the cost of those clothes to cover its cost, uniforms will still cost more no matter how cheap they actually cost.

[Cairber]

Uniforms saved my family a lot of money. It was the same shirt and same pants or skirt for the 2 girls and the 2 boys in the fam...wash was made a lot easier because the shirts and bottoms always matched and never needed to be ironed. They could be passed down easily or resold at the school though the uniform company. So really 3 uniform sets each lasted a couple years, and much more for the younger siblings because they got hand downs...and they didn't care that they were hand downs because it's all the same damn thing. Plus the uniforms were always made to withstand tons of washing.

[Cairber]

I should also add that buying them was incredibly cheap and there was the option to buy used, so you could get a full uniform set for like 25$ (pants or skirt, shirt, tie, sweatshirt, and gym uniform)

[Adrian Laguna]

The other issue I have about the cost argument is that when I went home I changed out of the uniform into other clothes which if there wasn't a uniform, I would of worn to school. Unless the uniform caused a reduction in the cost of those clothes to cover its cost, uniforms will still cost more no matter how cheap they actually cost.

That's your problem for being inefficient with your clothing.

[bilateralrope]

That's your problem for being inefficient with your clothing.

So how should I of been efficient with my clothing ?
The clothing I generally wore was basically the cheapest clothes that could be bought new while still fitting me comfortably, and I wore them till they either fell apart or I grew out of them.

Still the extra cost probably wasn't that much (I'll try asking my dad for more exact figures). Since I lived a short walk from the high school, I'd be really surprised if the uniform proved more expensive than taking the bug across town to the other high school. Especially as we got the uniform clothing second hand where possible.

Does anyone have any information on how uniforms actually effect student behaviour and/or academic achievement ?
If there is a significant effect either way, it would make the cost argument irrelevant. So I'm quite willing to completely ignore the cost argument.

[Redleader34]

Ok. I do not like "Uniforms" per say, but I like "Dress Codes" better. My school has a "Dress Code" in which we wear, a Jacket, a button up shirt, a Tie, Dress Pants, and formal leather shoes. We have freedom, with our ties, and shirt color choice. This works better, unless the school system is willing to help subside the cost of uniforms. You can find a "gently worn" jacket and pair of dress pants for 20---30 USD, for example, and cheap, no name shirts for 20 USD for around 5, if you are willing to look. Uniform costs might spiral upwards, otherwise.

[Darth Wong]

Uniforms are a great way of introducing schoolchildren to the rest of their lives, where their appearance will be dictated by their employer, not by MTV. Oops, there I go again, thinking that school is actually supposed to prepare children for the real world ...

[Spin Echo]

Couple that with the fact that a lot of kids will divide themselves into occasionally violently opposed cliques based on the clothes they wear (to stereotype: Rich, polo-wearing preppies, jocks, farm-boys, the grungy poor kids, etc), uniforms remove that source of social exlusivism.

From my experience in schools that require uniforms, you can still tell the rich kids from the poor kids. The rich kids have enough money to have enough uniforms to have a clean one everyday while the poor kids wear the same uniform every day of the week. Besides, I'm sure these cliques still form based on what happens out side of school hours.

I'm not opposed to school uniforms. I just don't think they do much about the cliques that form around societal class.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

From my experience in schools that require uniforms, you can still tell the rich kids from the poor kids. The rich kids have enough money to have enough uniforms to have a clean one everyday while the poor kids wear the same uniform every day of the week.

So? They still wear the same clothes, instead of the rich ones wearing some hundred dollar polos while the poor kids have something off-the-rack at Goodwill. Everyone at least has a more equal starting point to go from, and the bullshit exclusivism that comes from 'Well he's not cool because he can't afford name-brand' doesn't exist.

No one's saying it solves the problem completely, but it does eliminate a few potential sources of it, which is far better than nothing.

Besides, I'm sure these cliques still form based on what happens out side of school hours.

Yes, but it is not nearly as vicious. It doesn't matter if the poor kids can't afford as many uniforms, the whole 'Ha he's wearing different clothes than us' basis for the stupid childhood middle and high school cliques no longer exists.

I'm not opposed to school uniforms. I just don't think they do much about the cliques that form around societal class.

But they are at least a start. It removes different types of clothing as a basis for discrimination and makes everyone work at least a little harder to find differences to hate each other for.

[Molyneux]

Uniforms are a great way of introducing schoolchildren to the rest of their lives, where their appearance will be dictated by their employer, not by MTV. Oops, there I go again, thinking that school is actually supposed to prepare children for the real world ...

All right, then: in the real world, does an employer have the legal right to mandate distinct gender-specific clothing?

[Spin Echo]

From my experience in schools that require uniforms, you can still tell the rich kids from the poor kids. The rich kids have enough money to have enough uniforms to have a clean one everyday while the poor kids wear the same uniform every day of the week.

So? They still wear the same clothes, instead of the rich ones wearing some hundred dollar polos while the poor kids have something off-the-rack at Goodwill. Everyone at least has a more equal starting point to go from, and the bullshit exclusivism that comes from 'Well he's not cool because he can't afford name-brand' doesn't exist.

No one's saying it solves the problem completely, but it does eliminate a few potential sources of it, which is far better than nothing.

No, but they will taunt the poor kid because his clothing is starting to smell because he's worn it for four days this week. Or because it's stained and her family can't afford to buy her a new uniform.

Besides, I'm sure these cliques still form based on what happens out side of school hours.

Yes, but it is not nearly as vicious. It doesn't matter if the poor kids can't afford as many uniforms, the whole 'Ha he's wearing different clothes than us' basis for the stupid childhood middle and high school cliques no longer exists.

You think it won't take kids .05 seconds to find something else to taunt the poor kids about?

I'm not opposed to school uniforms. I just don't think they do much about the cliques that form around societal class.

But they are at least a start. It removes different types of clothing as a basis for discrimination and makes everyone work at least a little harder to find differences to hate each other for.

School uniforms have their uses, avoiding theft, not displaying gang affiliation, avoiding distraction in the classroom. Solving the class divide? I don't buy it. Rich kids will know the rich kids and taunt the poor kids, whether they have school uniforms or not.

[TheKwas]

No, but they will taunt the poor kid because his clothing is starting to smell because he's worn it for four days this week. Or because it's stained and her family can't afford to buy her a new uniform.

Wash your uniform daily, or just have the school provide one uniform and one uniform only.

You think it won't take kids .05 seconds to find something else to taunt the poor kids about?

It will reduce the amount of taunting. Sure they will find other things, but they won't find enough to completely recover what they lost with the clothes issue. The difference will be filled in with more acceptable socializing.

For example, when I was young I had the shittest clothing in my class, and was constantly made fun for it. As I got older, and I complained to my mother more, I got better quality clothes and managed to work my way up the class hiearchy. My clothes essentially became an non-issue and I wasn't harassed by the other kids nearly as much. Does that mean someone else had to take my spot as one of the class jokes? Of course not, Classroom acceptance is not a zero-sum game with an exact amount of teasing going on regardless of all other factors. Some classes are more cohesive, and some are more divided. One person's acceptance into the 'cool club' or the 'normal' club doesn't mean that someone else has to be kicked out.

Uniforms, cēterīs pāribus, will increase classroom cohesion.

School uniforms have their uses, avoiding theft, not displaying gang affiliation, avoiding distraction in the classroom. Solving the class divide? I don't buy it.

I agree, whoever would argue that uniforms would 'solve the class divide' is a total and utter moron. However, no one here has argued that so you're just laying the smack-down on a poor strawman rather than anyone here.

[Spin Echo]

School uniforms have their uses, avoiding theft, not displaying gang affiliation, avoiding distraction in the classroom. Solving the class divide? I don't buy it.

I agree, whoever would argue that uniforms would 'solve the class divide' is a total and utter moron. However, no one here has argued that so you're just laying the smack-down on a poor strawman rather than anyone here.

I'm not arguing it will (or won't) solve the class divide in general. I'm just arguing against Oni's point that people have these violently clashing cliques based on their clothing. People form those cliques anyway, even if they have the same uniforms.

[Adrian Laguna]

That's your problem for being inefficient with your clothing.

So how should I of been efficient with my clothing ?

Not changing your outfit halfway through the day. Though really most the problems you experienced seem to be related to poor implementation on your school's part.

[Invictus ChiKen]

and what the hell is up with the sphere-plus-cone look of the sleeves on the ladies' uniforms?

[EGS Dork]That would be the three sets of tops the girls are given, however they are allowed to where any plain white collared shirt. Just the ones given them for free happen to be bubbled sleeves.[/EGS Dork]

[TheKwas]

I'm not arguing it will (or won't) solve the class divide in general. I'm just arguing against Oni's point that people have these violently clashing cliques based on their clothing. People form those cliques anyway, even if they have the same uniforms.

Of course kids clash socially over clothing and of course kids form cliques anyways. I'm not going to walk you through the entire debate again like a retard but you're still not addressing anything brought up by Oni.

[Solauren]

With the exception of religious schools (where the parents would back the school anyway), all the school uniforms I'm aware of said the girls could wear the skirt or the pants.

My cousins went to private french emersion schools and that was the case.

[Colonel Olrik]

Uniforms are a great way of introducing schoolchildren to the rest of their lives, where their appearance will be dictated by their employer, not by MTV. Oops, there I go again, thinking that school is actually supposed to prepare children for the real world ...

All right, then: in the real world, does an employer have the legal right to mandate distinct gender-specific clothing?

"David, we have a business meeting tomorrow, but it's OK if you wear a skirt, I'm sure our clients won't find it minimally weird and I won't be forced to fire your sorry ass".

[Darth Wong]

Uniforms are a great way of introducing schoolchildren to the rest of their lives, where their appearance will be dictated by their employer, not by MTV. Oops, there I go again, thinking that school is actually supposed to prepare children for the real world ...

All right, then: in the real world, does an employer have the legal right to mandate distinct gender-specific clothing?

Grow the fuck up. In the real world, they don't even have to lay out a formal dress code for you. If you look unprofessional every day, your boss will just call you into the office one day and tell you to either smarten the fuck up or get the fuck out. Or he might even just get rid of you without ever telling you that it was your clothing. Non-conformism is for intellectuals and hobby pursuits. At your job, you fucking well conform, or you're out the door.

And yes, I know that in the 90s during the Dot-Com boom, many Silicon Valley businesses prided themselves on letting their employees do whatever they want. If you happen to work in one of those places, bully for you. Some of them even let you drink at the office on Fridays. But that's just not true for the vast majority of working people in this society.

[Mobiboros]

All right, then: in the real world, does an employer have the legal right to mandate distinct gender-specific clothing?

Uh, yes they do. I work for a bank and every spring we receive the dress code for the coming year (They do it yearly to allow for updates). The men have one set of standards, the women another. Places of work can set a standard of dress and uniform for their employees and that can be gender dependent. No one is being disciminated against as both genders are being given uniforms.

[Molyneux]

Uniforms are a great way of introducing schoolchildren to the rest of their lives, where their appearance will be dictated by their employer, not by MTV. Oops, there I go again, thinking that school is actually supposed to prepare children for the real world ...

All right, then: in the real world, does an employer have the legal right to mandate distinct gender-specific clothing?

Grow the fuck up. In the real world, they don't even have to lay out a formal dress code for you. If you look unprofessional every day, your boss will just call you into the office one day and tell you to either smarten the fuck up or get the fuck out. Or he might even just get rid of you without ever telling you that it was your clothing. Non-conformism is for intellectuals and hobby pursuits. At your job, you fucking well conform, or you're out the door.

And yes, I know that in the 90s during the Dot-Com boom, many Silicon Valley businesses prided themselves on letting their employees do whatever they want. If you happen to work in one of those places, bully for you. Some of them even let you drink at the office on Fridays. But that's just not true for the vast majority of working people in this society.

Are you honestly saying that a woman can't look professional unless she's wearing a skirt? I didn't say thing one about looking unprofessional, I was referring specifically about gender-specific clothing - they make normal, pants-including suits for women, don't they? I do believe they're called "pantsuits".

[Rye]

Uniforms are a great way of introducing schoolchildren to the rest of their lives, where their appearance will be dictated by their employer, not by MTV. Oops, there I go again, thinking that school is actually supposed to prepare children for the real world ...

All right, then: in the real world, does an employer have the legal right to mandate distinct gender-specific clothing?

"David, we have a business meeting tomorrow, but it's OK if you wear a skirt, I'm sure our clients won't find it minimally weird and I won't be forced to fire your sorry ass".

At what point would it become wrong to fire a transexual, I wonder? "Oh, hey, your dick's been inverted, I guess now you can wear a skirt without being fired!"

Anyway, at my school, girls could wear pants just like boys could, AFAIK it's considered pretty backward in general society around here if a school forces a girl to wear a skirt now.

Unfortunately, clothing retailers around here have found that uniforms, especially secondary ones, are mandatory buying for most families so they jack up the prices on stuff like blazers and school badgers; consequentially there's a minor parasitic industry that's cropped up to exploit parents and as such, poor kids are usually identifiable, picked on, etc. I certainly saw it at my school.

Yes, but it is not nearly as vicious. It doesn't matter if the poor kids can't afford as many uniforms, the whole 'Ha he's wearing different clothes than us' basis for the stupid childhood middle and high school cliques no longer exists.

... Right. That's why my group of friends was targeted as the "goth" group and were physically attacked and spat on on several occasions, as well as daily insults.

[Darth Wong]

Are you honestly saying that a woman can't look professional unless she's wearing a skirt?

Obviously, you're not big on the whole "reading" thing. I'm talking about conformism. Like it or not, that's what you do in the business world. I didn't say a damned thing about skirts.

I didn't say thing one about looking unprofessional, I was referring specifically about gender-specific clothing - they make normal, pants-including suits for women, don't they? I do believe they're called "pantsuits".

You make it sound as if "professional" has some kind of objective definition. It doesn't; it's about conforming to the expected presentation. If that happens to include skirts, I'd expect a reasonably smart businesswoman to pay attention to that. If it doesn't, then she wouldn't. Times change, and fashions do too, even in the business world. The point is only that people have to conform to those expectations, and there's no reason not to introduce kids to this fact early on.

[TheKwas]

... Right. That's why my group of friends was targeted as the "goth" group and were physically attacked and spat on on several occasions, as well as daily insults.

...Right, because your acedotal evidences means a foreskin's worth in this debate.

It's common sense. If they have less reason to pick on you, they are going to pick on you less. The kid who has one hole in his shoe gets made fun of less than the kid with two holes in his shoe. A person who has a cheap blazer is going to be made fun of less than the kid with the cheap everything. Uniforms allows a kid to be promoted to 'cheap blazer' kid instead of 'cheap everything'.