School Uniforms? Yay or Nay?
Yes (Went to a School that required uniform)
36.4% (285)
36.4% (285)
No (Went to a School that required uniform)
17.4% (136)
17.4% (136)
Yes (Did not go to a School that required uniform)
12.9% (101)
12.9% (101)
No (Did not go to a School that required uniform)
29.4% (230)
29.4% (230)
Other (Please specify)
3.1% (24)
3.1% (24)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Your opinion on School Uniforms.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Joccaren:

I'm merely resetting them to what they originally were. This discussion was never "I can express myself more with custom clothes than with a school uniform", it was "You don't need custom clothes to express yourself".

And that's still a load of crap. As we already established there's only so much you can express through a uniform vs. any combination of text and images and style.

Joccaren:

If it's a restrictive rule that the schools don't need then as a general rule of thumb it's better to not have it.

Restrictive rules that society doesn't need;
Legal Drinking Age

Alcohol can kill if you drink too much, plus it'll damage young bodies.

Joccaren:

Age at which you can start learning to Drive

Are you serious? We have restrictions on who can drive a car because cars can kill others and cause massive property damage.

Joccaren:

Different pricing's for different ages at cinemas and such

I'm fairly certain that's not the law just the rules the cinema sets up.

Joccaren:

Age restrictions on movies and videogames

The only age restrictions we have are for porn.

Joccaren:

However, you will find that a great number of people think that the positives of these restrictions outweigh the negatives, and it is the same for school uniforms. You don't NEED any of these rules, but there are advantages to having them.

I can't think of a single advantage to them. Every type of clothing you wish to ban can be banned with a dress code which is much less restrictive. It won't stop bullying it won't stop clique forming and it probably won't slow it down much. The only positives I cna think of is the subjective 'feel like a team' bit that not everyone feels anyway.

Joccaren:

You admitted that there are ways to express yourself with clothing that can't be done with school uniforms so they limit expression. Next you counter with 'students don't need it' which is a weak excuse because schools don't need the uniforms.

I also emphasised that clothing is the least important part of expressing yourself, and you don't need to be able to wear your own clothing to do so, thus matching the original quote's stance of "If you do need clothes to express your personality, you don't have one".

Will you please stop spouting your opinion like it's fact. Also your counter to "some personalities can't be expressed with uniforms" is "well those aren't worth expressing". You don't see that as pompous and arrogant?

Joccaren:

[quote]
I also counter with "Students don't need it" as it shows how absolutely weak your own "School's don't need it" complaint is.

Students don't need it and schools don't need it. You cannot use 'you don't need it' as a reason to put up arbitrary rules. Even if they didn't need it to express whatever they want, so what. That's a weak excuse to bring out uniforms. How about the cost of these things?

Dijkstra:

Strazdas:
It makes me sad to live on a planet where majority of youth think school uniforms are acceptable....

Uh... and why are they so terribly unacceptable?

limits people choices, their ability to be unique, sends a message of, for lack of better expression, being jut another brick in the wall, is overly expensive, often poorly designed, does not fit the temperatural changes (or you need to ahve like 20 different uniforms) and automatically associates you with an institution. just to begin with.

ShockValue:

Still not fun in winter though...

School uniforms are fun anytime of the year... though there's a good chance that we're not thinking of the same kind of fun... :p

Father Time:
And that's still a load of crap. As we already established there's only so much you can express through a uniform vs. any combination of text and images and style.

And there's only so much that you can express with text and images vs personality, actions, attitude, speech quirks and everything else in your life. I don't know why you insist on using clothes as the ONLY way anybody could EVER express themselves, because its not. Its not necessary to express yourself, and if you can't express yourself without a certain set of clothes you have nothing to express. Its not "School Uniforms vs Free Dress" its "Clothes vs Everything else".

Alcohol can kill if you drink too much, plus it'll damage young bodies.

2 possible responses to this:
We don't need to ensure the safety of other people. Let them live how they want and let natural selection take its course.
The same argument as the guns argument that keeps coming up, and has been proven when alcohol was made illegal; If people want alcohol, they'll get it. They'll get it illegally, however, if there is a restriction in their way however. We don't need a pointless restriction that really stops nothing.

Are you serious? We have restrictions on who can drive a car because cars can kill others and cause massive property damage.

I never said anything about no restrictions on who can drive, I said the restrictions on the AGE at which people can start LEARNING to drive. Why does it need to be 16? Why not 12 and let them have years more experience behind the wheel? So long as their parents believe they're able to drive, let them start to learn.
Also, there's the thing with not needing to stop natural selection again.

I'm fairly certain that's not the law just the rules the cinema sets up.

Never said they had to be laws, only unneeded things that restrict society.

The only age restrictions we have are for porn.

2 points:
1. There is an MA15+ rating that requires you to be over 15 to be allowed to watch said content [As opposed to the simple M 15+ rating which is just a guideline. Its stupid, I know, but that's the way it is - at least over here] and an R18+ rating for things that are only allowed to be watched by people 18 and over, and this is not exclusive to porn.
2. Why restrict porn? Because people at the age of consent aren't old enough to watch people doing it? Because it'll corrupt the children? Again, people will watch it if they want to watch it, restrictions or no, and the choice should come down to the individuals or their parents, not the law, in this regard.

I can't think of a single advantage to them. Every type of clothing you wish to ban can be banned with a dress code which is much less restrictive. It won't stop bullying it won't stop clique forming and it probably won't slow it down much. The only positives I cna think of is the subjective 'feel like a team' bit that not everyone feels anyway.

Again, the subjective thing of fitting in. There is also reduced bullying and clique forming, no it doesn't stop it but it does reduce it. There is easy identification on field trips and interschool events, school pride for those who are into that sort of thing, a unified image for the school's publicity and others. There are positives to the system, if there weren't nobody would use it.
Additionally, banning only certain items whilst leaving a free range for people to choose from removes some of these benefits, which is why such a method is not used.

Will you please stop spouting your opinion like it's fact. Also your counter to "some personalities can't be expressed with uniforms" is "well those aren't worth expressing". You don't see that as pompous and arrogant?

No. Uniforms alone aren't enough to express some personalities, but neither is any set of clothes you could ever find. Where you're personality is expressed from is your actions, mannerisms, behaviour, expressions, body language, attitude - basically, by you living.
When I see someone wearing an ACDC shirt I don't instantly go "That guy's someone who drives a Ute and does tradie work with a buzz cut, and has his music blaring at full volume the whole ride" because 99% of the time I'd be wrong. I look at how they behave, how they interact with other people, what their body language is, how they speak and everything else about them, and from that I determine who they are. Why your clothes say means fuck all towards your personality. You could be wearing clothes straight, you could be wearing them ironically, you could be being forced to wear them. They aren't what expresses who you are to people. Who you are is what expresses that, and that's what I've been saying all along. You are never just the personality your clothes puts forward, and that is why its not a matter of "Some personalities can't be expressed with uniforms". Clothes alone aren't what express your personality, they merely accentuate it. With a uniform and everything else in your life you can express yourself almost as much as you can with any clothes and everything else in your life. Its not that Uniform's can't express far more than clothes, but that clothes express nowhere within the same galaxy the amount of your personality that the rest of your life does. Whether you realise it or not, your clothes mean nothing as to who you are. I'll look at someone walking by, take a picture, and send you links to the clothes they are wearing in a shop's brochure. You tell me who they are. No, you don't get to see them wearing the clothes - just the clothes. This is my point - clothes aren't your personality. They are like the candles on a birthday cake, they bring attention to the cake, but they aren't part of it.

Students don't need it and schools don't need it. You cannot use 'you don't need it' as a reason to put up arbitrary rules. Even if they didn't need it to express whatever they want, so what. That's a weak excuse to bring out uniforms. How about the cost of these things?

You also can't use "You don't need it" as a reason to arbitrarily pull down rules. As much as "They don't need it to express whatever they want" is a weak excuse to bring out uniforms, "They need it to express whatever they want" is also a weak excuse to push back uniforms.
As for price, as I've said previously that is one of the primary negatives of school uniforms. I've been at both ends of the spectrum on this, a school wear I got 3 sets of the winter and summer uniform for just over $100, and a school where a single set of the entire uniform cost me $700. IMO if a school is going to charge an exorbitant amount for its uniform it can fuck the hell off and pay for it itself, meanwhilst cheaper school uniform's aren't as much of a problem.
That also falls onto the onus of the parent though: If you can't stand the cost of those school uniforms, don't go to that school.

I went to a school which required uniform, and I don't really have a problem with them, but Japanese uniforms look far superior. In the UK they are mostly ugly, drab affairs.

Not a fan of my schools uniform but ive gotten use to it,It really has no significance and there has been talk of getting rid of it but I don't think thats going to go anywhere before I leave.

Sacman:

ShockValue:

Still not fun in winter though...

School uniforms are fun anytime of the year... though there's a good chance that we're not thinking of the same kind of fun... :p

We aren't but you obviously knew that already.

Joccaren:
-SNIP-

Will you stop with the 'if you can't express it through clothing you don't have it' it's BS and arrogant. I can put Shakespeare on a shirt or Carlin or any other great writer, not with a damn uniform.

Also please provide evidence uniforms cut down on bullying and cliques. Those things rarely revolve around clothes.

This is getting tiring, I keep pointing out the fact that they cut down on ways to express yourself and your response is always some variation of 'well they don't need it to express themselves' even after we both agreed it's a weak excuse.

It's a point against uniforms so just live with it.

Father Time:
Will you stop with the 'if you can't express it through clothing you don't have it' it's BS and arrogant. I can put Shakespeare on a shirt or Carlin or any other great writer, not with a damn uniform.

That's not what I'm saying. That's what you seem to be saying. I am saying that if you can't express who you are without wearing a certain set of clothing, its not who you are. You can put all the Shakespeare you like on your shirt, doesn't mean anything. Doesn't make you Shakespeare, doesn't make you a great writer, doesn't make you philosphical, doesn't mean you like English, doesn't mean you like Shakespeare - it means nothing without the context of WHY you are wearing it, which is given by everything else you display to the world. No matter what you put on your shirt it doesn't change who you are, it highlights it for those who can tell, but only if you're expressing who you are through some other means.
As an example, I have a friend who put a Shakespeare quote on his shirt one time. One of the students heavily into English and Literature at the time came across and asked him if he liked Shakespeare, as he had Shakespeare on his shirt. His response was that he hated Shakespeare, and he wore that quote ironically as it was one of the most pretentious things he'd ever heard. Just having Shakespeare on your shirt means a grand total of nothing. This is why something that you can't express without clothing doesn't exist - it expresses nothing without the proper context, which can only be expressed outside of the clothing.

Also please provide evidence uniforms cut down on bullying and cliques. Those things rarely revolve around clothes.

Anecdotal evidence of myself, friends and family. I doubt you'd believe that though.
If you'd provide evidence for your claim that it doesn't cut down bullying, that would also be prudent, as presently we are left with "It may or may not cut down on bullying", as I'm guessing we've both got Anecdotal evidence for each.

This is getting tiring, I keep pointing out the fact that they cut down on ways to express yourself and your response is always some variation of 'well they don't need it to express themselves' even after we both agreed it's a weak excuse.

We agreed on the condition that "Its cutting out ways to express yourself" is also a weak argument.

It's a point against uniforms so just live with it.

And this is where the tiring part largely arises. From my first quote I haven't been arguing that its not a point against uniforms, or that a school uniform is comparable to your own clothes in what you can accentuate with it. I've been arguing that your original statement of:

Father Time:

immovablemover:
Went to a school with a uniform, would recommend it.

Yeah yeah "But it stifles people's individuality!" blah blah bullshit. Beyond the simple point that you're at school, not at the mall you goddamn hippy, anyone who requires specific clothing to express their "Personality" doesn't have one.

You honestly believe this? This is probably the stupidest thing I've heard on the subject.

Yeah nobody can express themselves through clothing, it's impossible and your personality never makes you more likely to dress a certain way. [/sarcasm]

Is incorrect in regards to what was stated. If you NEED that clothing to express your personality, you have no personality. Its not a matter that you can't express yourself through clothing, its a matter that what you can express is meaningless and worth nothing if you can't express it without the clothing.
If you want to argue that that is an irrelevant point, go ahead, it is, however, IMO, true.

Rossco64:
But those really aren't problems caused by uniforms per say, but rather problem caused by asinine rules regarding uniform. If your school had been less strict and the uniforms were affordable do you think your opinion would be the same?

Fuck no. Education, particularly public primary and secondary education, should come with as few restrictions as possible. It is unlikely that a uniform will ever be cheaper than regular clothes, as practical or as comfortable. I don't particularly care about expression, rather the hindrance it is on study. Furthermore, uniforms are just further distractions that teachers must police (or deal with backlash from higher-ups for not policing, as the case is occasionally) and another point of discrimination amongst peers - which I'll touch on again below.

Rossco64:
But it isn't though. Yes many people, such as yourself, have posted that they never experienced or witnessed clothes related bullying, but just as many people have posted that they have experienced or witnessed it which means it does happen. Just because you never experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hell I never experienced it (aside from maybe a bit of "boyish" banter on non uniform days) but I know it happens because kids are ass-holes. All of them, even the nice ones. Most of them don't realize it, they're not emotionally mature enough, and if they did they'd probably feel bad, but they're still ass-holes. Uniforms just get rid of one less thing for them to be ass-hoes about.

Oh, I have seen clothes related bullying - it's just not restricted to non-uniform clothes. What is bullshit is the idea that simply forcing everybody to wear one set of clothes is going to stop this. As I said in my previous post, that you seem to have skipped over, is I've seen people harassed for their uniform. Clothes don't hang right? Can't afford to replace those pants with worn knees? You're that kid with second hand uniform? Oh, you had to stitch up the uniform that is coming apart? Yeah, no. In your own words, kids are assholes. Changing your clothes doesn't remove something to be bullied about, it just gives them something else to bully you for. Kids are assholes, if they want to bully they will bully regardless of what you're wearing.

Rossco64:
But seriously though, I really do feel for you having to put up with those kind of rules and expenses. We used to get the whole "wear the uniform like this" shtick all the time, although everyone just seemed to ignore it. I heard they got stricter for a while after I left but the heads seemed to have given up judging by what my sister wears.Regarding the expenses, does Australia not have laws stating mandatory school uniforms must be made affordable within public schools? We got those here (well in Scotland at least, not sure about the rest of the UK).

Oh, I ignored it like most people. I was frequently pulled out of class or stopped by teachers who felt like venting at some kid. I was told on several occasions that I'd be suspended if I didn't replace my certain parts of my uniform that were very worn (but hey, it only happened once!). I was told to leave the high school several times because I "refused to conform" because my shoes weren't in the style they wanted (which wasn't in the uniform policy, mine were still black leather shoes). Go figure. As for whether or not there are laws dictating the price of clothes, I assume there are for public schools but the biggest problem by far was how quickly these clothes would wear out - and the "non-mandatory" clothes like jumpers (which you still needed if you felt like surviving the winter) cost a fortune.

Given that I am more or less limited to cotton, velvet, leather, and silk in terms of what does not cause my skin to break out in welts, eczema, and rashes I tend to think that only I should dictate what I can and cannot wear. My work vest says 100% cotton but I have to always wear an authenticated cotton shirt under my authenticated cotton shirt to avoid breaking out from contact with my vest with claims to be 100% cotton.

Nope. Don't go to a school with a uniform and would never want to. I wont send my hypothetical kids to a school with one either.

Joccaren:

We agreed on the condition that "Its cutting out ways to express yourself" is also a weak argument.

I never agreed to this.

Father Time:

Joccaren:

We agreed on the condition that "Its cutting out ways to express yourself" is also a weak argument.

I never agreed to this.

That was the condition on me agreeing with "Well they don't need it to express themselves" being a weak argument:

As much as "They don't need it to express themselves" is a weak excuse to bring out uniforms, "They need it to express whatever they want" is also a weak excuse to push back uniforms.

I put them on the same level of weakness. If you say that that is me agreeing that "They don't need it to express themselves" is a weak argument, that means you have agreed that "Its cutting out ways to express yourself" is too - as I agreed to put them on equal footing.

Canadian here, and I've never once seen a school with a uniform before. There were some murmurings of it when I was at high school, but almost every single person who weighed in on the topic was against it, so they dropped the idea.

Personally, I think I was happier without it. I tend to just put on whatever the first thing I find is, and having to digging through all my shit to find a uniform that was still clean would've been a right pain first thing in the morning.

There was still a dress code, of course, but it was very loose.

I bloody loved mine. Blazers are brilliant, pockets everywhere!
Also, in terms of the seasons, you just take off the blazer when its hot and wear a coat when its cold. its not rocket science.

Personally, I'm ambivalent towards them. I like them, but it wouldn't bother me to not have had them or to send my theoretical future children to a school without one. I really can't understand why some people are so against them.

I went to a school that required uniforms.

To this day still can't see the point in the slightest - I then went on to a college that required no uniform. The world did not come to an end, nobody got bullied for dressing differently, and people seemed to do about as well on exams as anybody who attended a school with uniforms...

So. Yeah, it's a no from me... But realistically I don't care any more, doesn't affect me.

Edit - a quick browse of this thread indicates that a lot of people are upset about the stolen 'individuality' of uniforms. This makes me laugh, and actually kinda change my mind if only because school uniforms apparently pisses that kind of person off.

As if expressing ones individuality through clothing is really that fucking important in a learning environment.... The whole "It represents anti-individualism and strict adherence to authority." is the sort of nonsense I'd expect an NRA member to come out with when explaining why if you took guns away from Americans, the king of England would come and start pushing them around again. Or from people against the idea of universal healthcare in America because it's a form of communism, and commies are bad... If anything it's an interesting demonstration that the left-wing has, if anything, the same paranoia and fears over 'government control' that their right-wing nemesis' have.

Or, y'know, something...

As a person that's went to a few differently high schools, none of which had uniforms, I'll just say that it's unlikely that putting a uniform on will stop obnoxious idiots who spend daddy's money on expensive shit from noticing you aren't as well off as them. If you talk with people, you will learn how well off they are, and the people that try to cover it up will fail before too long.

Of course, I've always been more of an outcast, and completely fine with it. In the bigger schools, people realized I was not a nice guy, without me having to even get into fights, so they left me alone. Honestly, I liked my little small town school the best. Everybody knew everybody, and everyone was practically in the same money bracket. The only thing that was annoying was that rednecks have a tendency to be idiots at times, and even then there's a few of them I have a healthy respect for.

Let me Google Scholar this for you: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=school+uniforms&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31

Just a precursory glance reveals numerous peer-reviewed articles lauding mandatory school uniforms.

Now; the subjective, anecdotal evidence. I had them, I liked them, and you're virtually always going to have a "uniform" in life. Whether you like it or not. If you work on Wall Street, it'll be a suit and tie. Even if you work as a video game programmer, your uniform could be sweatpants and flip-flops 'cause that's the office culture and consequently, formalwear would be seen negatively by your colleagues.

I don't like a mandatory dress code, but it serves a practical purpose: You know what the students are equipped for (Including things like workshop work), teachers can tell students from non-students easily, making intruders easier to identify, and making it harder for students to wander outside of supervision.

They make sense, but you don't have to like it. Fortunately, where I come from they're pretty much always:

Male: 1 colour button up shirt
1 or 2 colours of polo shirt
rugby jumper
polar fleece jumper
pants or shorts of specific colour

Female: 1 colour blouse
1 or 2 colours of polo shirt
rugby jumper
polar fleece jumper
pants, shorts, skirt etc
dress.

So at least the stuff was practical. I feel sorry for people who get shafted into wearing daft uniforms which are uncomfortable, or useless.

School uniforms are a load of bollocks. Most people are forced into conformity eventually anyway when they enter into employment, so why not let them express themselves through clothing choice in childhood and adolescence? I'm rather glad we don't have this kind of nonsense here in Germany.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked