Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:10:03 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   It would be an example of a *good* use of tax money, as it helps
> >   evening
> > out the difference between rich and poor (while still not being outright
> > communism).

> Instead it teaches that conformity is good.  Looking through history, the 
> people who made a real difference were not conformists, in general.

> People need to learn that independent thought is valued, not conformity.

  I was not talking about school uniforms in particular, but providing
students with whatever material they need in general.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4c41e21d$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:10:03 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   It would be an example of a *good* use of tax money, as it helps
> >   evening
> > out the difference between rich and poor (while still not being outright
> > communism).

> Instead it teaches that conformity is good.  Looking through history, the
> people who made a real difference

... for bad as well as good ...

> were not conformists, in general.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:23:16 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4c41e21d$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:10:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   It would be an example of a *good* use of tax money, as it helps
>> >   evening
>> > out the difference between rich and poor (while still not being
>> > outright communism).
> 
>> Instead it teaches that conformity is good.  Looking through history,
>> the people who made a real difference
> 
> ... for bad as well as good ...

But of course - those who are nonconformists can use their powers for 
good or for evil.

But everyone focuses on the evil ones and not the good ones when trying 
to say that conformity is *good*.

>> were not conformists, in general.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:35:39 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:10:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   It would be an example of a *good* use of tax money, as it helps
>> >   evening
>> > out the difference between rich and poor (while still not being
>> > outright communism).
> 
>> Instead it teaches that conformity is good.  Looking through history,
>> the people who made a real difference were not conformists, in general.
> 
>> People need to learn that independent thought is valued, not
>> conformity.
> 
>   I was not talking about school uniforms in particular, but providing
> students with whatever material they need in general.

I would like to see teachers paid a living wage here in the US, that'd be 
a good start.  Too often we hear about teachers who don't get paid well 
enough to begin with that they have to work a second job of some sort, 
and then we hear that they have to take their own hard-earned money and 
invest in classroom supplies for their students.  *That's* certainly not 
right.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah, that would make more sense. At my uni we were given the impression
>> "if you don't have this book, you'll fail".

We were never given that impression, in fact books were rarely mentioned.

> If the homework assignments are in the book, well, you can't do the
> homework without the book.

At school this was the case, and they always had enough copies of the 
textbook at school to give out to each student (you had to give them all 
back though before you got your final grade).  At University the homework 
questions were just photocopied sheets written by the lecturers rather than 
from a book.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:00:45 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake thusly:

> Warp wrote:
>> the government provides the students with the material they need
>
> Interestingly, my understanding is that "school uniforms" are usually  
> *not* paid for by the government, and the point of the uniforms is to  
> avoid distinguishing wealthy from poor. If everyone buys the same  
> clothes, there's no way to have a status symbol your parents bought for  
> you in that way.
>
> I may be completely mistaken about this, mind.

In theory that's partially correct, however there are normally only two  
unique items in a uniform - the tie and a school patch. Everything else is  
generic and just states 'shirt - blue/white, trousers/skirt - black' so  
you'll still get some kids turning up in Asda/Wal-Mart trousers and some  
in designer ones.

As for the unique items it's often a single store that's given permission  
to sell them and as a result they can charge what they like knowing the  
parents have to buy them. I was speaking to a parent who complained they  
didn't sell a patch itself, just the jackets with the badge already  
affixed and the silly money they wanted for it compared to a supermarket  
own-brand jacket.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> As for the unique items it's often a single store that's given permission  
> to sell them and as a result they can charge what they like knowing the  
> parents have to buy them.

  There should always be a very good reason for a state-enforced monopoly.
Is that the case here?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 19/07/2010 2:57 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> In theory that's partially correct, however there are normally only two
> unique items in a uniform - the tie and a school patch. Everything else
> is generic and just states 'shirt - blue/white, trousers/skirt - black'
> so you'll still get some kids turning up in Asda/Wal-Mart trousers and
> some in designer ones.
>

That is one of the good things about modern school uniforms (jumper and 
trousers or skirts), they are cheap. They look sloppy by comparison, though.

> As for the unique items it's often a single store that's given
> permission to sell them and as a result they can charge what they like
> knowing the parents have to buy them. I was speaking to a parent who
> complained they didn't sell a patch itself, just the jackets with the
> badge already affixed and the silly money they wanted for it compared to
> a supermarket own-brand jacket.
>

IRRC It tends to be the better schools that go down that road, giving 
sole permission to expensive retailers. And it is not compulsory for 
children to wear uniforms if their  parents object.
I would liked to have seen my school enforce wearing them. LOL

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> What precisely does "going steady" actually mean anyway?

 From your other postings, it is something outside of your experience.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

>> What precisely does "going steady" actually mean anyway?
> 
>  From your other postings, it is something outside of your experience.

Sure. But books and films probably make more sense if you understand the 
term.

Post a reply to this message