Many think that school uniforms help maintain school discipline, decreasing the amount of discipline problems. The argument is that children today are lacking in self-discipline because parents refuse to discipline them. This makes it more difficult on the teacher who has to deal with classes of 25-30 students at a time. Reduces Fighting and Violence: Schools report that school uniforms decrease fighting and violence that arrise out of arguments over fashionable clothes. Children invariably tease those who do not have trendy clothes. Those who can’t afford name brand clothes are often sensitive about their clothing. Schools struggling with gang problems report that school uniforms help ease tensions. Distractions: Many parents believe that students wearing school uniforms look nicer and that a school uniform policy ensures that children will come to school in appropriate clothing, avoiding distractions such as fads considered to be outlandish or overly revealing. Some students have turned school into an unending fashion show.
This disctracts from learning, as some kids spend more time focused on thier clothes than on homework. Values: School uniforms stress that individuality and self-expression are not determined by designer clothing or the latest fashion fad. Low Cost: School uniforms are a bargain. They are becoming far less expensive than many other clothes. Schools argue that school uniforms are economical, especially compared to designer clothing, and parents agree given school uniform durability. They say school uniforms last longer because they are made for repeated wash and wear. Many schools capitalize on this by starting used school uniform stores or swap meets. Parents can get used school uniforms at discount prices, or just use them as hand-me-downs between siblings. School Spirit: Some feel wearing a school uniform helps build school spirit. It instills a feeling of belonging. As the Beach Boys said, “Be true to your school.” Schools report an increase in school pride. Individuality: Supressing individuality is the most commonly cited objection to school uniforms. Educators argue that an academic program encouraging students to pursue individual thought is much more important than what they wear. They inhibit creativity and self-expression, forcing students to conform. Causes Discipline Problems: Some students reject any rules. Forcing them to wear school uniforms only aggravates their rebelious spirit. They alter their school uniform by tightening, widening, shortening, or lengthening them, and teachers are given the impossible task of policing the students on a daily basis. Little or No Relationship to Academics: Opponents insist that their is no credible evidence that school uniforms improve school discipline or promote higher academic acheivement. The principal argument is that some great students are terrible dressers. Dress does not necessarily improve learning. Hall Closet is a supplier of school uniforms to schools around the country.
In January 1921, a daily newspaper in Germany cost 0.30 marks. Less than two years later, in November 1922, the same newspaper cost 70,000,000 marks. All other prices in the economy rose by similar amounts. This episode is one of history’s most spectacular examples of inflation, an increase in the overall level of prices in the economy. In this excerpt from a commencement address, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas makes the case for studying economics. My take on training in economics is that it becomes increasingly valuable as you move up the career ladder. I can’t imagine a better major for corporate CEOs, congressmen, or American presidents. You’ve learned a systematic, disciplined way of thinking that will serve you well. By contrast, the economically challenged must be perplexed about how it is that economies work better the fewer people they have in charge. Who does the planning?
Who decides what to produce? For my money, Adam Smith’s invisible hand is the most important thing you’ve learned by studying economics. You understand how we can each work for our own self-interest and still produce a desirable social outcome. You know how uncoordinated activity gets coordinated by the market to enhance the wealth of nations. You understand the magic of markets and the dangers of tampering with them too much. You know better what you first learned in kindergarten: that you shouldn’t kill or cripple the goose that lays the golden eggs. Economics training will help you understand fallacies and unintended consequences. In fact, I am inclined to define economics as the study of how to anticipate unintended consequences. Little in the literature seems more relevant to contemporary economic debates than what usually is called the broken window fallacy. Whenever a government program is justified not on its merits but by the jobs it will create, remember the broken window: Some teenagers, being the little beasts that they are, toss a brick through a bakery window.
A crowd gathers and laments, “What a shame.” But before you know it, someone suggests a silver lining to the situation: Now the baker will have to spend money to have the window repaired. This will add to the income of the repairman, who will spend his additional income, which will add to another seller’s income, and so on. You know the drill. The chain of spending will multiply and generate higher income and employment. If the broken window is large enough, it might produce an economic boom! Most voters fall for the broken window fallacy, but not economics majors. They will say, “Hey, wait a minute! ” If the baker hadn’t spent his money on window repair, he would have spent it on the new suit he was saving to buy. Then the tailor would have the new income to spend, and so on. The broken window didn’t create net new spending; it just diverted spending from somewhere else.