school uniform culture should be banned if student wear uniform than why teacher don't wear uniform. uniform only does not alone give sense of coming to school there are lot of factors which is involved.

Even those who wear uniform has bad outfit choice, because your daughter has bad outfit choice it does not mean it implies on everyone. Everyone has good choice and bad choice wearing uniform does not change anything really. Also your lovely daughter does not represent everyone in the world so you can't just say because your daughter did not wear uniform for 2yr and later was being bad in terms of outfit choice, does not mean anything really. One thing solely should not be determined under a conclusion. You have to come at multiple conclusion to say something. Also not wearing uniform fosters individuality, self-expression and comfort. Also one scenario should not determine anything really.

If teacher does not want to wear uniform than why police doctors are wearing assigned uniform. Also if you saw vast majority school that went uniform optional, and then saw behavioral problem it means that uniform solely is not responsible, many factors influence students behavior. Also if students are not wearing uniform, and TEACHERS are feeling false sense of control it is their problem, with student not wearing uniform for long period of time the problem will get solved. you told that school who I have seen school who wear uniform yet still have behavioral problem, so what will you conclude from this. Also from my research I saw that school uniforms do not improve behavior, attendance, or academic performance, and may even lower students’ sense of belonging. Studies also suggest uniforms can restrict comfort and physical activity. This supports the idea that allowing students to wear their own clothes can improve well-being, self-expression, and overall school experience.

1) Not wearing uniform gives you freedom 2) It gives us opportunity to wear what we want 3) It saves you from school's additional harassment 4) Not wearing uniform does not save you from bullying 5) Student get excited when they wear what they want 6) Student can wear what they want, and embrace their emotions.

BRO I don't agree with whatever you said, if you write terrible things which makes no sense it makes things terrible. YOU told “If a uniform doesn't boost grades or cut bullying, it's just an extra rule with no payoff. That's a cost without a benefit.” Yeah, this sounds smart until you realize it’s basically: “If this single policy doesn’t solve multiple unrelated systemic problems, it’s useless.” That’s not analysis—that’s just moving the goalposts into another zip code. By that logic, seatbelts are pointless because they don’t improve driving skills, and homework is useless because it doesn’t fix mental health. You’re demanding superhero-level outcomes from a basic structure tool. Uniforms aren’t there to “fix bullying” like it’s a final boss. They’re there to reduce visible pressure, simplify expectations, and remove one small daily comparison game. Not erase inequality. Not solve adolescence. Just reduce noise. Also the “cost without benefit” framing is doing a lot of heavy lifting for something that is, realistically, just “I don’t like this rule, so I’m declaring it inefficient.” That’s not economics—that’s personal preference in a lab coat.

If we stick to your probability framing, the strongest counter isn’t “uniforms fix everything,” it’s that your comparison is weighing the wrong trade-offs. You’re treating it like this: With uniforms: fewer personal choices, but clearer rules Without uniforms: more freedom, but more stress and inequality But your own logic actually exposes a hidden assumption: that dress code enforcement without uniforms is neutral. It isn’t. Here’s the key issue—when uniforms are removed, the “rule system” doesn’t disappear, it becomes high-variance enforcement. That means: One student gets told their outfit is fine Another gets sent home for something similar Enforcement depends heavily on interpretation, staff mood, and cultural bias So if we stay in your probability model, the question becomes: What’s more predictable for reducing daily uncertainty for students: a strict uniform boundary, or a flexible system with inconsistent enforcement? Even if we accept your estimate that uniforms only have a ~30% chance of reducing stress, you also need to assign probability to the alternative system causing uneven stress distribution. Because “freedom with subjective enforcement” doesn’t distribute anxiety evenly—it concentrates it on certain groups (often those already scrutinized more). On bullying: you’re right that uniforms don’t eliminate it. But that’s not the claim you’re actually evaluating. The relevant comparison is: Do uniforms reduce surface-level comparison signals (brands, cost gaps, outfit ranking)? Yes, somewhat. Does removing uniforms eliminate dress-based hierarchy? Not really—it just shifts it into accessories, shoes, grooming, or after-school clothes. So what actually changes is not whether status signaling exists, but where it shows up and how explicitly it’s regulated. If we stay consistent with your framing, the strongest version of the pro-uniform argument is: Uniforms trade ambiguous, socially loaded dress competition + inconsistent enforcement for a narrower, more predictable rule set with fewer daily decision costs That’s not “magic fixing school culture.” It’s a bet that predictability and reduced visible stratification produce more consistent outcomes than expanded choice under uneven interpretation. So the real disagreement isn’t “freedom vs cage.” It’s whether you think variance in enforcement + visible inequality signals creates more stress than restricted but stable rules.

If we stay inside your framing—probabilities, “noise reduction,” and long-term effectiveness—then uniforms aren’t really as weak as they sound. You’re treating it like: 40% chance of reducing social pressure, and even then only partially → therefore low value. But schools don’t operate on one big outcome variable. They operate on thousands of repeated daily interactions. A “small” reduction in visible comparison signals, if it actually happens, gets multiplied across every hallway, every class change, every first impression. Even modest dampening of status cues can have a non-trivial cumulative effect simply because exposure is constant. On your “it just shifts the battlefield” point: that’s true, but not all battlefields are equal. Phones, shoes, and bags exist, but uniforms specifically target the most immediate and unavoidable visual layer—the one that triggers first-pass sorting before any conversation happens. You don’t eliminate hierarchy signals, but you do remove one of the fastest, most universal ones. That matters more than it looks like in a snapshot comparison. Now on your main argument: “We should teach respect instead; that’s higher probability long-term.” The issue is that this assumes teaching scales cleanly and uniformly across students and teachers. It doesn’t. Even strong social-emotional education has uneven uptake, depends heavily on home environment, and takes years to show effects. Uniforms, in contrast, are a low-variance intervention. They don’t rely on everyone internalizing the lesson correctly; they just change the environment. In decision terms, you’re comparing a high-variance, long-horizon strategy (teaching norms) with a low-variance, immediate one (standardizing appearance). It’s not obvious the rational move is “pick one.” It’s more like: reduce environmental triggers and teach coping skills, because they address different parts of the problem. Finally, the “not worth the fight” conclusion depends on cost. If uniforms were expensive or heavily restrictive, your argument would land harder. But in most systems, the marginal cost is relatively low compared to other policy levers schools already accept (dress codes, attendance rules, behavior codes). So even a partial reduction in social friction doesn’t need to be dramatic to clear a cost–benefit bar. So under your own logic: even if uniforms are only a modest, imperfect reduction in visible status signaling, they’re a cheap, scalable floor-setting tool—not a solution, but a stabilizer. And that doesn’t compete with teaching respect; it just reduces how often kids are forced to “practice” status comparison in the first place.