What's with these uneducated educators?

[arrogcow]

I think that there is some difference of opinion based on what side of the Atlantic you are on. The boy is "over dressed" for any dance I ever attended in high school with the exception of the prom (formal and held in the spring) and the Sadie Hawkins (semi formal - i.e. a suit - held in late January) and even then add a blazer and he would be ok. she is dressed a little too formaly for the average dance as well, so I suspect that the dance was a semi formal (like SH) but I bet the guys weren't required to wear a jacket.

Adam

[davedove]

I think that there is some difference of opinion based on what side of the Atlantic you are on. The boy is "over dressed" for any dance I ever attended in high school with the exception of the prom (formal and held in the spring) and the Sadie Hawkins (semi formal - i.e. a suit - held in late January) and even then add a blazer and he would be ok. she is dressed a little too formaly for the average dance as well, so I suspect that the dance was a semi formal (like SH) but I bet the guys weren't required to wear a jacket.

Adam

I'll have to agree with that Adam. To most high school students formal means you throw on a jacket and/or a tie (the prom being the obvious exception). Of course, even to most adults in the US, formal means a jacket and tie.:rolleyes: For a lot of Americans, the only tux they will ever wear is the one they RENT for their wedding.

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

I just wanted to weigh in with a thought. There have been many comments about whether Nathan would have been allowed to attend the dance if he were dressed more "appropriately" or formally. However, we all know it is a rare individual, outside of another kilt wearer, who really knows what is traditionally worn with a kilt on specific occasions and for different levels of formal and casual events. And even some of those rules are changing and evolving. My point is that I really don't think that the principal refused entry based on the level of formality of the kilt and accessories, but just because he was wearing a kilt.

And as has been stated, the principal is not talking, so we don't really know.

[bubba]

Starting to remind me of Principal Skinner and the Superintendent on the Simpsons. Here's what I think is going to happen. They'll quietly alter the dress code to allow for the kilt and try to block any further publicity in the matter. They never expected this level of publicity, or any publicity for that matter, and are not pleased by it. We can expect to hear nothing more from either the Principal or the Superintendent and I'm sure Nathan and his family will be asked to not make any further public comment on it.

[GlassMan]

I think it's important to remember that Nathan was considered appropriately dressed when he changed into pants. He was not required by the principal to add a jacket nor was he required to wear dress shoes. Pants and a dress shirt was considered dressy enough.

So this is obviously not about the level of formality. Most dress-up dances in high school these days don't involve coats and ties. Slacks and a dress shirt are considered sufficient.

And as for his date, the only time I ever saw a girl dressed up that much was to prom. At least when I was in HS, the guys tended to look dressier at dances than the girls did.

[Sherry]

I think it's important to remember that Nathan was considered appropriately dressed when he changed into pants. He was not required by the principal to add a jacket nor was he required to wear dress shoes. Pants and a dress shirt was considered dressy enough.

Good point. I seriously doubt that the principal was even aware of what constitutes "proper" formal Scottish dress.

And as for his date, the only time I ever saw a girl dressed up that much was to prom. At least when I was in HS, the guys tended to look dressier at dances than the girls did.

My experience was the opposite. Most guys don't care for suit & ties, & the gals wanted to dress in pretty dresses they don't normally get to wear.

Anyway, if jacket & tie were required, they would have been specified in the anouncement. Also, MO is still a fairly rural state, & Nate's town is not one of the larger ones, so boots at a dance wouldn't be that unusual (I hate to tell you Hamish ). The high school I attended had the largest FFA (Future Farmers of America) membership in the country (the school has it's own rodeo even). No one is surprised at boots worn to a dance in rural areas.

Sherry

[macwilkin]

Anyway, if jacket & tie were required, they would have been specified in the anouncement. Also, MO is still a fairly rural state, & Nate's town is not one of the larger ones, so boots at a dance wouldn't be that unusual (I hate to tell you Hamish ). The high school I attended had the largest FFA (Future Farmers of America) membership in the country (the school has it's own rodeo even). No one is surprised at boots worn to a dance in rural areas.

Sherry

As a resident of Missouri, I can confirm what Sherry is saying, and it's not just the kids -- adults as well normally do not "dress up" for church, organizational meetings, etc. Ironically, the first settlers of Southwest Missouri did -- there are many pictures that show these supposed "hillbillies" in suits and ties for church services, town picnics, etc.

On the other hand, my grandfather, an Iowa farmer, would have never dreamed of going to church or a lodge meeting in "casual" clothes. He owned several suits, dress shirts, ties, even cufflinks and was a bit of a "clothes horse".

Cheers,

Todd

[royce52]

Round Two from Springer at the Scotsman.
http://heritage.scotsman.com/news.cfm?id=2400372005

He sounds a bit less forgiving this time.

Royce

[Big Paul]

Anybody want to embarress me so I can get a full formal out fit??? Anybody?

He is a lucky guy in that respect!

We are just shy of 1400 signatures!!!

[davedove]

As a resident of Missouri, I can confirm what Sherry is saying, and it's not just the kids -- adults as well normally do not "dress up" for church, organizational meetings, etc. Ironically, the first settlers of Southwest Missouri did -- there are many pictures that show these supposed "hillbillies" in suits and ties for church services, town picnics, etc.

On the other hand, my grandfather, an Iowa farmer, would have never dreamed of going to church or a lodge meeting in "casual" clothes. He owned several suits, dress shirts, ties, even cufflinks and was a bit of a "clothes horse".

Cheers,

Todd

I'll have to confirm it too. Growing up in southern Illinois, most people had one suit that they wore to weddings, funerals, and maybe to church. And it has become more casual since then. My dad, who still lives in Illinois, doesn't even own a suit anymore. Anymore, dressing up means putting on the clean jeans!