Hence, my "quotations."

-- JesseCreed - 14 May 2008

I thought Eben had a monopoly on calling arguments "cute"?

-- KateVershov - 14 May 2008

• See how well that worked? I left a question hanging, and Adam did the sensible thing: because he wanted to learn something, he went and looked. Turns out it's not too hard, right? Particularly not in the Age of the Internet, when the human primate tendency towards imitation doesn't mean You Had to Be There. So, without any actual time imprisoned in the ruling class, he figured out that what they wear to have their picture on the website is probably what you want to wear to the interview. I would say that there's an immensity of history in shirtings, and I would characterize the tie as "solid dark saturated color or light pastel, possibly with a conservative repeating pattern, or regimental stripe," but otherwise I don't think Adam's research-based recommendation can be improved upon for the purpose.

• I think the rest of this conversation is fascinating, too, and I don't think you give yourselves sufficient credit. But you really don't need me right now, despite all the complaining about my absence.

Clothes, like poetry, painting, drama, architecture, etc., are articles of cultural production; the art is fashion. Whether from Charles Baudelaire to Roland Barthes, it has been said that the unique aspect of this form of cultural production is its relentless inclination towards alteration. It is, as Adam said, a signifier of something attached to our human bodies, observable by the stranger's eye and interpreted by the stranger's mind. It is an easy interpretive method to form conclusions of cognitive disassociation - yes, on the surface, that person is like me; no, that person isn't. Because fashion is an art undergoing incessant alteration at quicker rates than any other form of cultural production, it is also usually the first signifier of cultural change; see, for instance, here for an extreme example. It is perhaps even easier to adopt many of these beliefs that conforming to some fashion ideal dilutes or restricts personal autonomy and self-expression since law school students, from their appearances, represent a pretty homogeneous group of wardrobes. It is therefore harder to make distinctions among ourselves on these grounds. As a soon-to-be lawyer, when I accidentally stepped into a gothic drum-n-bass club in Vienna this summer, I stayed for the experience but certainly felt uncomfortable in my jeans and green t-shirt. The white laces on some folks (a well-known sign of Austrian neo-Nazism) didn't help relieve my discomfort. Closer to home, the number of lawyers getting off at the Bedford stop on the L train to return to their homes in Hipsterville or "Billyburg" is probably slim; that they will be dressed in their V-neck sweaters with buttons in the front and wearing jeans so tight as to appear painted on is even slimmer.

I think that Adam is right. Since fashion is a signifier of our cultural economy at any given moment, you should constantly observe what people are wearing to take its contemporary temperature, catalogue these observations, and plan accordingly. Fashion seems like a good and easy proxy to understand organizational psychologies and plan your next movement for optimal success. But the important point is to be self-conscious about it, despite all the negative effects the tabloids of fashion-obsessed tabloids and other pop culture literature, because there is something particularly anthropological about fashion - from its importance in religious or tribal groups to my mother's trunk of bell-bottoms and puffy shirts.

-- JesseCreed - 12 May 2008

Class is not defined mostly by job. Certainly some jobs are dispositive, but many are not.

A big law firm hires you to make money off of your labor. They don't particularly care whether you went to Andover and have relatives who came over on the Mayflower. However, they will - as we all do - make instant judgments about you. One judgment will be about class. (How will this person interact with our clients?) This is based on more than clothing, but it will be the first thing noticed. It is true, perhaps, that initial impressions may wear away after months or years on the job, but it will likely take more than "dressing the part" to counteract initial impressions. Clothes may not be a bar to admission, but they are a powerful signifier of intangible characteristics most employers (for better or worse) seek in their future employees (and partners).

Quite possibly Kate is right and we should reject the formalities of dress. I think there may be two problems here (this coming from a guy who wears an undershirt and a black hoodie every day). First, you have to know the rules in order to break them as some will certainly matter more than others. In almost any conservative circle, one can get away with wearing a cheap suit that fits well, but likely couldn’t get away with wearing a cut away collar and a full-windsor knot tied so that the tie rests above the belly button. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do it; you should just know that you are breaking the “rule” when you do. Second, it actually has to be worth breaking the rule. If you, like Kate (and I put myself in this category as well) take great pride in how your dress reflects you as a person, then you may be more willing to take risks with dress as the consequences (not getting a job you think you want or going to a client meeting you were hoping to attend) do not outweigh the loss of autonomy. However, if you couldn’t care less about what you wear, then breaking the rules just to break them seems pointless.

Finally, this isn’t just about big law firms. When I hired teachers I looked very closely at what they wore to the interview. It told me a great deal about who they were as a person and how they viewed the job they were seeking. Certainly dress was not dispositive, but it was important.

-- AdamCarlis - 12 May 2008