| | |
|
ClothesMaketheLawyer 23 - 06 Jun 2008 - Main.JulianBaez
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
I am having trouble understanding what is at the crux of the discussion, in class and in the comments on Mina's paper, about clothes and class. I see that we categorize each other according to socioeconomic status, based on our clothes. Yet, Eben observes that it is a rare law student who dresses properly for an interview (I, for instance, know next to nothing about suits, let alone the nuances of buttons and collars). So we can assume that many incorrectly attired law students are offered jobs anyway, and learn to dress properly for their respective jobs once they already have them. It follows then, that I wear will depend on what I do, and not vice versa. If I change jobs, my clothes will change. So if clothes are not a bar to raising one's socioeconomic status, but rather an indication of that status once attained, where and when does the relationship between clothes and class become important? | | |
- 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.
| |
>
> |
-
- I decided that I needed the professor/former corporate lawyer's opinion on the matter to avoid learning from another 9 year old on the street. Adam's advice soounded good but advice you hear on the street normally sounds plausible. - Julian Baez
| | | On Claire's original point, it must feel nice for interviewers - even the underlings - to see all the incorrectly attired law students and know that they (the interviewers) would never make such an embarrassing mistake. | | | I think Edward's question/point about the partners could also just be a generational thing. If you think about it most of the partners (or at least the senior ones) probably had to wear a suit every day when they started out and it's just become a habit as much as anything else. As for an associate wearing a suit I don't think it would be that ridiculous. If you think about it, especially during the summer, you're jacket is probably going to spend most of the day on the back of your chair anyway, so if you're wearing a conservative dark suit what is the real difference between wearing a shirt and slacks and a shirt and the pants from your suit? You don't have to wear the jacket but it's there if you need it, and frankly it's probably safer to have it in case you get called to a client meeting or something like that than to not have it. Moreover, depending on the level of formality at your office and your own willingness to stand out, you can always try the suit/no tie combo. It's a bit "european" (for lack of a better term and because it is the definite dress code at my office here in France this summer) but it might help bridge the gap between over-dressed and business casual.
-- AlexLawrence - 05 Jun 2008 | |
>
> |
The biggest problem I find with business casual is the wide spectrum people use to define it. I'm working on Capitol Hill this summer and my office ahs a business casual dress code when Congress isn't in session. Watching the employees entering the building, I'm amazed at the varying definitions of business casual.
My boss, the chief of staff, is currently wearing something that I would have never considered business casual before (plaid short sleeve button down shirt untucked, jeans, sneakers). This is far different than Alex's office where suit/no tie would be acceptable. If I wore that today I'd be way over dressed.
-- JulianBaez - 06 Jun 2008 | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |