Law in Contemporary Society

View   r23  >  r22  >  r21  >  r20  >  r19  >  r18  ...
ClothesMaketheLawyer 23 - 06 Jun 2008 - Main.JulianBaez
Line: 1 to 1
 
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?
Line: 22 to 22
 
  • 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.
Added:
>
>
    • 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.
Line: 148 to 149
 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

Added:
>
>

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

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->

ClothesMaketheLawyer 22 - 05 Jun 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
Line: 1 to 1
 
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?
Line: 143 to 143
 I think Edward's point is really interesting because I've always heard the maxim that you're supposed to dress for a job one station above your own. Wouldn't an associate wearing a suit stand out as a little ridiculous?

-- AndrewWolstan - 05 Jun 2008

Added:
>
>

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

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
\ No newline at end of file

ClothesMaketheLawyer 21 - 05 Jun 2008 - Main.AndrewWolstan
Line: 1 to 1
 
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?
Line: 138 to 138
 I wonder whether the “business casual” concept has complicated traditional standards of attire. My office is supposedly business casual, but almost all of the partners always wear suits. I wonder if it’s just because they have more client meetings, have dozens of nice suits that would otherwise go to waste, it’s a “status” thing (either intentional or subconscious), or some combination of these. Full-time associates are usually always “business casual” with an emphasis on the business part. Legal assistants are also always business casual, but to varying degrees--from college casual minus the jeans plus a collar to full business suits minus the tie. As for the other summer associates, it’s an even more mixed bag. Are there also business casual rules or do they vary by office and firm?

-- EdwardNewton - 04 Jun 2008

Added:
>
>

I think Edward's point is really interesting because I've always heard the maxim that you're supposed to dress for a job one station above your own. Wouldn't an associate wearing a suit stand out as a little ridiculous?

-- AndrewWolstan - 05 Jun 2008

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
\ No newline at end of file

ClothesMaketheLawyer 20 - 04 Jun 2008 - Main.EdwardNewton
Line: 1 to 1
 
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?
Line: 133 to 133
 Also, finally to help ease peoples' fears if there are lingering doubts amongst anyone out there (and unfortunately I'm speaking mainly to the guys out there) as to what to wear for interviews and the dos and donts of dressing to be "part of the class" then I'd suggest a simple trip down to 45 and Madison to the big Brooks Brothers store (or the nearby J. Press). They've been dressing the same group of young, twenty-something students, interviewees, and professionals for ages, they're almost never overly flashy (these are the guys who made the relatively loose fitting "sack-suit" the standard dress for young american men) and they can help you find the kind of basic, simple shirt and tie that will be appropriate in absolutely any situation. Plus when you walk in you'll realize that a lot of the salesmen have been working there it seems like since the store opened and have the experience to answer almost any question you have so that you avoid looking like one of those ridiculous ex football players you see on TV every sunday in the fall wearing some shiny 5 button monstrosity of a suit.

-- AlexLawrence - 02 Jun 2008

Added:
>
>

I wonder whether the “business casual” concept has complicated traditional standards of attire. My office is supposedly business casual, but almost all of the partners always wear suits. I wonder if it’s just because they have more client meetings, have dozens of nice suits that would otherwise go to waste, it’s a “status” thing (either intentional or subconscious), or some combination of these. Full-time associates are usually always “business casual” with an emphasis on the business part. Legal assistants are also always business casual, but to varying degrees--from college casual minus the jeans plus a collar to full business suits minus the tie. As for the other summer associates, it’s an even more mixed bag. Are there also business casual rules or do they vary by office and firm?

-- EdwardNewton - 04 Jun 2008

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->

ClothesMaketheLawyer 19 - 02 Jun 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
Line: 1 to 1
 
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?
Line: 120 to 120
 Hence, my "quotations."

-- JesseCreed - 14 May 2008

Added:
>
>

I know I'm very late on this thread but as someone who grew up with a father who is a serious traditionalist when it comes to things like work clothes I thought I'd chime in with my two cents. I think a lot of the reason people worry about the "right" thing to wear and not "breaking the rules" so to speak is that we all know that at a certain level we are judged (in a business environment/interview) in some way on our clothes. Though this is silly, I think that myself and a lot of other people would rather dress according to the rules than be judged, no matter if it is for good or for bad, based on our clothes. It is for this reason that growing up my dad hammered home such seemingly arbitrary rules like:

-When wearing dress socks always make sure they are over the calf and not ankle length. You never want to show skin (as a man) when crossing your legs.

-Always wear a belt, no matter what,

And other seemingly tiny points that I am only now, as I start contemplating a reality where I have to wear a suit every day, fully appreciating. Some of these rules I've disregarded (notably, the one that a guy's hair should never be so long that it touches his collar) but for the most part I'm happy that I had these lessons drilled into my head as a kid. It simply makes life easier if you don't have to worry about standing out because of your clothes, and I think it allows you, at a certain mental level to try and focus on setting yourself apart based on your merits. At the end of the day the little rules of sartorial arcana (like what kind of lapels your tuxedo should have or how many button holes for studs your tuxedo shirt should have) are, in my opinion, where one's clothes can truly denote class and be used by utter snobs to distinguish themselves from those they feel "do no belong." However, when it comes to wearing a suit and dressing for work and interviews, I personally believe the rules exist, and should be followed, to remain essentially innocuous, so that people can see and judge you for you, not for your clothes. Think of it as camoflauge in a way.

Also, finally to help ease peoples' fears if there are lingering doubts amongst anyone out there (and unfortunately I'm speaking mainly to the guys out there) as to what to wear for interviews and the dos and donts of dressing to be "part of the class" then I'd suggest a simple trip down to 45 and Madison to the big Brooks Brothers store (or the nearby J. Press). They've been dressing the same group of young, twenty-something students, interviewees, and professionals for ages, they're almost never overly flashy (these are the guys who made the relatively loose fitting "sack-suit" the standard dress for young american men) and they can help you find the kind of basic, simple shirt and tie that will be appropriate in absolutely any situation. Plus when you walk in you'll realize that a lot of the salesmen have been working there it seems like since the store opened and have the experience to answer almost any question you have so that you avoid looking like one of those ridiculous ex football players you see on TV every sunday in the fall wearing some shiny 5 button monstrosity of a suit.

-- AlexLawrence - 02 Jun 2008

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
\ No newline at end of file

Revision 23r23 - 06 Jun 2008 - 14:56:26 - JulianBaez
Revision 22r22 - 05 Jun 2008 - 08:03:24 - AlexLawrence
Revision 21r21 - 05 Jun 2008 - 03:08:36 - AndrewWolstan
Revision 20r20 - 04 Jun 2008 - 03:31:39 - EdwardNewton
Revision 19r19 - 02 Jun 2008 - 15:39:10 - AlexLawrence
Revision 18r18 - 14 May 2008 - 18:22:56 - JesseCreed
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.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM