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?

-- ClaireOSullivan - 11 May 2008

For my own curiosity (and probably use), what is the proper shirt collar and tie for an interview? This question is mostly directed Eben but an answer from someone from the ruling class would suffice.

-- JulianBaez - 11 May 2008

Julian, flipping through some pictures on various firm websites, I would suggest wearing the following to an interview (note that I grew up part of the hoi polloi and own exactly one wearable suit, so I don't know much about dressing to impress anyone):

Tie: 4 in hand knot, solid (but not too bold) color with a conservative repeating pattern. No wool or knit ties and stay away from tie bars, pins, etc. The few partners who tied half-windsor knots were in non-US offices or pretty young.

Shirt: White, pressed broadcloth with 2.5" or 3" point collar and traditional spread. Run away from anything with a wide spread, rounded tips, or buttons (although a few partners were sporting button-downs, I just can't imagine that is appropriate).

Also, please note, that while I believe my advice to be accurate it couuld be (1) just plain wrong or (2) a subconscious attempt to prevent you from wasting your life as Sullivan and Cromwell.

-- AdamCarlis - 11 May 2008

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.

Maybe the importance of clothing isn't from the perspective of the job applicant (who probably will get it wrong, and might come across as too eager if he gets it right), but from the perspective of the people who aren't just breaking in. They're already comfortable with the clothing they wear and they get to look down on those trying to break into their field and feel good about the fact that they're no longer making clothing mistakes. Of course, they also long for the day when they can make their own mistakes, trying to break into the next level up.

-- MichaelBerkovits - 11 May 2008

I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the reaction to Eben's commentary on class and clothing is, "well, what is the right clothing and how do I not screw up?" rather than "forget that, we're a new generation and we're going to forge our own path." Are you all really so thoughtlessly ambitious that you're going to let your employer dictate how many buttons go on your shirt??

-- KateVershov - 11 May 2008

Kate, I agree completely. I'm actually a little confused by all this "dress the part" stuff. I might be completely naive, or just plain wrong, but I feel like I see wildly successful people all the time who don't buy in to the mentality that the suit makes the man. It seems like that idea is a relic of old-world socialite etiquette, that is only going to grow less relevant with time. I'm sure, of course, that in some circles it will decline more slowly, and I have no doubt that the legal profession will be one of those circles. But even in the law, I don't see how it's possible that the rules of professional decorum could stay the same after our generation takes the helm. Not to say that Cravath is going to change it's dress code to bermuda shorts and t-shirt, just that some of these formalistic conventions are going to become less important.

To be fair, though, I have no real professional experience whatsoever, which I guess makes me totally unqualified to talk about professional etiquette.

-- JuliaS - 11 May 2008

Kate, I think my question may not have been clear enough. I'm trying to figure out why it is important to talk about the connection between class and clothing at all, when to my mind it is only a very small sector of the population that is even aware of the significance of fabrics, colours and collars as discussed in class. If the majority of people don't even know these rules, then we can't be held back by not conforming to them (unless, I suppose, we are interested in breaking into the ruling class). So they don't seem to contribute in any meaningful way to the rigidity of class distinctions (except at the very top) or the ability of individuals to move up or down in the socioeconomic strata.

Although- while I'm not particularly worried about wearing the "right" or "wrong" outfit to an interview, because I'm not convinced that it matters (for the reasons I gave above)- is it really fair to admonish people for wanting to be dressed appropriately? Whether or not we like it, dress codes exist in pretty much every job, and rejecting them seems like a fairly meaningless form of rebellion that could potentially result in the frustration of our professional goals.

-- ClaireOSullivan - 11 May 2008

My comment was not addressed to you, Claire. And no, rejecting a dress code that is so exacting as to dictate the brands you buy and the number of buttons that your shirt has, is not a meaningless form of rebellion. Notice that what we're talking about isn't the difference between showing up to an interview in jeans v. a suit. We're no longer talking about dressing "appropriately." We're talking about dressing to let everyone know your class. We're talking about minutia. Regulating (even implicitly) the minute details of one's appearance strikes me as a very serious violation of autonomy and self-expression. I think of the things that I wrap my body in as a very personal and fundamental sort of choice. But hey, if you really want to go work for someone who will think less of you because you wore an ivory shirt instead of a white shirt, go right ahead. If someone doesn't hire me because they're not impressed with the cut of my suit, then I don't really want to work for them anyway. Furthermore, there are things in life more important than "professional goals." Keeping your dignity is one of them.

-- KateVershov - 11 May 2008

The reasons i asked about the appropriate attire are

1) Eben made it clear he knew the answer but chose not to share it. This is annoying and since i wanted the information I chose to try to press him on it.

2) I am willing to suffer the minor indignities of dressing the part if it will help me get the job I want. Its just a cost benefit thing. A good possible counter argument to this (which I use to justify the failings of my closet) is that I wouldn't want to work for people who would care about something so trivial. I just see the clothes as a means to an ends though. Whether we're lawyers or not you will have to suffer minor indignities in order to please your superiors. This good will will most likely you give us the opportunity to do bigger and better things. Besides, it just gives me one less thing to think about when i'm getting prepared for an interview.

-- JulianBaez - 11 May 2008

I mean, I just see all these things (suits instead of jeans, brand choice, shirt colour) as arbitrary concessions to the society we have to live and work in. I definitely agree that showing you know the difference between a suit and jeans is different from showing that you know the difference between an ivory and a white shirt. But it seems to me like a difference of degree rather than type.

-- ClaireOSullivan - 11 May 2008