What not to wear Forum

[fl0w]

but are you familiar w/ those Juicy pants (often worn as PJs to class by college co-eds)? man those are distracting! In undergrad I think I got lost on campus in the first couple of days because I was just following a girl wearing those. When I finally looked up I had no idea where I was.

As someone with those juicy pants, I assure you I never wore them not knowing the affect they had.

i'm adding girls like you to my list of 3 things i regret from undergrad!! Or rather my inability to look the other way when confronted by the juicy..

[Pearalegal]

but are you familiar w/ those Juicy pants (often worn as PJs to class by college co-eds)? man those are distracting! In undergrad I think I got lost on campus in the first couple of days because I was just following a girl wearing those. When I finally looked up I had no idea where I was.

As someone with those juicy pants, I assure you I never wore them not knowing the affect they had.

i'm adding girls like you to my list of 3 things i regret from undergrad!! Or rather my inability to look the other way when confronted by the juicy..

Regardless, they're comfy as hell and they match!

[Chicklets]

I'm with you...I don't care what others do and I certainly don't care what people think of what I do. I am old so that may be why, but I can't imagine even noticing let alone judging people based upon what they wear in the classroom when it has no bearing on me.

I'm one of those people who doesn't notice what others are wearing, and I'm always surprised when someone comments on what I'm wearing... ("nice blouse" or some such). I'm older too. So in any instance where I DO notice what someone's wearing, it's almost certainly because it is really out of the ordinary. Some people are hyperaware of what others are wearing/doing. If their judgement counts (profs, potential employer/coworker, etc) it's good to be aware that some people DO notice.

[sckon]

Short skirt and a loooooooooong jacket.

[snewcrash]

Do these visits really matter other than for your own information? Is anyone on an admissions committee really going to remember you when they review your application?

titcr. wear whatever you want. lol @ people thinking admissions staff are going to remember wtf people were wearing during a school tour.

[guyincognito]

DO NOT wear overalls and a cumberbund with tap shoes. I tried this during my visit to convey an air of comfort as well as professionalism. It totally backfired, and the tap shoes were very disruptive when I walked into the classroom late.

[sayruss11]

umm really?

[sckon]

Dont wear a bow tie. No one has ever looked good in one and no one ever will.

[Grizz]

Dont wear a bow tie. No one has ever looked good in one and no one ever will.

Have you been south lately?

[taytay]

DO NOT wear overalls and a cumberbund with tap shoes. I tried this during my visit to convey an air of comfort as well as professionalism. It totally backfired, and the tap shoes were very disruptive when I walked into the classroom late.

lol this is the second funniest thing I have ever read

umm really?

lol this is the funniest thing I have ever read

[fl0w]

Do these visits really matter other than for your own information? Is anyone on an admissions committee really going to remember you when they review your application?

titcr. wear whatever you want. lol @ people thinking admissions staff are going to remember wtf people were wearing during a school tour.

actually if you make a lasting impression with an admissions member, they WILL remember you. My visit to one school an admissions person gave me a tour and I happened to be the only one to show up. We just started talking about my app and my background and actually found out that we have a lot in common. She told me to make sure I send her a personal email when I submit my application.

Point is, you never know.

Also, @ the bowtie comment, don't older members of the law profession or professors sometimes wear them? Not to say the look good, but I've def. seen it!

[84Sunbird2000]

I'm pretty surprised and saddened that logical, analytical minds conclude that clothes are a valid point to judge someone on. They are made to protect you from the weather and environment and for no other purpose (yes, I would be pro-nudity, even in public). My best friend went to his school's career fair in an "inappropriate" shirt and sweatpants, and I respected him greatly for it, plus he also did well in finding job leads. The only things that should be of ANY pertinence are the quality of someone's skill and intellect when it comes to academia or professional evaluations. I've often thought I'd have a hard time wearing any "formal" clothing to an interview, because it would feel like a cop-out. I don't know if I'd want to work for someone who would reject a prospective applicant out-of-hand simply based on their clothing and not their skills or abilities. C'mon, your tie doesn't do your typing, your sports jacket doesn't do your thinking, and your nice shiny belt doesn't do your speaking.

[snewcrash]

Do these visits really matter other than for your own information? Is anyone on an admissions committee really going to remember you when they review your application?

titcr. wear whatever you want. lol @ people thinking admissions staff are going to remember wtf people were wearing during a school tour.

actually if you make a lasting impression with an admissions member, they WILL remember you. My visit to one school an admissions person gave me a tour and I happened to be the only one to show up. We just started talking about my app and my background and actually found out that we have a lot in common. She told me to make sure I send her a personal email when I submit my application.

Point is, you never know.

Also, @ the bowtie comment, don't older members of the law profession or professors sometimes wear them? Not to say the look good, but I've def. seen it!

The point is that no one is going to care if you are wearing jeans and t-shirt versus khakis and a sweather. They might remember YOU, but they're not going to remember what you were wearing (besides something completely outrageous).

[fl0w]

I'm pretty surprised and saddened that logical, analytical minds conclude that clothes are a valid point to judge someone on. They are made to protect you from the weather and environment and for no other purpose (yes, I would be pro-nudity, even in public). My best friend went to his school's career fair in an "inappropriate" shirt and sweatpants, and I respected him greatly for it, plus he also did well in finding job leads. The only things that should be of ANY pertinence are the quality of someone's skill and intellect when it comes to academia or professional evaluations. I've often thought I'd have a hard time wearing any "formal" clothing to an interview, because it would feel like a cop-out. I don't know if I'd want to work for someone who would reject a prospective applicant out-of-hand simply based on their clothing and not their skills or abilities. C'mon, your tie doesn't do your typing, your sports jacket doesn't do your thinking, and your nice shiny belt doesn't do your speaking.

wow. Good luck with that attitude. Although you may not like it, people make snap judgments ALL the time. It's not going to change. Hell I'd like it if people didn't judge me when they see that im Black, but they do (even if it is on a subconscious level). At least I can control what I wear. That's how I see it.

[Jockin Jay-Z]

I also (again my opinion) think it is disrespectful to come to class in PJs when your professor is dressed for work.

Really depends on what school you go to. At some schools, professors often dress with an incredible lack of respect for their students--especially considering they are on a job, and students are not.

[fl0w]

Do these visits really matter other than for your own information? Is anyone on an admissions committee really going to remember you when they review your application?

titcr. wear whatever you want. lol @ people thinking admissions staff are going to remember wtf people were wearing during a school tour.

actually if you make a lasting impression with an admissions member, they WILL remember you. My visit to one school an admissions person gave me a tour and I happened to be the only one to show up. We just started talking about my app and my background and actually found out that we have a lot in common. She told me to make sure I send her a personal email when I submit my application.

Point is, you never know.

Also, @ the bowtie comment, don't older members of the law profession or professors sometimes wear them? Not to say the look good, but I've def. seen it!

The point is that no one is going to care if you are wearing jeans and t-shirt versus khakis and a sweather. They might remember YOU, but they're not going to remember what you were wearing (besides something completely outrageous).

semi-valid point. but missing the mark on dressing appropriately will certainly taint someone's first impression. I'm not saying that someone has to be in a suit for this scenario. i think jeans and sweater is fine (if you check my earlier post). personally, in my opinion, i like to err on the side of professionalism. one less place to leave doubt in someone's mind.

[thegor1987]

I'm pretty surprised and saddened that logical, analytical minds conclude that clothes are a valid point to judge someone on. They are made to protect you from the weather and environment and for no other purpose (yes, I would be pro-nudity, even in public). My best friend went to his school's career fair in an "inappropriate" shirt and sweatpants, and I respected him greatly for it, plus he also did well in finding job leads. The only things that should be of ANY pertinence are the quality of someone's skill and intellect when it comes to academia or professional evaluations. I've often thought I'd have a hard time wearing any "formal" clothing to an interview, because it would feel like a cop-out. I don't know if I'd want to work for someone who would reject a prospective applicant out-of-hand simply based on their clothing and not their skills or abilities. C'mon, your tie doesn't do your typing, your sports jacket doesn't do your thinking, and your nice shiny belt doesn't do your speaking.

wow. Good luck with that attitude. Although you may not like it, people make snap judgements ALL the time. It's not going to change. He'll I'd like it if people didn't judge me when they see that im Black, but they do (even if it is on a subconscious level). At least I can control what I wear. That's how I see it.

lol at people who think what you wear is not or should not be important in our society. Dressing appropriately shows that you have the mental capacity to put on a pair of jeans before you start the day, among other things it also says a lot about your character, which is required to be a professional. Thus, you not dressing appropriately to a job interview shows that you lack 'character'.

BTW, Sweat pants to undergrad class is o.k. many times

[Fancy Pants]

I'm pretty surprised and saddened that logical, analytical minds conclude that clothes are a valid point to judge someone on. They are made to protect you from the weather and environment and for no other purpose (yes, I would be pro-nudity, even in public). My best friend went to his school's career fair in an "inappropriate" shirt and sweatpants, and I respected him greatly for it, plus he also did well in finding job leads. The only things that should be of ANY pertinence are the quality of someone's skill and intellect when it comes to academia or professional evaluations. I've often thought I'd have a hard time wearing any "formal" clothing to an interview, because it would feel like a cop-out. I don't know if I'd want to work for someone who would reject a prospective applicant out-of-hand simply based on their clothing and not their skills or abilities. C'mon, your tie doesn't do your typing, your sports jacket doesn't do your thinking, and your nice shiny belt doesn't do your speaking.

I'm not sure that giving advice about what to wear is an endorsement of the opinion that judging someone based on their attire is valid. It is the acceptance that other people who are in the position of deciding our fate oftentimes do make judgments (whether valid or invalid, fair or unfair) and the understanding that there might be certain "rules" we need to follow to be successful. I'm surprised that your logical and analytical mind can't understand this plainly obvious point.

And if clothes are for protection from the weather and environment only, then what's the problem with wearing clothes that will please other people? After all, to you the clothes don't matter, so why not dress the way potential employers or admissions committee members might like to see you dressed?

[84Sunbird2000]

I'm pretty surprised and saddened that logical, analytical minds conclude that clothes are a valid point to judge someone on. They are made to protect you from the weather and environment and for no other purpose (yes, I would be pro-nudity, even in public). My best friend went to his school's career fair in an "inappropriate" shirt and sweatpants, and I respected him greatly for it, plus he also did well in finding job leads. The only things that should be of ANY pertinence are the quality of someone's skill and intellect when it comes to academia or professional evaluations. I've often thought I'd have a hard time wearing any "formal" clothing to an interview, because it would feel like a cop-out. I don't know if I'd want to work for someone who would reject a prospective applicant out-of-hand simply based on their clothing and not their skills or abilities. C'mon, your tie doesn't do your typing, your sports jacket doesn't do your thinking, and your nice shiny belt doesn't do your speaking.

I'm not sure that giving advice about what to wear is an endorsement of the opinion that judging someone based on their attire is valid. It is the acceptance that other people who are in the position of deciding our fate oftentimes do make judgments (whether valid or invalid, fair or unfair) and the understanding that there might be certain "rules" we need to follow to be successful. I'm surprised that your logical and analytical mind can't understand this plainly obvious point.

And if clothes are for protection from the weather and environment only, then what's the problem with wearing clothes that will please other people? After all, to you the clothes don't matter, so why not dress the way potential employers or admissions committee members might like to see you dressed?

First off, I don't see how accepting an unreasonable perspective or unwritten rule would prove whether or not one's mind is analytical and logical, but it could certainly count as evidence of the opposite. I'm also someone pre-disposed towards radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. The nature of social distinctions in clothing is very much a representation of class difference and "professional" clothing requirements are nothing more than a physical representation of elitism regarding class, position, and power.

The problem with wearing clothes to please others is that it robs people of their individual choice of expression and promotes an acceptance of the social order. If one DESIRES to please their boss, that's fine. However, I was responding to the numerous posts in which those who dress a certain way advise against or were offended by the "unprofessional" dress of others. I also mentioned that I feel like it's a cop-out to "dress for success", given my socio-economic positions, but I usually do it anyway (for the sake of pragmatism). It's just something I really feel like I shouldn't do, and might not do in the future simply to keep from a kind of cognitive dissonance.

[champ33]

I find it sad that people looking to practice the law are so quick to endorse (by following along) judging others upon whether they are wearing a polo shirt or sweatpants.

[drsomebody]

All social distinction is deeply intertwined with displays of power. Dressing appropriately signals that one is able to understand that system and manipulate it for a desired outcome. That's exactly what a lawyer does with the law. If I were an admissions dean or an on-campus recruiter I would worry that somebody who drastically missed the social cues proscribing appropriate dress would also fail to understand the normative function of the law.

I should also add that ignoring the mechanisms of power is not a productive way to channel the impacts of those mechanisms or make them go away. To achieve meaningful results, a young lawyer should fight for social justice in a well-fitting charcoal gray two piece suit.

[84Sunbird2000]

All social distinction is deeply intertwined with displays of power. Dressing appropriately signals that one is able to understand that system and manipulate it for a desired outcome. That's exactly what a lawyer does with the law. If I were an admissions dean or an on-campus recruiter I would worry that somebody who drastically missed the social cues proscribing appropriate dress would also fail to understand the normative function of the law.

I should also add that ignoring the mechanisms of power is not a productive way to channel the impacts of those mechanisms or make them go away. To achieve meaningful results, a young lawyer should fight for social justice in a well-fitting charcoal gray two piece suit.

But why should there be social distinctions? I don't miss the social cues, I disagree with our acceptance of them and their meaning. I'm not saying that you are incorrect in judging how adcomms or interviewers will view someone who disregards these cues. I'm simply saying that their uncritical acceptance or encouragement of these divisions (which the law, theoretically, seeks to ignore (i.e. why blindfolded liberty is the symbol of justice)) is itself unsupportable.

Yes, I realize I may have to sell my soul to save the souls of others, and all that sort of dreck. It's kind of WHY I'm doing it, since I don't think social change is going to come about through poetry or literature in this day and age (sadly).

[champ33]

All social distinction is deeply intertwined with displays of power. Dressing appropriately signals that one is able to understand that system and manipulate it for a desired outcome. That's exactly what a lawyer does with the law. If I were an admissions dean or an on-campus recruiter I would worry that somebody who drastically missed the social cues proscribing appropriate dress would also fail to understand the normative function of the law.

I should also add that ignoring the mechanisms of power is not a productive way to channel the impacts of those mechanisms or make them go away. To achieve meaningful results, a young lawyer should fight for social justice in a well-fitting charcoal gray two piece suit.

I think you're right, and I wouldn't plan on wearing sweats into a courtroom. However, I doubt whether most people who dismiss others for not following convention are thinking along the lines you are. It's more likely they're slipping comfortably into the manipulation prone system, as you describe it, and forgetting that justice must be tied to what human beings are and what they experience outside of and against that system.

[chadwick218]

Perhaps a Notre Dame or Va Tech sweatshirt? Although I presume that most of the school students could care less about any college rivalries.

[drsomebody]

I doubt whether most people who dismiss others for not following convention are thinking along the lines you are. It's more likely they're slipping comfortably into the manipulation prone system.

Oh, I'm sure that they're not explicitly thinking of things that way. Normative systems work "best" when they are least noticed. The stodgy old boss who refuses to hire a "dirty hippie" for not cutting his hair isn't thinking about limiting and channeling the reproduction of power through physical control of the bodies of others, but that's exactly what he's doing. The homology between the law and appropriate dress almost certainly isn't consciously connected in the minds of adcom members and potential employers, but I suspect it's still subconsciously present. Foucault's entire body of work is based around these sorts of premises (a body of work that IMHO has huge and largely misunderstood implications for legal studies).

So if you 'ironically' dress 'appropriately' are you gaming the system, are you reinforcing it, or is it a combination of the two?

But why should there be social distinctions?

When you have a solid answer for that question please do tell me! It's been vexing social theorists for thousands of years.