How much does physical attractiveness matter in big law? Forum

[tlsguy2020]

With RTO I’ve re-noticed one specific pet peeve of mine — it’s when guys wear shirts that don’t have collar stays in and the collars then point up at the ends. This isn’t really a huge issue since most people are basically dressing causal to the office but I see it once in a while and it drives me nuts. Don’t know whether it reflects on their physical attractiveness or ability to thrive in biglaw. But it bugs the hell out of me

[Anonymous User]

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm gonna say this while being a male.

Kudos to the women ITT who show up to do their job and don't obess over their appearance. I have never questioned whether a female colleague is more professional or competent because she does or does not wear makeup, or does or does not style her hair or clothing a given way. Who gives a shit? If I'm that focused on a female colleague's appearance, the issue isn't her professionalism or competence. It's me being perverted, judgmental, having questionable intentions, or something along the lines. I don't know any male colleague who feels differently or who has ever articulated anything to the contrary. And it is somewhat sad that a lot of women might be driving themselves crazy at work over something they think their colleagues care about which probably next to no one actually cares about. Personally, I'm more likely to respect a female colleague who lives her life not giving a fuck what her colleagues think about her appearance.

Am I the only person living in the universe where women are judged on their looks all the fucking time, where the beauty and fashion and diet industries are massive money makers? (I would also like to know how someone can tell from the outside whether a woman gives a fuck what her colleagues think about her appearance.)

Can only imagine how that conversation goes.
Browsing: you're ugly and I RESPECT you for it
Female Colleague:

Female Colleague: [wears makeup and dyes her hair]
Browsing: tool of the MAN

[The Lsat Airbender]

With RTO I’ve re-noticed one specific pet peeve of mine — it’s when guys wear shirts that don’t have collar stays in and the collars then point up at the ends. This isn’t really a huge issue since most people are basically dressing causal to the office but I see it once in a while and it drives me nuts. Don’t know whether it reflects on their physical attractiveness or ability to thrive in biglaw. But it bugs the hell out of me

Don't worry, they'll be the first to go when recession hits

[Anonymous User]

With RTO I’ve re-noticed one specific pet peeve of mine — it’s when guys wear shirts that don’t have collar stays in and the collars then point up at the ends. This isn’t really a huge issue since most people are basically dressing causal to the office but I see it once in a while and it drives me nuts. Don’t know whether it reflects on their physical attractiveness or ability to thrive in biglaw. But it bugs the hell out of me

I'm actually going to judge this a lot more than "attractiveness". You can't control the face you were born with. You can learn how to wear dress shirts.

[Anonymous User]

If I'm picking junior associates to staff on my deals with all other things are equal, I'm going to pick the ones that are easier on the eyes. If you think that doesn't apply relatively universally, you are coping hard.

The beauty/fashion/diet industry helps cultivate a specific image but I'm not talking about extra effort, I'm just talking about natural good looks. If you don't know what naturally good looking means then you probably aren't.

Can't tell if this is a troll. Truly dumb take.

If the claim is that being attractive is useful in a professional space, yes. Of course. Much like in any space. If I was going to sit and stare at people, yes I prefer the aesthetically pleasing ones. Perhaps people are predisposed to treat attractive people better in a behavioral and automatic sense.

But this idea that people are picking which juniors to staff on the basis of appearance... LOL. If "all other things are equal" So when it comes to choosing who to staff on your deals, you first stop to think about whether they all have an equal level of competence, personality, etc. Then, you stop to think hmmm, which one of these associates is best looking? Sara has a pretty face. I'll choose her to do doc review.

The not troll anon here:

It’s not a take? It’s literally my experience? You guys asked and you got an answer from a mid/senior level associate.

And yes, all 1st years are professionally identical 5 months into the career. It doesn’t take much thought there when you’re all equally useless. But the likable ones (aesthetically, intellectually and emotionally) are going to get treated better and get more work and hence improve more.

[Anonymous User]

If I'm picking junior associates to staff on my deals with all other things are equal, I'm going to pick the ones that are easier on the eyes. If you think that doesn't apply relatively universally, you are coping hard.

The beauty/fashion/diet industry helps cultivate a specific image but I'm not talking about extra effort, I'm just talking about natural good looks. If you don't know what naturally good looking means then you probably aren't.

Can't tell if this is a troll. Truly dumb take.

If the claim is that being attractive is useful in a professional space, yes. Of course. Much like in any space. If I was going to sit and stare at people, yes I prefer the aesthetically pleasing ones. Perhaps people are predisposed to treat attractive people better in a behavioral and automatic sense.

But this idea that people are picking which juniors to staff on the basis of appearance... LOL. If "all other things are equal" So when it comes to choosing who to staff on your deals, you first stop to think about whether they all have an equal level of competence, personality, etc. Then, you stop to think hmmm, which one of these associates is best looking? Sara has a pretty face. I'll choose her to do doc review.

The not troll anon here:

It’s not a take? It’s literally my experience? You guys asked and you got an answer from a mid/senior level associate.

And yes, all 1st years are professionally identical 5 months into the career. It doesn’t take much thought there when you’re all equally useless. But the likable ones (aesthetically, intellectually and emotionally) are going to get treated better and get more work and hence improve more.

There's a difference between making a descriptive statement that in general better looking people are more successful and personally saying you will do staff hotties. To put it bluntly, you're a bad person for doing this.

Edit - to put another way, it's not "your experience", you're the experiencor not the experiencee.

[Anonymous User]

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm gonna say this while being a male.

Kudos to the women ITT who show up to do their job and don't obess over their appearance. I have never questioned whether a female colleague is more professional or competent because she does or does not wear makeup, or does or does not style her hair or clothing a given way. Who gives a shit? If I'm that focused on a female colleague's appearance, the issue isn't her professionalism or competence. It's me being perverted, judgmental, having questionable intentions, or something along the lines. I don't know any male colleague who feels differently or who has ever articulated anything to the contrary. And it is somewhat sad that a lot of women might be driving themselves crazy at work over something they think their colleagues care about which probably next to no one actually cares about. Personally, I'm more likely to respect a female colleague who lives her life not giving a fuck what her colleagues think about her appearance.

It's good that you're treating people nicely, but in my experience the vast majority of the judgment (of women's appearance) is coming from other women.

[Anonymous User]

If I'm picking junior associates to staff on my deals with all other things are equal, I'm going to pick the ones that are easier on the eyes. If you think that doesn't apply relatively universally, you are coping hard.

The beauty/fashion/diet industry helps cultivate a specific image but I'm not talking about extra effort, I'm just talking about natural good looks. If you don't know what naturally good looking means then you probably aren't.

Can't tell if this is a troll. Truly dumb take.

If the claim is that being attractive is useful in a professional space, yes. Of course. Much like in any space. If I was going to sit and stare at people, yes I prefer the aesthetically pleasing ones. Perhaps people are predisposed to treat attractive people better in a behavioral and automatic sense.

But this idea that people are picking which juniors to staff on the basis of appearance... LOL. If "all other things are equal" So when it comes to choosing who to staff on your deals, you first stop to think about whether they all have an equal level of competence, personality, etc. Then, you stop to think hmmm, which one of these associates is best looking? Sara has a pretty face. I'll choose her to do doc review.

The not troll anon here:

It’s not a take? It’s literally my experience? You guys asked and you got an answer from a mid/senior level associate.

And yes, all 1st years are professionally identical 5 months into the career. It doesn’t take much thought there when you’re all equally useless. But the likable ones (aesthetically, intellectually and emotionally) are going to get treated better and get more work and hence improve more.

There's a difference between making a descriptive statement that in general better looking people are more successful and personally saying you will do staff hotties. To put it bluntly, you're a bad person for doing this.

Edit - to put another way, it's not "your experience", you're the experiencor not the experiencee.

Who asked about your moral compass? The question was how does physical attractiveness affect your career. Stop arguing with reality.

Edit: to put in a way a virtue signaler may understand, I’m making a descriptive statement based on my experience in the industry. And that includes my own decision making process. I am not making a prescriptive statement of how things should be or how people should act.

[Anonymous User]

If I'm picking junior associates to staff on my deals with all other things are equal, I'm going to pick the ones that are easier on the eyes. If you think that doesn't apply relatively universally, you are coping hard.

The beauty/fashion/diet industry helps cultivate a specific image but I'm not talking about extra effort, I'm just talking about natural good looks. If you don't know what naturally good looking means then you probably aren't.

Can't tell if this is a troll. Truly dumb take.

If the claim is that being attractive is useful in a professional space, yes. Of course. Much like in any space. If I was going to sit and stare at people, yes I prefer the aesthetically pleasing ones. Perhaps people are predisposed to treat attractive people better in a behavioral and automatic sense.

But this idea that people are picking which juniors to staff on the basis of appearance... LOL. If "all other things are equal" So when it comes to choosing who to staff on your deals, you first stop to think about whether they all have an equal level of competence, personality, etc. Then, you stop to think hmmm, which one of these associates is best looking? Sara has a pretty face. I'll choose her to do doc review.

The not troll anon here:

It’s not a take? It’s literally my experience? You guys asked and you got an answer from a mid/senior level associate.

And yes, all 1st years are professionally identical 5 months into the career. It doesn’t take much thought there when you’re all equally useless. But the likable ones (aesthetically, intellectually and emotionally) are going to get treated better and get more work and hence improve more.

There's a difference between making a descriptive statement that in general better looking people are more successful and personally saying you will do staff hotties. To put it bluntly, you're a bad person for doing this.

Edit - to put another way, it's not "your experience", you're the experiencor not the experiencee.

Who asked about your moral compass? The question was how does physical attractiveness affect your career. Stop arguing with reality.

I'm not arguing with reality. I'm arguing with you.

[Anonymous User]

There's a difference between making a descriptive statement that in general better looking people are more successful and personally saying you will do staff hotties. To put it bluntly, you're a bad person for doing this.

Edit - to put another way, it's not "your experience", you're the experiencor not the experiencee.

Who asked about your moral compass? The question was how does physical attractiveness affect your career. Stop arguing with reality.

I'm not arguing with reality. I'm arguing with you.

What’s your argument then? Do you disagree that this happens? Do you disagree that it affects a career?

[Anonymous User]

If I'm picking junior associates to staff on my deals with all other things are equal, I'm going to pick the ones that are easier on the eyes. If you think that doesn't apply relatively universally, you are coping hard.

The beauty/fashion/diet industry helps cultivate a specific image but I'm not talking about extra effort, I'm just talking about natural good looks. If you don't know what naturally good looking means then you probably aren't.

Can't tell if this is a troll. Truly dumb take.

If the claim is that being attractive is useful in a professional space, yes. Of course. Much like in any space. If I was going to sit and stare at people, yes I prefer the aesthetically pleasing ones. Perhaps people are predisposed to treat attractive people better in a behavioral and automatic sense.

But this idea that people are picking which juniors to staff on the basis of appearance... LOL. If "all other things are equal" So when it comes to choosing who to staff on your deals, you first stop to think about whether they all have an equal level of competence, personality, etc. Then, you stop to think hmmm, which one of these associates is best looking? Sara has a pretty face. I'll choose her to do doc review.

The not troll anon here:

It’s not a take? It’s literally my experience? You guys asked and you got an answer from a mid/senior level associate.

And yes, all 1st years are professionally identical 5 months into the career. It doesn’t take much thought there when you’re all equally useless. But the likable ones (aesthetically, intellectually and emotionally) are going to get treated better and get more work and hence improve more.

There's a difference between making a descriptive statement that in general better looking people are more successful and personally saying you will do staff hotties. To put it bluntly, you're a bad person for doing this.

Edit - to put another way, it's not "your experience", you're the experiencor not the experiencee.

Who asked about your moral compass? The question was how does physical attractiveness affect your career. Stop arguing with reality.

Edit: to put in a way a virtue signaler may understand, I’m making a descriptive statement based on my experience in the industry. And that includes my own decision making process. I am not making a prescriptive statement of how things should be or how people should act.

It's all so bizzare. No one would have an issue with naturally intelligent people having more successful careers, but somehow naturally beautiful people having more successful careers is a travesty. Charisma is a key part of career success, and attractive people have more charisma.

[Anonymous User]

There's a difference between making a descriptive statement that in general better looking people are more successful and personally saying you will do staff hotties. To put it bluntly, you're a bad person for doing this.

Edit - to put another way, it's not "your experience", you're the experiencor not the experiencee.

Who asked about your moral compass? The question was how does physical attractiveness affect your career. Stop arguing with reality.

I'm not arguing with reality. I'm arguing with you.

What’s your argument then? Do you disagree that this happens? Do you disagree that it affects a career?

My argument is that you shouldn't do this!

[Anonymous User]

There's a difference between making a descriptive statement that in general better looking people are more successful and personally saying you will do staff hotties. To put it bluntly, you're a bad person for doing this.

Edit - to put another way, it's not "your experience", you're the experiencor not the experiencee.

Who asked about your moral compass? The question was how does physical attractiveness affect your career. Stop arguing with reality.

I'm not arguing with reality. I'm arguing with you.

What’s your argument then? Do you disagree that this happens? Do you disagree that it affects a career?

My argument is that you shouldn't do this!

Interesting. In a social context, if all other measures were equal, what would be your “tiebreaker” so to speak? My point is that I use likability. Not just aesthetically, but all around likability.

[Anonymous User]

It's all so bizzare. No one would have an issue with naturally intelligent people having more successful careers, but somehow naturally beautiful people having more successful careers is a travesty. Charisma is a key part of career success, and attractive people have more charisma.

Either trolling or an impressively bad take. Hard to tell which, but I'm leaning troll.

[Anonymous User]

It's all so bizzare. No one would have an issue with naturally intelligent people having more successful careers, but somehow naturally beautiful people having more successful careers is a travesty. Charisma is a key part of career success, and attractive people have more charisma.

Either trolling or an impressively bad take. Hard to tell which, but I'm leaning troll.

Look around and check what percentage of fortune 500 CEOs are 6 feet tall or more. The compare to the general population.

Delusional fantasies are one thing, facts on the ground quite another. Is the person who is 100lbs overweight getting Brad Pitt's role in the next movie?

[Anonymous User]

It's all so bizzare. No one would have an issue with naturally intelligent people having more successful careers, but somehow naturally beautiful people having more successful careers is a travesty. Charisma is a key part of career success, and attractive people have more charisma.

Either trolling or an impressively bad take. Hard to tell which, but I'm leaning troll.

Look around and check what percentage of fortune 500 CEOs are 6 feet tall or more. The compare to the general population.

Delusional fantasies are one thing, facts on the ground quite another. Is the person who is 100lbs overweight getting Brad Pitt's role in the next movie?

“Tall people are more often CEOs” and “Fat people don’t get sex symbol movie roles” are statements of fact about the world that we have almost no influence over.

The guy who said he intentionally staffs junior associates based on attractiveness is not the same thing. That’s what the two posts you quoted are about.

Sometimes I wonder how some posters got through the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT. Maybe attractiveness adds a few points there

[Anonymous User]

If I'm picking junior associates to staff on my deals with all other things are equal, I'm going to pick the ones that are easier on the eyes. If you think that doesn't apply relatively universally, you are coping hard.

The beauty/fashion/diet industry helps cultivate a specific image but I'm not talking about extra effort, I'm just talking about natural good looks. If you don't know what naturally good looking means then you probably aren't.

Can't tell if this is a troll. Truly dumb take.

If the claim is that being attractive is useful in a professional space, yes. Of course. Much like in any space. If I was going to sit and stare at people, yes I prefer the aesthetically pleasing ones. Perhaps people are predisposed to treat attractive people better in a behavioral and automatic sense.

But this idea that people are picking which juniors to staff on the basis of appearance... LOL. If "all other things are equal" So when it comes to choosing who to staff on your deals, you first stop to think about whether they all have an equal level of competence, personality, etc. Then, you stop to think hmmm, which one of these associates is best looking? Sara has a pretty face. I'll choose her to do doc review.

The not troll anon here:

It’s not a take? It’s literally my experience? You guys asked and you got an answer from a mid/senior level associate.

And yes, all 1st years are professionally identical 5 months into the career. It doesn’t take much thought there when you’re all equally useless. But the likable ones (aesthetically, intellectually and emotionally) are going to get treated better and get more work and hence improve more.

There's a difference between making a descriptive statement that in general better looking people are more successful and personally saying you will do staff hotties. To put it bluntly, you're a bad person for doing this.

Edit - to put another way, it's not "your experience", you're the experiencor not the experiencee.

Who asked about your moral compass? The question was how does physical attractiveness affect your career. Stop arguing with reality.

Edit: to put in a way a virtue signaler may understand, I’m making a descriptive statement based on my experience in the industry. And that includes my own decision making process. I am not making a prescriptive statement of how things should be or how people should act.

It's all so bizzare. No one would have an issue with naturally intelligent people having more successful careers, but somehow naturally beautiful people having more successful careers is a travesty. Charisma is a key part of career success, and attractive people have more charisma.

Lmfao.

Listen, most people are not pretending or arguing that beatiful people or charismatic people don't have advantages in the workplace or that people should go out of their way to control the instinctive drive that subconsciously promotes the preference of physically attractive people over others. That's life.

The challenge here was originally around the initial post about actively choosing to staff juniors on deals based on their appearance. I don't particularly care to discuss the ethics of it. Ironically, big law is not a beacon of integrity or demanding of ethics.

It's just tedious, ridiculous, vapid, and fratty to choose candidates for doc review on the basis of who you want to fuck or would most want to look like. It makes you sound like a petulant boy that wears conch shell chokers and thinks liking American Psycho / Wolf of Wallstreet is a personality trait.

[Anonymous User]

I’m not sure what the anon staffing associates on their likability/attractiveness meant, but it’s not clear whether they meant they do this on purpose because they think it’s a good practice, or whether they were acknowledging that when they’re staffing people, they pick people they prefer to work with, and that humans are designed to favor physical attractiveness even if they don’t intend to do so. I don’t think they necessarily meant they pick people they want to fuck as much as they pick people they like and humans consider looks in that.

I think the key thing here is that the staffer slid over from aesthetic attractiveness to overall likability, which isn’t at all only about objective physical attractiveness. I have two colleagues who you’d never pick out of a lineup for attractiveness just based on a photograph (they’re not ugly, just what I’d consider kind of plain). But when you actually talk to them, they both have incredibly attractive personalities and people like them and like working with them almost instantly. And I’m sure we can all identify good looking assholes who take great photos but annoy everyone around them.

Re: “charisma is just part of job effectiveness” - charisma and being “naturally beautiful” aren’t the same thing either (both my colleagues are charismatic, but not naturally “beautiful”). But all these terms, charisma and beauty and likability, are inherently subjective and slippery. And I don’t think charisma is universally part of job effectiveness - it depends on the job (am I the only one who’s known appellate attorneys who hole up in their office and talk to no one and are absolutely not charismatic, but are excellent at their job?).

[Anonymous User]

^ their replies to other posts commenting on their original post gives enough context to what they meant. It's not that hard to understand. The poster wasn't making some kind of nuanced or complicated point that needs to be unpacked.

[Anonymous User]

Lmfao.

Listen, most people are not pretending or arguing that beatiful people or charismatic people don't have advantages in the workplace or that people should go out of their way to control the instinctive drive that subconsciously promotes the preference of physically attractive people over others. That's life.

The challenge here was originally around the initial post about choosing to staff juniors on deals based on their appearance. I don't particularly care to discuss the ethics of it. Ironically, big law is not a beacon of integrity or demanding of ethics.

It's just tedious, ridiculous, vapid, and fratty to choose candidates for doc review on the basis of who you want to fuck or would most want to look like. It makes you sound like a petulant boy that wears conch shell chokers and thinks liking American Psycho / Wolf of Wallstreet is a personality trait.

So you acknowledge that “it’s life” but when I say “that’s my life” you take issue with it?

How do you square that?

[Anonymous User]

Lmfao.

Listen, most people are not pretending or arguing that beatiful people or charismatic people don't have advantages in the workplace or that people should go out of their way to control the instinctive drive that subconsciously promotes the preference of physically attractive people over others. That's life.

The challenge here was originally around the initial post about choosing to staff juniors on deals based on their appearance. I don't particularly care to discuss the ethics of it. Ironically, big law is not a beacon of integrity or demanding of ethics.

It's just tedious, ridiculous, vapid, and fratty to choose candidates for doc review on the basis of who you want to fuck or would most want to look like. It makes you sound like a petulant boy that wears conch shell chokers and thinks liking American Psycho / Wolf of Wallstreet is a personality trait.

So you acknowledge that “it’s life” but when I say “that’s my life” you take issue with it?

How do you square that?

Do you really not understand the point that has been made over and over again in this thread and in response to your post?

Scenario 1:
X is human and thus naturally attracted to physically appealing people. Y is a beautiful female. X is naturally attracted to her and subconsciously engages in behavior that may benefit Y.

Scenario 2:
X is human and this naturally attracted to physically appealing people. Y is a beatiful female. X is naturally attracted to her and therefore actively prioritizes his preference for Y by actively engaging in behavior that benefits Y.

Do you understand?

[Anonymous User]

[/quote]

It's all so bizzare. No one would have an issue with naturally intelligent people having more successful careers, but somehow naturally beautiful people having more successful careers is a travesty. Charisma is a key part of career success, and attractive people have more charisma.
[/quote]

I have met plenty of attractive people with zero charisma. Those two traits are not correlated at all -- maybe you're just not around that many attractive people?

[Anonymous User]

When I staff my deals, I pick the ugliest associates. Gotta give them a fighting chance in life, ya know?

[Anonymous User]

Adam: hey is it true that if you go out in this neighborhood at night you'll get mugged?

Bob: yes, I personally will mug you

Carl: whoa dude that's not cool!

Bob: what? just answering the question. People get mugged at night, that's life.

[Anonymous User]

It's all so bizzare. No one would have an issue with naturally intelligent people having more successful careers, but somehow naturally beautiful people having more successful careers is a travesty. Charisma is a key part of career success, and attractive people have more charisma.

I have met plenty of attractive people with zero charisma. Those two traits are not correlated at all -- maybe you're just not around that many attractive people?

I wouldn't say charisma has no correlation to physical appearance at all. Charisma is recognized and established through the perceiver. I think it's generally accepted that we, as a society, tend to view attractive people as charismatic more readily. This has a lot to do with the physically attractive person's confidence, the perceiver's insecurities, projection, and so on.

I will agree that plenty of people are unattractive and still very charismatic. And they need not be correlated in every instance.