Top Law Schools

I'm hearing conflicting things and am curious as to what you will be wearing

These hose ain't loyal.

That is all.

Suck it up and err on the side of hose.

Whether you'd ultimately need to wear them later as an SA is an entirely different question. Just get quality pairs in the proper sheer color for your skin tone so you don't look all Working Girl/Nine to Five.

Also check your heteronormativity

Avoiding hose - I'm just not going to worry about it and I have nice legs anyway.

Do interviewers even notice

The ones who care will notice. Can't say that's going to be any measurable number, though.

I would just consider whether you want to risk standing out in a negative way. I think the answer is "no."

Why wouldn't you err on the side of more conservative?

Is it bad to wear a pants suit? Then at least you don't have to worry about that.

I bought some of that airbrush hose stuff to make my legs look nicer.

I don't think the point of hose is to make your legs look nicer.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't think the point of hose is to make your legs look nicer.

I mean it kinda is. Women wear hose because it makes their legs look nicer, period. Wearing some sheer nylon on your legs isn't doing much for your modesty really, it's just that now hose are considered more conservative because they're old fashioned. For me the dilemma wasn't "wear hose because some ancient geyser might ding you if you don't", it was "wear hose because it gives you a more polished and professional look". The latter can be achieved with leg makeup if you choose.

I really don't think that's why women are expected to wear hose. They're expected to wear hose because it's traditional and conservative female clothing. Wearing leg makeup is entirely not that. (Which isn't to say that people have to wear hose - I think most interviewers won't care - just that leg makeup is not at all a substitute.)

So is the general consensus no pant suit?

Stanford's OCS specifically says that pant suits are fine for OCI FWIW.

I honestly think that TLS echo chamber becomes a little ridiculous about things like this. Pant suits, sheath dresses, patent leather, hose...holy crap why the fuck did I go to law school if all that matters in my interview is what color the pinstripes on my suit are? I feel like if you're getting dinged because of something like that, they're just looking for a excuse to ding you, and they will find one even if it's not your suit.

Any suggestions on brands that are quality but cheap? Without fail I always get runs, which is probably sloppier than going hose-free. Also, thoughts on opaque tights? I find them comfortable even during the summer, they don't run nearly as frequently, but they might look weird to people who care. Thanks!

It's just a numbers game. No hose pisses off that one crochety old interviewer out of a hundred (who may or may not be representative of his or her firm's culture); hose pisses off zero. Same could potentially go for pantsuits, unfortunately, although it's definitely more accepted than skirt with no hose. You can take a stand for our right to wear pantsuits, and honestly thank you if you do, but you should be aware that you're taking on a small but avoidable risk by doing so.

The hyper-conservative stuff can all go out the window after OCI, fwiw, over the summer to some extent and definitely once you're a full-time associate. You still have to exercise common sense, but interviewing is the only time you're a slave to fucking hose.

I think you will really stand out (not good) in opaque tights.

Look, if you don't want to follow the hivemind's advice on clothing, that's fine, but there isn't much point in asking what's appropriate if you're not wiling to follow the answers you don't like. In the absence of any meaningful information about you, you're going to get the answers about what's the safest option.

The point of OCI clothes is not to make you look good. The point of OCI clothes is to be completely unmemorable. They're a uniform.

(Pants suits are fine. Opaque tights are going to look weird - personally I think they look weird with almost every formal suit, but they look especially weird in August. Which is a bummer because I like them too.)

During interviews I never thought it mattered, mainly because I stay tanned. In the office it seems to be evenly split.

It's not going to matter to 95% of interviewers, but what if that 5% is interviewing you for the firm you really want? Isn't it easier and safer to just suck it up and spend $6.99 for some L'eggs at Walgreens?

lol at leg makeup being an equivalent substitute for OCI. Hose are traditional because bare legs were trashy. It's idiotic in this day and age, but there are still a few people (especially in the south) where that sentiment lingers.

No on opaque tights. Not for interviewing and definitely not in August.

I think that there is a fundamental gender disconnect with guys giving advice on this topic.

No offense, I mean y'all mean well. But the general consensus has been "why wouldn't you wear hose just to be safe? just suck it up" and that's just not true. Is hose more conservative than no-hose? Absolutely. But is there absolutely NO downside to wearing hose? Definitely not. (Too many double negatives, I know, but you get my gist.)

Hose is uncomfortable. And clearly, the OTHER prevailing hivemind TLS opinion is that your comfort level is going to make a difference when it comes to interviews. If it's just the minor annoyance of putting it on in the morning, obviously put on hose. But if you're not used to wearing hose and will be constantly readjusting it, or even THINKING about WANTING to readjust it, there is a non-0 benefit to not wearing hose that merits balancing against the extremely slim possibility an old crotchety interviewer will mark you down for it. Sorry guys, these aren't like ties - they are a skin-tight layer adhered to the majority of your surface area. If they are not put on evenly and rolled on slowly, if you go to the bathroom mid-day and don't take the time to carefully readjust, they will look patchy and feel funny.

Also, even with the best of hose, runs are a fact of life. Even on evenings out to dinner, where the most strenuous thing I do is daintily exit a cab on someone's arm, I will inevitably get a run throughout the evening 1/3 of the time. Through a madcap day of running from room to room, interview to interview? With my luck and Murphy's law, I'd put my chances of getting a run throughout a single day at solidly above 50%. And the earlier anon is right - hose with a run looks much sloppier than no hose. With as few as 10 minutes between some interviews, and interviews possibly going long, I for one don't want to risk having to make a mad dash for the bathroom to change hose before an interview I truly care about.

So my opinion is: wear hose if it makes you feel comfortable. Don't if it doesn't. Might you get docked by some old fogey? Very unlikely, but possibly. And even in those rare instances, you might lose a point, but I highly doubt you'd be dinged for lack of hose alone. But is that outweighed by the benefits of not wearing tights, which are more tangible than just "because I don't waaaaannna"? Only you can decide, but it is more than conceivably worth it. It's not so simple as "nothing to lose with hose".

sephrenia300 wrote:I think that there is a fundamental gender disconnect with guys giving advice on this topic.

No offense, I mean y'all mean well. But the general consensus has been "why wouldn't you wear hose just to be safe? just suck it up" and that's just not true. Is hose more conservative than no-hose? Absolutely. But is there absolutely NO downside to wearing hose? Definitely not. (Too many double negatives, I know, but you get my gist.)

Hose is uncomfortable. And clearly, the OTHER prevailing hivemind TLS opinion is that your comfort level is going to make a difference when it comes to interviews. If it's just the minor annoyance of putting it on in the morning, obviously put on hose. But if you're not used to wearing hose and will be constantly readjusting it, or even THINKING about WANTING to readjust it, there is a non-0 benefit to not wearing hose that merits balancing against the extremely slim possibility an old crotchety interviewer will mark you down for it. Sorry guys, these aren't like ties - they are a skin-tight layer adhered to the majority of your surface area. If they are not put on evenly and rolled on slowly, if you go to the bathroom mid-day and don't take the time to carefully readjust, they will look patchy and feel funny.

Also, even with the best of hose, runs are a fact of life. Even on evenings out to dinner, where the most strenuous thing I do is daintily exit a cab on someone's arm, I will inevitably get a run throughout the evening 1/3 of the time. Through a madcap day of running from room to room, interview to interview? With my luck and Murphy's law, I'd put my chances of getting a run throughout a single day at solidly above 50%. And the earlier anon is right - hose with a run looks much sloppier than no hose. With as few as 10 minutes between some interviews, and interviews possibly going long, I for one don't want to risk having to make a mad dash for the bathroom to change hose before an interview I truly care about.

So my opinion is: wear hose if it makes you feel comfortable. Don't if it doesn't. Might you get docked by some old fogey? Very unlikely, but possibly. And even in those rare instances, you might lose a point, but I highly doubt you'd be dinged for lack of hose alone. But is that outweighed by the benefits of not wearing tights, which are more tangible than just "because I don't waaaaannna"? Only you can decide, but it is more than conceivably worth it. It's not so simple as "nothing to lose with hose".

I'm a chick, I don't particularly care for wearing hose, but I've been through OCI and I'm saying you should probably wear them. Nony is also a girl.

rinkrat19 wrote:

sephrenia300 wrote:I think that there is a fundamental gender disconnect with guys giving advice on this topic.

No offense, I mean y'all mean well. But the general consensus has been "why wouldn't you wear hose just to be safe? just suck it up" and that's just not true. Is hose more conservative than no-hose? Absolutely. But is there absolutely NO downside to wearing hose? Definitely not. (Too many double negatives, I know, but you get my gist.)

Hose is uncomfortable. And clearly, the OTHER prevailing hivemind TLS opinion is that your comfort level is going to make a difference when it comes to interviews. If it's just the minor annoyance of putting it on in the morning, obviously put on hose. But if you're not used to wearing hose and will be constantly readjusting it, or even THINKING about WANTING to readjust it, there is a non-0 benefit to not wearing hose that merits balancing against the extremely slim possibility an old crotchety interviewer will mark you down for it. Sorry guys, these aren't like ties - they are a skin-tight layer adhered to the majority of your surface area. If they are not put on evenly and rolled on slowly, if you go to the bathroom mid-day and don't take the time to carefully readjust, they will look patchy and feel funny.

Also, even with the best of hose, runs are a fact of life. Even on evenings out to dinner, where the most strenuous thing I do is daintily exit a cab on someone's arm, I will inevitably get a run throughout the evening 1/3 of the time. Through a madcap day of running from room to room, interview to interview? With my luck and Murphy's law, I'd put my chances of getting a run throughout a single day at solidly above 50%. And the earlier anon is right - hose with a run looks much sloppier than no hose. With as few as 10 minutes between some interviews, and interviews possibly going long, I for one don't want to risk having to make a mad dash for the bathroom to change hose before an interview I truly care about.

So my opinion is: wear hose if it makes you feel comfortable. Don't if it doesn't. Might you get docked by some old fogey? Very unlikely, but possibly. And even in those rare instances, you might lose a point, but I highly doubt you'd be dinged for lack of hose alone. But is that outweighed by the benefits of not wearing tights, which are more tangible than just "because I don't waaaaannna"? Only you can decide, but it is more than conceivably worth it. It's not so simple as "nothing to lose with hose".

I'm a chick, I don't particularly care for wearing hose, but I've been through OCI and I'm saying you should probably wear them. Nony is also a girl.

Fair enough! I'm just saying that the idea that you should just wear hose, there's no conceivable downside, is a little too severe. For what it's worth, I'm a chick, I actually don't mind wearing hose when I'm going out (especially in the winter ohgawd), but I don't plan on wearing them for OCI because I'm afraid of the pitfalls.

And I have absolutely nothing against guys contributing to this thread, but I think it would be more helpful if folks would indicate their gender with their opinion.