Top Law Schools

Mine are black patent leather, about 2-21/2 inches and closed toe. I'll wear regular heels if I have to, but I really hate them. Thoughts?

Why even risk it?

sparkytrainer wrote:Why even risk it?

I have flat malformed feet and heels just hurt. I figured nice wedges would be better than flats but you're probably right.

Wedges are fine if you're going to be in pain otherwise.

I'd rather be in pain than commit a faux pas, but I'm just basically wondering how much of one it would be. Do all women generally just wear normal heels?

Most women change out of their heels right after the interview and change into them right before. I'm only in heels for the time I'm screening. The second I'm out of the interview area I change. Keep some fold up flats. I've seen so many of my classmates changing in the elevator.

I think wedges are a bit weird. I would go with a flats or heels, maybe switch right before interview since they cause pain.

I think you should wear the wedges. Interviewers are not there to judge your shoes - they shouldn't care about those sorts of details as long as you look put together. If the wedges otherwise work with the suit then there is no need to torture yourself with heels. Wearing wedges instead of heels is not going to make or break an interview. Being incredibly uncomfortable because you forced yourself to wear heels might.

giantswan wrote:I think you should wear the wedges. Interviewers are not there to judge your shoes - they shouldn't care about those sorts of details as long as you look put together. If the wedges otherwise work with the suit then there is no need to torture yourself with heels. Wearing wedges instead of heels is not going to make or break an interview. Being incredibly uncomfortable because you forced yourself to wear heels might.

Are you positive about this? Because I personally know hiring partners who are a little old that ding women for wearing pants instead of a dress. For only that reason. Completely sexist and awful, but people like that are out there and interviewing. Literally OP can just have heals in a bag and change right before. Is it really worth the risk?

I'm a style and etiquette aware male who does callbacks and screeners.

I wouldn't even notice or care.

sparkytrainer wrote:

giantswan wrote:I think you should wear the wedges. Interviewers are not there to judge your shoes - they shouldn't care about those sorts of details as long as you look put together. If the wedges otherwise work with the suit then there is no need to torture yourself with heels. Wearing wedges instead of heels is not going to make or break an interview. Being incredibly uncomfortable because you forced yourself to wear heels might.

Are you positive about this? Because I personally know hiring partners who are a little old that ding women for wearing pants instead of a dress. For only that reason. Completely sexist and awful, but people like that are out there and interviewing. Literally OP can just have heals in a bag and change right before. Is it really worth the risk?

How many of those sexist hiring partners are being sent to OCI by their firms?

I guess never say never. Maybe there is a risk that you interview with someone who will ding you because you wearing wedges rather than heels. My understanding is that OP would be in pain from wearing heels even if she did that - I don't think it's worth the trouble just because of the 0.1% chance she gets the sexist hiring partner at her screener, he notices her shoes, and it matters enough for him to ding her.

ETA: Sorry, accidental anon. This is giantswan.

OP, I'm a fellow woman with malformed feet (3 surgeries later), and it hurts incredibly for me to put on pumps, even for short distances.

I asked my S/O, who works for a major consulting firm, if he'd notice shoes that were slightly different than your standard pumps (e.g. had a heel strap, platforms). He said no.

Anonymous User wrote:

sparkytrainer wrote:

giantswan wrote:I think you should wear the wedges. Interviewers are not there to judge your shoes - they shouldn't care about those sorts of details as long as you look put together. If the wedges otherwise work with the suit then there is no need to torture yourself with heels. Wearing wedges instead of heels is not going to make or break an interview. Being incredibly uncomfortable because you forced yourself to wear heels might.

Are you positive about this? Because I personally know hiring partners who are a little old that ding women for wearing pants instead of a dress. For only that reason. Completely sexist and awful, but people like that are out there and interviewing. Literally OP can just have heals in a bag and change right before. Is it really worth the risk?

How many of those sexist hiring partners are being sent to OCI by their firms?

I guess never say never. Maybe there is a risk that you interview with someone who will ding you because you wearing wedges rather than heels. My understanding is that OP would be in pain from wearing heels even if she did that - I don't think it's worth the trouble just because of the 0.1% chance she gets the sexist hiring partner at her screener, he notices her shoes, and it matters enough for him to ding her.

ETA: Sorry, accidental anon. This is giantswan.

I know 1 hiring partner that has been at OCI's this year and 1 judge who will not hire for the reason I explained above. Listen I agree that the risk is extremely low, but those people do exist. I appreciate OP is in pain, but how much pain is it to take 5 steps into an interview room and then out to change shoes? If it really is that painful, then sure OP take the risk. But if OP can deal, I wouldn't want to risk the 1 potential offer I may have gotten be at risk purely because of this choice. Just my risk adverse nature.

sparkytrainer wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

sparkytrainer wrote:

giantswan wrote:I think you should wear the wedges. Interviewers are not there to judge your shoes - they shouldn't care about those sorts of details as long as you look put together. If the wedges otherwise work with the suit then there is no need to torture yourself with heels. Wearing wedges instead of heels is not going to make or break an interview. Being incredibly uncomfortable because you forced yourself to wear heels might.

Are you positive about this? Because I personally know hiring partners who are a little old that ding women for wearing pants instead of a dress. For only that reason. Completely sexist and awful, but people like that are out there and interviewing. Literally OP can just have heals in a bag and change right before. Is it really worth the risk?

How many of those sexist hiring partners are being sent to OCI by their firms?

I guess never say never. Maybe there is a risk that you interview with someone who will ding you because you wearing wedges rather than heels. My understanding is that OP would be in pain from wearing heels even if she did that - I don't think it's worth the trouble just because of the 0.1% chance she gets the sexist hiring partner at her screener, he notices her shoes, and it matters enough for him to ding her.

ETA: Sorry, accidental anon. This is giantswan.

I know 1 hiring partner that has been at OCI's this year and 1 judge who will not hire for the reason I explained above. Listen I agree that the risk is extremely low, but those people do exist. I appreciate OP is in pain, but how much pain is it to take 5 steps into an interview room and then out to change shoes? If it really is that painful, then sure OP take the risk. But if OP can deal, I wouldn't want to risk the 1 potential offer I may have gotten be at risk purely because of this choice. Just my risk adverse nature.

Depending on the issues OP has, it can be a lot of pain and may not necessarily stop once she sits down. Even mild pain at the beginning could throw off her interview. The risk of being dinged by someone for something like that is still close to zero. Even if one of her interviewers is like the hiring partner you mentioned - she would have to wear heels to every interview because she wouldn't know who it could possibly be. This would mean putting herself in pain (or even mild discomfort) for every single screener - I think the risk of that throwing her off during interviews is way greater than the risk you are mentioning. So choosing to wear heels to every interview "just in case" doesn't feel like the risk averse option to me.

giantswan wrote:

sparkytrainer wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

sparkytrainer wrote:

giantswan wrote:I think you should wear the wedges. Interviewers are not there to judge your shoes - they shouldn't care about those sorts of details as long as you look put together. If the wedges otherwise work with the suit then there is no need to torture yourself with heels. Wearing wedges instead of heels is not going to make or break an interview. Being incredibly uncomfortable because you forced yourself to wear heels might.

Are you positive about this? Because I personally know hiring partners who are a little old that ding women for wearing pants instead of a dress. For only that reason. Completely sexist and awful, but people like that are out there and interviewing. Literally OP can just have heals in a bag and change right before. Is it really worth the risk?

How many of those sexist hiring partners are being sent to OCI by their firms?

I guess never say never. Maybe there is a risk that you interview with someone who will ding you because you wearing wedges rather than heels. My understanding is that OP would be in pain from wearing heels even if she did that - I don't think it's worth the trouble just because of the 0.1% chance she gets the sexist hiring partner at her screener, he notices her shoes, and it matters enough for him to ding her.

ETA: Sorry, accidental anon. This is giantswan.

I know 1 hiring partner that has been at OCI's this year and 1 judge who will not hire for the reason I explained above. Listen I agree that the risk is extremely low, but those people do exist. I appreciate OP is in pain, but how much pain is it to take 5 steps into an interview room and then out to change shoes? If it really is that painful, then sure OP take the risk. But if OP can deal, I wouldn't want to risk the 1 potential offer I may have gotten be at risk purely because of this choice. Just my risk adverse nature.

Depending on the issues OP has, it can be a lot of pain and may not necessarily stop once she sits down. Even mild pain at the beginning could throw off her interview. The risk of being dinged by someone for something like that is still close to zero. Even if one of her interviewers is like the hiring partner you mentioned - she would have to wear heels to every interview because she wouldn't know who it could possibly be. This would mean putting herself in pain (or even mild discomfort) for every single screener - I think the risk of that throwing her off during interviews is way greater than the risk you are mentioning. So choosing to wear heels to every interview "just in case" doesn't feel like the risk averse option to me.

I guess we are just assuming how much pain OP will have and we have different intuitions on this issue, which is fine. I hope it works out for OP.

giantswan wrote:

sparkytrainer wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

sparkytrainer wrote:

giantswan wrote:I think you should wear the wedges. Interviewers are not there to judge your shoes - they shouldn't care about those sorts of details as long as you look put together. If the wedges otherwise work with the suit then there is no need to torture yourself with heels. Wearing wedges instead of heels is not going to make or break an interview. Being incredibly uncomfortable because you forced yourself to wear heels might.

Are you positive about this? Because I personally know hiring partners who are a little old that ding women for wearing pants instead of a dress. For only that reason. Completely sexist and awful, but people like that are out there and interviewing. Literally OP can just have heals in a bag and change right before. Is it really worth the risk?

How many of those sexist hiring partners are being sent to OCI by their firms?

I guess never say never. Maybe there is a risk that you interview with someone who will ding you because you wearing wedges rather than heels. My understanding is that OP would be in pain from wearing heels even if she did that - I don't think it's worth the trouble just because of the 0.1% chance she gets the sexist hiring partner at her screener, he notices her shoes, and it matters enough for him to ding her.

ETA: Sorry, accidental anon. This is giantswan.

I know 1 hiring partner that has been at OCI's this year and 1 judge who will not hire for the reason I explained above. Listen I agree that the risk is extremely low, but those people do exist. I appreciate OP is in pain, but how much pain is it to take 5 steps into an interview room and then out to change shoes? If it really is that painful, then sure OP take the risk. But if OP can deal, I wouldn't want to risk the 1 potential offer I may have gotten be at risk purely because of this choice. Just my risk adverse nature.

Depending on the issues OP has, it can be a lot of pain and may not necessarily stop once she sits down. Even mild pain at the beginning could throw off her interview. The risk of being dinged by someone for something like that is still close to zero. Even if one of her interviewers is like the hiring partner you mentioned - she would have to wear heels to every interview because she wouldn't know who it could possibly be. This would mean putting herself in pain (or even mild discomfort) for every single screener - I think the risk of that throwing her off during interviews is way greater than the risk you are mentioning. So choosing to wear heels to every interview "just in case" doesn't feel like the risk averse option to me.

Definitely agree with this. The topic came up in a hospitality suite today (well specifically flats vs heels), and everyone in the room collectively said they couldn't imagine it mattering in the slightest. If an interviewee will be appreciably more comfortable and be able to present better because they aren't suffering, they will perform better in the interviews. The potential upside is far greater than the potential downside of getting one ancient old man interviewing you who has preferences on these things and would let that overcome a good personality and resume.

"Is it worth the risk?" I say absolutely. I also think this is a little more nuanced of a question than dress vs pants. The chances are probably quite high an interviewer wouldn't even notice your shoes so long as they are a professional color and don't draw attention.

I do not understand why not flats? I do not think I have noticed a single person in my office wearing wedges.If it is unusual at firm, where you can be more casual than In interview, people will find it unusual and inappropriate in the interview even if no sexist motivation. Obviously my firm might be an outlier, but if other people notice a lack of wedges it in their firms too, then probs a bad idea.

sparkytrainer wrote:

giantswan wrote:

sparkytrainer wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

sparkytrainer wrote:

giantswan wrote:I think you should wear the wedges. Interviewers are not there to judge your shoes - they shouldn't care about those sorts of details as long as you look put together. If the wedges otherwise work with the suit then there is no need to torture yourself with heels. Wearing wedges instead of heels is not going to make or break an interview. Being incredibly uncomfortable because you forced yourself to wear heels might.

Are you positive about this? Because I personally know hiring partners who are a little old that ding women for wearing pants instead of a dress. For only that reason. Completely sexist and awful, but people like that are out there and interviewing. Literally OP can just have heals in a bag and change right before. Is it really worth the risk?

How many of those sexist hiring partners are being sent to OCI by their firms?

I guess never say never. Maybe there is a risk that you interview with someone who will ding you because you wearing wedges rather than heels. My understanding is that OP would be in pain from wearing heels even if she did that - I don't think it's worth the trouble just because of the 0.1% chance she gets the sexist hiring partner at her screener, he notices her shoes, and it matters enough for him to ding her.

ETA: Sorry, accidental anon. This is giantswan.

I know 1 hiring partner that has been at OCI's this year and 1 judge who will not hire for the reason I explained above. Listen I agree that the risk is extremely low, but those people do exist. I appreciate OP is in pain, but how much pain is it to take 5 steps into an interview room and then out to change shoes? If it really is that painful, then sure OP take the risk. But if OP can deal, I wouldn't want to risk the 1 potential offer I may have gotten be at risk purely because of this choice. Just my risk adverse nature.

Depending on the issues OP has, it can be a lot of pain and may not necessarily stop once she sits down. Even mild pain at the beginning could throw off her interview. The risk of being dinged by someone for something like that is still close to zero. Even if one of her interviewers is like the hiring partner you mentioned - she would have to wear heels to every interview because she wouldn't know who it could possibly be. This would mean putting herself in pain (or even mild discomfort) for every single screener - I think the risk of that throwing her off during interviews is way greater than the risk you are mentioning. So choosing to wear heels to every interview "just in case" doesn't feel like the risk averse option to me.

I guess we are just assuming how much pain OP will have and we have different intuitions on this issue, which is fine. I hope it works out for OP.

Thanks! I ended up getting some gel inserts for my heels, and it's helped a little with the pain. I'm going to just have some flats at the ready for in between the interviews. I've never done this long of an interview day with heels so I'm hoping it will work out.

Pokemon wrote:I do not understand why not flats? I do not think I have noticed a single person in my office wearing wedges.If it is unusual at firm, where you can be more casual than In interview, people will find it unusual and inappropriate in the interview even if no sexist motivation. Obviously my firm might be an outlier, but if other people notice a lack of wedges it in their firms too, then probs a bad idea.

I have some flats that could work but I don't really like the look of them for a formal interview. To me the wedges looked more conservative, plus they helped with my posture without the pain of heels.

Applesauce11 wrote:

Pokemon wrote:I do not understand why not flats? I do not think I have noticed a single person in my office wearing wedges.If it is unusual at firm, where you can be more casual than In interview, people will find it unusual and inappropriate in the interview even if no sexist motivation. Obviously my firm might be an outlier, but if other people notice a lack of wedges it in their firms too, then probs a bad idea.

I have some flats that could work but I don't really like the look of them for a formal interview. To me the wedges looked more conservative, plus they helped with my posture without the pain of heels.

If wedges look more appropriatte for formal interview than flats then I guess they are probably fine.

In the off chance that I went to KFC with my OCI interviewer, I would conservatively go with cole slaw rather than potato wedges.

If you are not wearing Deal Sleds during OCI, you are doing it wrong.

squishylawstudent321 wrote:If you are not wearing Deal Sleds during OCI, you are doing it wrong.

I wear both open and closed wedges to court all the time. Black or navy blue, of course. They are fine for interviews. Long gone are the days that women lawyers wear fuck me pumps on a regular basis.