OCI interviewing and physical appearance? Forum

[Anonymous User]

So I was going to buy a book from Amazon to prepare for OCI (the book is called How to Nail Your Law Job Interview, in case anyone is wondering). One of the reviews mentioned that the book states that women who wear their hair down (especially blondes) look like Barbie.

Is this actually true or something that one needs to worry about? I never thought I would (or any woman, for that matter) need to worry about not being taken seriously during a firm interview. I really hope that is not the case. But if it is, does anyone have any advice for young women/women in general going through the hiring process? TY in advance <3

[basketofbread]

Some people are insane. The type of person who would write a book on interviewing is an example of an insane person who thinks it is reasonable to make that kind of judgment based on a woman wearing their hair down. You could also imagine some dipshit interviewer who thinks women who wear their hair UP looks unprofessional.

Oci is an inherently idiosyncratic and non-meritorious process. Beyond obvious things like “wear a suit,” “wear tasteful makeup,” etc.” I don’t think you can really account for the bizarre and random things that certain interviewers will take issue with. Most people (hopefully the vast majority) won’t care whether you wear your hair down.

[Anonymous User]

Some people are insane. The type of person who would write a book on interviewing is an example of an insane person who thinks it is reasonable to make that kind of judgment based on a woman wearing their hair down. You could also imagine some dipshit interviewer who thinks women who wear their hair UP looks unprofessional.

Oci is an inherently idiosyncratic and non-meritorious process. Beyond obvious things like “wear a suit,” “wear tasteful makeup,” etc.” I don’t think you can really account for the bizarre and random things that certain interviewers will take issue with. Most people (hopefully the vast majority) won’t care whether you wear your hair down.

This is a pretty good answer.

I'm a male in my 50s. I try my very best to expel from my brain any amount of unconscious gender bias when I interview young lawyers, such as antiquated notions of dress code, mannerisms, and other bullshit that society has brainwashed our generations into adopting. But I have to disclose to you that many of my fellow boomers do not give a shit about this. Older women lawyers can be just as neanderthal as older men lawyers, unfortunately. So exercise fair judgment and be practical. I'm not saying "do not wear your hair down." Wear it down if you want to. But on various other judgment calls, just consider your audience even if it's an annoyingly stupid audience.

My general advice is to jut get in the door first, which currently is controlled by older lawyers. Once you're in, wreak all havoc on the patriarchy, in due course. You will have allies amongst you, I promise.

[jsnow212]

Pretty privilege (male and female) is present in every aspect of life.

Regardless, biglaw lawyers aren't known for being lookers and all kinds of people, ugly and attractive, populate firm halls.

Look presentable and focus on more important stuff that you can control.

[Anonymous User]

I do think there are people out there with weird assumptions who are going to judge things that women do, and there are doubtless idiots who think a woman wearing her hair down is unprofessional (although look at how many women in law firm bio photos wear their hair down). You do want to avoid things like flipping your hair or playing with it, but otherwise wearing your hair down is going to be normal enough that it seems incredibly unlikely to pose a problem, except with outliers you can't predict.

I also think that 2009 is kind of a long time ago now. Saying women shouldn't wear their hair down seems to me like saying a woman should wear a skirt suit - one of those things that really means "dress conservatively for an interview" and offers the absolutely safest, least controversial option, but shouldn't be taken as literal gospel, either.

[Anonymous User]

I don't have a view on how you should wear your hair, OP. But I do have some thoughts on the connection between physical attractiveness and success in the law firm recruitment process.

Anecdotally as a student who was a 1L summer associate and who went through the whole recruitment process just recently, I did notice that in interviews and at receptions it is the attractive and bubbly women who do the best. They seem more confident about both approaching partners and associates and in holding a conversation for an extended period. However for men I noticed less correlation between physical attractiveness (through the eyes of a straight male, to be fair) and networking/interview confidence. I am neither an attractive nor a charismatic man, but I networked and interviewed quite effectively.

Assuming my observations are correct, there may be a couple of explanations:

One is that since most partners are male, it matters more for women to be attractive. However, again in my anecdotal experience, the male/female partnership split in interviews and receptions is usually 50/50. This makes sense, since firms want to recruit more women than men, so they want to involve their female partners more in recruitment even if firms in general have fewer female partners.

The other explanation is that attractive women are simply more confident and more willing to put themselves out there compared to less attractive women, whereas less attractive men aren't so inhibited since men are taught to pay less attention to their physical appearance and to cultivate their confidence from an early age. So women are penalized on a societal and subconscious level in the process, but this also means that individual women who are aware of this could overcome it through preparation.

A third explanation may be that women are judged more harshly on their appearance than men generally by both men and women, so that physical attractiveness in professional settings are simply more important to women than to men. I admittedly can't speak to this, though I hope this isn't the case.

[Anonymous User]

Older male lawyer here. Our perspectives will vary so us men will probably say a bunch of dumb things about this topic of attractiveness, for which I ask forgiveness, as I'm just trying to help.

I think it would be delusional to deny that attractiveness matters in one sense. I've seen this play out many times. But let's not take it too far. If you are a very attractive female young lawyer (or male), you're going to stupidly get more initial attention during interviews. Being a smarmy networker will also come easier to you. Having said that, the amount of times I have personally witnessed attractive lawyers make complete asses of themselves in court because they are incompetent is impossible to count. Also, I hate being a smarmy networker. I like being a trial lawyer, not a networker.

Attractive brilliant lawyers can become Barack Obama, no doubt. That's the way the world works. But if you're not brilliant, you might be biting off more than you can chew. I suggest you take your training and mentoring very seriously so that people don't laugh at you when you screw up, which they will.

If you're just an average dude/gal, you just need to use other strengths to pitch yourself. The world isn't that unfair. All of us are doing the best we can, with the different gifts we've been given. If you aren't strikingly handsome or gorgeous, you can hopefully carry on an intelligent and interesting conversation pretty well. Or write well. Or exercise good judgment on tough ethics questions. Etc. These lawyers, too, do extremely well in our profession. Have you seen a roster of old judges in your locality recently? There's nothing arousing going on there.

[Anonymous User]

As a quick clarifying comment, I don’t think “pretty privilege” is that much about like “ooh I’d love to bang this person.” It’s more just that all humans are subconsciously biased toward physically attractive people of either gender. As a straight man, I’m probably far more inclined to have a positive impression of a man who is tall, handsome, and well-dressed than one who is ugly or shlubby, whether I’m aware of it or not.

As for actual interview advice, I think the biggest thing is that you look good, and that you avoid things that draw attention to themselves. You want the interviewer to focus on you as a person, not what you’re wearing. Whatever outfit or hairstyle strikes the right balance of looking good without being distracting is the right one.

[Wanderingdrock]

I unfortunately don't have much advice, but will note that there is plenty of research and evidence around the concept of unconscious bias (from how different names on otherwise identical resumes can get different numbers of screening interviews to how taller candidates are more likely to get elected after television became widespread), and the anecdotal views you'll get on a thread like this may not be very helpful unless they are specific stories about how specific attributes seem to have influenced the hiring process, and those attributes are ones which you can control.

Basically - and I'm not accusing anyone of having said exactly this, just warning - anybody coming into this thread and saying "Don't worry" is ignoring the evidence of unconscious bias being a thing, and anybody saying "You shouldn't have to worry" is missing the point. Yes, you could benefit from thinking about what makeup to wear, how to wear your hair, what clothes to wear, etc. No, it's not easy to predict how very specific choices along these lines may affect your particular impression. Yes, it sucks that this is the case. And yes, ultimately, your credentials and your personality are likely to be much more important factors than physical appearance, just not the only factors, so it's just a question of how much brainpower and effort you want to devote to tweaking things like how you wear your hair or how expensive your clothes look.

[Lesion of Doom]

Interviews are manipulation and I would categorize looks the same as other aspects of the manipulation process that are beyond one's control. Your grades (as of the moment you are interviewing) are another.

Your goal is to understand your own strengths -- whether within your control during the interview or not -- and guide the interviewer to focus on those areas. If you're No. 1 in the class, beautiful and charming, you won't need to work hard to get an esteemed firm job. Everyone else needs to think a little and direct their own hustle.

If you think your personality is a strength and that wearing your hair down aligns better with your personality, then that's the approach you should take.

[nixy]

Pretty privilege is definitely a thing and people (interviewers) definitely have unconscious bias. But I will note that the OP’s original question was really specific - is wearing your hair down a problem. I don’t think that saying “no, wearing your hair down isn’t a problem” denies the existence of pretty privilege or fails to recognize that it’s worth thinking about your physical appearance in an interview.

With regard to the original question, it’s not an accepted social convention that it’s inappropriate for a woman to wear her hair down in an interview. There is no universal agreement that women should wear their hair up/back (as opposed to, say, wearing a bra - I think most people would agree that a woman should wear a bra to an interview).

Women (and men, but especially women) do have to consider how they appear to others, and need to recognize that “wearing your hair down” can signal a lot of different things depending on the person (wearing waist-length hair down probably reads differently from wearing shoulder length hair down; someone who looks incredibly young for their age might not want to wear their hair down if it makes them look younger; etc). This is even more fraught for women of color. So yes, people need to think about the impression they want to give and how much energy they want to put into what parts of their appearance.

But there is no generally accepted convention that women need to wear their hair up/back, regardless of what a book from 2009 thinks.

[Wanderingdrock]

Pretty privilege is definitely a thing and people (interviewers) definitely have unconscious bias. But I will note that the OP’s original question was really specific - is wearing your hair down a problem. I don’t think that saying “no, wearing your hair down isn’t a problem” denies the existence of pretty privilege or fails to recognize that it’s worth thinking about your physical appearance in an interview.

With regard to the original question, it’s not an accepted social convention that it’s inappropriate for a woman to wear her hair down in an interview. There is no universal agreement that women should wear their hair up/back (as opposed to, say, wearing a bra - I think most people would agree that a woman should wear a bra to an interview).

Women (and men, but especially women) do have to consider how they appear to others, and need to recognize that “wearing your hair down” can signal a lot of different things depending on the person (wearing waist-length hair down probably reads differently from wearing shoulder length hair down; someone who looks incredibly young for their age might not want to wear their hair down if it makes them look younger; etc). This is even more fraught for women of color. So yes, people need to think about the impression they want to give and how much energy they want to put into what parts of their appearance.

But there is no generally accepted convention that women need to wear their hair up/back, regardless of what a book from 2009 thinks.

Respectfully, I think the question was broader. I read OP's post as providing this example of a book advising on how to wear your hair, then in the next paragraph asking the broader question of what advice people can give in terms of making sure, as a woman interviewing in Biglaw, she is taken seriously.

Happy to be corrected by OP, of course.

[nixy]

Pretty privilege is definitely a thing and people (interviewers) definitely have unconscious bias. But I will note that the OP’s original question was really specific - is wearing your hair down a problem. I don’t think that saying “no, wearing your hair down isn’t a problem” denies the existence of pretty privilege or fails to recognize that it’s worth thinking about your physical appearance in an interview.

With regard to the original question, it’s not an accepted social convention that it’s inappropriate for a woman to wear her hair down in an interview. There is no universal agreement that women should wear their hair up/back (as opposed to, say, wearing a bra - I think most people would agree that a woman should wear a bra to an interview).

Women (and men, but especially women) do have to consider how they appear to others, and need to recognize that “wearing your hair down” can signal a lot of different things depending on the person (wearing waist-length hair down probably reads differently from wearing shoulder length hair down; someone who looks incredibly young for their age might not want to wear their hair down if it makes them look younger; etc). This is even more fraught for women of color. So yes, people need to think about the impression they want to give and how much energy they want to put into what parts of their appearance.

But there is no generally accepted convention that women need to wear their hair up/back, regardless of what a book from 2009 thinks.

Respectfully, I think the question was broader. I read OP's post as providing this example of a book advising on how to wear your hair, then in the next paragraph asking the broader question of what advice people can give in terms of making sure, as a woman interviewing in Biglaw, she is taken seriously.

Happy to be corrected by OP, of course.

You’re right, that’s fair, I kind of skimmed over the last couple of sentences and focused on the first paragraph (I was genuinely wondering why everyone was going off, that’s my bad).

In that vein, OP, women (especially young women) always have to worry about being taken seriously, even now. TBF, though, I think a lot of job applicants have to worry about this.

[Anonymous User]

Pretty privilege is definitely a thing and people (interviewers) definitely have unconscious bias. But I will note that the OP’s original question was really specific - is wearing your hair down a problem. I don’t think that saying “no, wearing your hair down isn’t a problem” denies the existence of pretty privilege or fails to recognize that it’s worth thinking about your physical appearance in an interview.

With regard to the original question, it’s not an accepted social convention that it’s inappropriate for a woman to wear her hair down in an interview. There is no universal agreement that women should wear their hair up/back (as opposed to, say, wearing a bra - I think most people would agree that a woman should wear a bra to an interview).

Women (and men, but especially women) do have to consider how they appear to others, and need to recognize that “wearing your hair down” can signal a lot of different things depending on the person (wearing waist-length hair down probably reads differently from wearing shoulder length hair down; someone who looks incredibly young for their age might not want to wear their hair down if it makes them look younger; etc). This is even more fraught for women of color. So yes, people need to think about the impression they want to give and how much energy they want to put into what parts of their appearance.

But there is no generally accepted convention that women need to wear their hair up/back, regardless of what a book from 2009 thinks.

Respectfully, I think the question was broader. I read OP's post as providing this example of a book advising on how to wear your hair, then in the next paragraph asking the broader question of what advice people can give in terms of making sure, as a woman interviewing in Biglaw, she is taken seriously.

Happy to be corrected by OP, of course.

You’re right, that’s fair, I kind of skimmed over the last couple of sentences and focused on the first paragraph (I was genuinely wondering why everyone was going off, that’s my bad).

In that vein, OP, women (especially young women) always have to worry about being taken seriously, even now. TBF, though, I think a lot of job applicants have to worry about this.

Original OP here. I did use the hair illustration as one example but my intention was to pose a more general question re: what to do and not do to ensure that I (and any other young women who relate to this post) can do to be taken seriously in an interview setting. I know that for me personally, I have had experiences while trying to network with individuals outside of law school (albeit not yet attorneys themselves) wherein my attempts at networking were mostly taken as an invitation to hit on me. Also, within the law school setting, I’ve had a peer (whom I believed that I was friends with) hit on me and tell me he knew I wanted to hook up with him…??? That could not have been farther from the truth and honestly was quite upsetting to me considering I never did anything to convey that intention - I had simply been friendly as I wanted to meet new people and make friends with my peers my first year.

I’m not trying to cry woe is me at all and hope this post does not come off in such a way. I know there are far more important things to worry about in regard to the interview process I just have found it frustrating that I have often not been taken seriously in the past because I have worked so hard to get into law school and be where I am now. Hence why I was asking for advice regarding what to do/not do within the interview setting to ensure that I am not written off. That’s not to say physical appearance is the only reason why a person may be written off. But it does seem to be one reason that, either alone or coupled with other factors, may result in that happening. As someone with below average to average (at best) grades, I want to ensure I do not give an interviewer any other reason to throw my resume to the side if that makes sense

All of the replies have been so helpful so TY so much to everyone who has replied thus far. Always open to hearing other people’s opinions/experiences as I’m sure anyone else looking for a topic like this in the future will be

[Anonymous User]

Original OP here. I did use the hair illustration as one example but my intention was to pose a more general question re: what to do and not do to ensure that I (and any other young women who relate to this post) can do to be taken seriously in an interview setting. I know that for me personally, I have had experiences while trying to network with individuals outside of law school (albeit not yet attorneys themselves) wherein my attempts at networking were mostly taken as an invitation to hit on me. Also, within the law school setting, I’ve had a peer (whom I believed that I was friends with) hit on me and tell me he knew I wanted to hook up with him…??? That could not have been farther from the truth and honestly was quite upsetting to me considering I never did anything to convey that intention - I had simply been friendly as I wanted to meet new people and make friends with my peers my first year.

I’m not trying to cry woe is me at all and hope this post does not come off in such a way. I know there are far more important things to worry about in regard to the interview process I just have found it frustrating that I have often not been taken seriously in the past because I have worked so hard to get into law school and be where I am now. Hence why I was asking for advice regarding what to do/not do within the interview setting to ensure that I am not written off. That’s not to say physical appearance is the only reason why a person may be written off. But it does seem to be one reason that, either alone or coupled with other factors, may result in that happening. As someone with below average to average (at best) grades, I want to ensure I do not give an interviewer any other reason to throw my resume to the side if that makes sense

All of the replies have been so helpful so TY so much to everyone who has replied thus far. Always open to hearing other people’s opinions/experiences as I’m sure anyone else looking for a topic like this in the future will be

Older male lawyer here. For various reasons, I've had a disproportionate amount of female lawyer friends in my career, so I hear their candid perspectives a fair amount despite being a guy. I have so many women friends probably because I'm happily married. It is shocking to me, but I know it won't be to women, to hear the stories of how men react to friendly and strictly professional overtures by their women colleagues. It's infuriating really, and an embarrassment to my gender. These anecdotes cover everything from microaggressive comments to blatantly inappropriate behavior.

My personality has always been tuned the opposite way of flirtatious men, so I'm not much help here. When I was younger and single, a woman could openly and brazenly hit on me and I just wouldn't get it. I was just dense. That's how I'm tuned. Other men seem fully immersed in a culture of believing that every woman is a prime target, and "I don't care if I get rejected." That's fine for high school but I don't think a lot of those guys ever matured out of that thinking. Some of them are senior law firm partners. Unfortunately, you do have to watch out and be careful about these types of male personalities, if you're a young woman. You will be shocked at how primitive law firm culture is on enforcing Title VII sexual harassment standards. Don't go in with blinders on. Law firms are not better than most workplaces on this subject. They are much, much worse, because young lawyers are afraid of career repercussions for filing EEOC complaints, even in 2023.

[papermateflair]

As a formerly young-looking law student turned less young looking attorney, I don't really think how young you look is really an issue. OCI itself is very structured, and in my experience, most lawyers are NOT spending the amount of time thinking about you/your interview as you are - we're seeing 10-20 candidates in a day. If you come in looking like a professional (suit, don't really care what kind or how well-fitting, that's basically my only requirement for someone to look professional), and can express why you want to work at my law firm and answer questions and have a conversation, you can overcome any questions about maturity or experience based on appearance pretty easily. I think there's less room for error if, say, you ask immature questions AND look extremely young, but also most older lawyers are working with junior attorneys all the time so it's not like OCI is the only time each year that they interact with someone in their 20s. Of course there's always the possibility that you interact with That One Partner who has outdated views, but firms usually send attorneys in pairs (so you'll never have just one person) AND firms usually try and send people who are good ambassadors of the firm. If you're super concerned about how you will come off at OCI for any reason (and even if you aren't) you should consider targeting some firms pre-OCI (reaching out to attorneys and learning about the firm) because showing interest in advance can be key at certain firms. Doing that at 30 law firms may be impossible but pick a few and see what shakes out.

For me, if a candidate comes into OCI and can (1) explain why they want to work at my law firm, (2) ask good questions about practicing law at my firm/my practice, (3) have an enjoyable conversation, and (4) speak to their own experiences in a way that shows they are prepared to work in a big law setting, then that's really enough to get through the interview screener portion (grades, number of other candidates we saw, work experience, other factors will also be given weight so I'm not saying you ONLY need to do those things to get a call back).

[Anonymous User]

Original OP here. I did use the hair illustration as one example but my intention was to pose a more general question re: what to do and not do to ensure that I (and any other young women who relate to this post) can do to be taken seriously in an interview setting. I know that for me personally, I have had experiences while trying to network with individuals outside of law school (albeit not yet attorneys themselves) wherein my attempts at networking were mostly taken as an invitation to hit on me. Also, within the law school setting, I’ve had a peer (whom I believed that I was friends with) hit on me and tell me he knew I wanted to hook up with him…??? That could not have been farther from the truth and honestly was quite upsetting to me considering I never did anything to convey that intention - I had simply been friendly as I wanted to meet new people and make friends with my peers my first year.

I’m not trying to cry woe is me at all and hope this post does not come off in such a way. I know there are far more important things to worry about in regard to the interview process I just have found it frustrating that I have often not been taken seriously in the past because I have worked so hard to get into law school and be where I am now. Hence why I was asking for advice regarding what to do/not do within the interview setting to ensure that I am not written off. That’s not to say physical appearance is the only reason why a person may be written off. But it does seem to be one reason that, either alone or coupled with other factors, may result in that happening. As someone with below average to average (at best) grades, I want to ensure I do not give an interviewer any other reason to throw my resume to the side if that makes sense

All of the replies have been so helpful so TY so much to everyone who has replied thus far. Always open to hearing other people’s opinions/experiences as I’m sure anyone else looking for a topic like this in the future will be

Sorry for misunderstanding, OP, and thanks for clarifying.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but yes, women (and members of other groups historically underrepresented/excluded from law) do often have to work harder to be taken seriously, and yes, it is frustrating, but it’s not worth letting that frustration drain your energy. I think papermateflair’s response is really helpful and that many people are the same way - as long as you act professionally you’ll be taken seriously.

I don’t know that there’s much besides acting professionally that you can do to prevent people with antiquated and prejudiced attitudes from thinking what they’re going to think. If a dude (or woman for that matter) sees women as less effective than men, or as sex objects rather than professionals, or as unprofessional if they wear their hair down, that’s their problem, and it sucks if you have to deal with them, but 99.9% of the time you’re not doing anything to make them think that way - it’s just what they do. I do agree with papermateflair that big firms are generally going to avoid sending people with those attitudes to interview at OCI (which isn’t to say that they won’t exist in the profession and you won’t have to deal with them).

The people you tried to network with and your law school peer are jerks. But again, it’s very unlikely you, alone, did something to make those people act the way they did. It sucks that there isn’t a simple way to prevent that from happening, but you aren’t responsible for other people’s jerkiness. Just write them off and look elsewhere, to the extent possible.

(I realize that saying “act professionally” isn’t the most specific advice, but it’s hard to say more without context. It also sucks to say things like “don’t dress revealingly” or whatever because so much of that is still in the eye of the beholder. Like for instance women with big chests get accused of “dressing provocatively” when they’re just wearing normal clothes.)

Edit: whoops, accidental anon, this is Nixy

[Anonymous User]

I don’t know that there’s much besides acting professionally that you can do to prevent people with antiquated and prejudiced attitudes from thinking what they’re going to think.

There are a few strategic points to offer here. Yes, "act professionally". But also, pick and choose your allies. Be good to people regardless. Be good to staff in particular. But regarding your fellow lawyers, you will slowly learn which ones, whether male or female, you can rely on. Build alliances. Stick up for each other. You can't defeat every demon but you will eventually have enough friends and allies that you won't be 100% reliant on the whims of that demon for your survival.

[nixy]

I don’t know that there’s much besides acting professionally that you can do to prevent people with antiquated and prejudiced attitudes from thinking what they’re going to think.

There are a few strategic points to offer here. Yes, "act professionally". But also, pick and choose your allies. Be good to people regardless. Be good to staff in particular. But regarding your fellow lawyers, you will slowly learn which ones, whether male or female, you can rely on. Build alliances. Stick up for each other. You can't defeat every demon but you will eventually have enough friends and allies that you won't be 100% reliant on the whims of that demon for your survival.

Agree with this - my “act professionally” was about interviewing specifically, not everything else about the profession.