new suit NECESSARY for callback interview?

[pig floyd]

I just think you're on the wrong side of this one.

She's not.

And seriously, if a person can't f-ing get a pair of pants that fit, I'm going to seriously judge that person's competence (no offense meant to RPP, who realized the problem and fixed it).  Dressing oneself is a basic life skill.  And this is NOT something that only big firms care about.  Unless a relative has a job waiting for you finish school or you're going solo, you will be interviewing for your job.  ANY job as an attorney requires professionalism, and anyone that thinks the vast majority of interviewers from the public sector and/or government aren't going to care if they look silly (or worse) because of poorly fitting clothes is fooling themselves.

As a realist, I'd suggest your standards are too high.  Most people cannot dress themselves.

As a law student living on loans, I'd suggest your standards are too high.  I have a few hundred dollars to buy a suit, not ten or twenty hundreds.  My few hundred dollar suit is going to look rather, err, cheap, no matter who I get to tailor it.

Then of course, every single firm I did a callback at?  Business casual.  Right.  I'm better dressed than any of the people who interviewed me, even if my suit doesn't fit right.

@#!* off.

Dash is god.

[dashrashi]

Look, tailoring and being "dressed appropriately" is something that people in higher income brackets get to think about. Furthermore, no tailor can turn an Old Navy suit into Armani, or even Banana Republic. (And frankly, I too have had a tailor hem the pants too f-ing short. I'd definitely state that having the time and inclination to go to multiple tailors is a distinctly high-SES, First World kind of situation.)

Basing a hiring decision on something so indicative of inequities, and so definitionally superficial, is just the wrong thing to be doing. It certainly can't be the morally courageous thing to do, to judge someone's suitability for a job on the basis of their flipping hems, the full story behind which you can't possibly know (did her mother die when she was four, leaving her clueless father to raise her without any female sartorial role models? COULD BE; relevant to a job as a lawyer? NOT LIKELY).

YES YES, I have to interview too, even in PI, I know. You're not telling me anything new. YES YES, play the game.* But it's a bad, bad game. So @#!* the game. Because it sucks. What's the harm in admitting it?

Thanks for the assist, pig. Much appreciated.

*Which I do. You should see me obsess about my own suits. But that's mostly because I was lucky enough to be raised in a certain socioeconomic context (and a little because I'm kind of vain). And the fact that my suits are flattering has effin' zero to do with my professional competence. Scout's honor.

[CTL]

Effin' zero to do with professional competence?  It sounds like you're assuming that being competent at one's profession need not entail presenting oneself as a professional.  I believe that part of one's profession is the marketing of oneself.  If I'm correct, then it would seem as though the choice to wear flattering suits does pertain to one's professional competence. 

[dashrashi]

You're interviewing for a job that starts around $200k with bonus.  You can't buy a suit?  It's an investment for Christ's sake.

You don't have a job that pays $200k; you're a student paying out the ass for rent, and you currently have no job. No one in your family has money to lend you, either. You can buy a suit, but it's not gonna be fancy. Investment or not. Similar to the rejoinder to Huckabee's retarded flat tax plan (purportedly supposed to encourage saving), you can't invest, no matter how much you should, if you don't have the money.

Effin' zero to do with professional competence?  It sounds like you're assuming that being competent at one's profession need not entail presenting oneself as a professional.  I believe that part of one's profession is the marketing of oneself.  If I'm correct, then it would seem as though the choice to wear flattering suits does pertain to one's professional competence. 

Would you rather: have a lawyer who looked sharp, presented self professionally, but couldn't string a sentence together or generally advocate her way out of a paper bag; or, have a lawyer whose suit was shiny, what with the iron marks, and the hem was all lumpy, and it was kind of baggy under the arms, and the back seam looked like it had been ruched, it was sewn so badly, plus a wrinkly shirt, heaven forfend, but who was a f-ing kickass thinker and talker and arguer and strategist? Which one is competent? Which one is incompetent? Can you fairly call the second lawyer incompetent?

Is there ever, even, possibly a question?

(Hint: The latter; the second one; the first one; no; no.)

Go along to get along, sure, sure, but why would you justify what is definitionally superficial and shallow?

(No hints on this one. I've got no idea.)

[jacy85]

You're interviewing for a job that starts around $200k with bonus.  You can't buy a suit?  It's an investment for Christ's sake.

You don't have a job that pays $200k; you're a student paying out the ass for rent, and you currently have no job. No one in your family has money to lend you, either. You can buy a suit, but it's not gonna be fancy. Investment or not. Similar to the rejoinder to Huckabee's retarded flat tax plan (purportedly supposed to encourage saving), you can't invest, no matter how much you should, if you don't have the money.

Effin' zero to do with professional competence?  It sounds like you're assuming that being competent at one's profession need not entail presenting oneself as a professional.  I believe that part of one's profession is the marketing of oneself.  If I'm correct, then it would seem as though the choice to wear flattering suits does pertain to one's professional competence. 

Would you rather: have a lawyer who looked sharp, presented self professionally, but couldn't string a sentence together or generally advocate her way out of a paper bag; or, have a lawyer whose suit was shiny, what with the iron marks, and the hem was all lumpy, and it was kind of baggy under the arms, and the back seam looked like it had been ruched, it was sewn so badly, plus a wrinkly shirt, heaven forfend, but who was a f-ing kickass thinker and talker and arguer and strategist? Which one is competent? Which one is incompetent? Can you fairly call the second lawyer incompetent?

Is there ever, even, possibly a question?

(Hint: The latter; the second one; the first one; no; no.)

Go along to get along, sure, sure, but why would you justify what is definitionally superficial and shallow?

(No hints on this one. I've got no idea.)

No one said anything about getting a fancy suit.  Even a suit from target, in the proper size, can be cheaply tailored to fit well (unless you are extremely tall, large, or petite).  Department stores have sales, and places like K&G and other warehouse clothing stores carry decent suits for not a lot of money  (and many of the latter include tailoring for free or very, very cheap when you buy the suit).  You don't need Armani to look put together.

And to answer your question, I'd hire neither of those lawyers.  The first one isn't worth the cost of his suit.  But the second one is just as much a waste of my money, at least if I'm hiring an attorney to bring a claim that may end up in court.  What jury is ever going to take a mess like that seriously, no matter how good their argument is?

You can rebel and female dog about "the game," if it makes you happy.  But at the end of the day, it's not a game - it's LIFE.

[CTL]

Well, given the available options I would definitely choose the smart hobo.  

However, I don't think that there is necessarily an inverse relationship between legal might and being a sartorialist.  At any rate, I was just trying to get you to acknowledge that there is an aspect of professional competence which directly pertains to one's presentation.  I'm not trying to justify allowing that small aspect of professionalism to become the chief determinant of professionalism.  

[Refused Party Program]

Well I certainly didn't mean to hijack the thread, but I will say a few things:

1) My point was interviewers may notice something as "trivial" as pants that are an inch too short.
2) I actually thought they were too short when I got them tailored, but was told that was where they were supposed to sit. I didn't wear suits in my previous career, I didn't know anything about how a suit ought to fit. Moral of the story: just taking something to get tailored doesn't solve the problem. You need to make sure your tailor knows what they are doing. Mine did not. Do an internet search BEFORE you go to the tailor and tell them they are wrong if they are in fact wrong. I learned my lesson.
3) While one or two interviewers picked up on it, I still got a callback or two from that day. It wasn't the end of the world. I suppose my social ineptness wasn't as egregious as some in this thread have made it out to be. (I have offers as well from interviews where I wore my "highwater suit pants.").
4) As much as some may want to fight it, the law business IS an image business. Little things matter whether we want to or not and I think that carries over into places that have biz casual dress codes and PI organizations.
5) That being said, a nice fitting suit won't cover up your lousy personality, grades, lack of significant work experience, elitist attitude, state school degree or whatever else someone isn't going to like about you. However, if there is only one callback or position, and its between you in the bad fitting suit, and the guy in the nice suit, all else being equal, I think they are going with the nice suit. Just a hunch.

[dashrashi]

I don't think there's an inverse relationship, but I don't think being well-dressed should have any part in someone assessing your competence. Likewise: defendants are treated less well when they show up in sweats than when they show up in a suit. But now, for the crucial bit: SHOULD they be?

Of course not. Of course not. How is this hard?

RPP--I'm glad things went well for you. Please don't take any of what I'm saying as pertaining to your specific situation. I am speaking, for the most part, generally/hypothetically/normatively. Although ain't it a female dog when the tailor hems them too high, and you're like, um, well, you're the tailor, I guess we'll...go with that?

And for the record, in my experience, a suit from Target generally cannot be tailored to look all that put together. And the people who female dog about pant hems will be just as put off by a cheap (albeit attempted-to-fit-well) suit as they were by the pant hems. That's kind of the point. Someone who bitches about your pants' hems will also female dog about the cheap polyester your suit is made out of.

Still didn't say whether the second lawyer is incompetent, btw. That's the question on the table. Also a lot of qualifiers, about going in front of a jury, etc. You know how few lawyers ever go in front of juries. Would you hire the second lawyer to write up your contract? Of course. And certainly over the first lawyer. Because the second lawyer is competent.

You can rebel and female dog about "the game," if it makes you happy.  But at the end of the day, it's not a game - it's LIFE.

Um...good one? Albeit kind of depressing?

Irrelevant Huckabee crap aside, quit being so bitter and get a damn job.

Are you joking? I'm fine on the job front, thanks.

[dukedogalley]

Your revolution is over.  Condolences. The bums lost.  My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir.  The bums will always lose.  Do you hear me! 

The bums will always lose!

[pig floyd]

Actually, now that I think about it, I probably got a couple dings because I didn't buy a new BMW to drive to the interviews.

I'm thinking the M6 would have been a good choice.  It fits my ego well.

Damn it.