3 ms·

I'm over fifty and I call bullshit. Dress and appearance convey information about attitude and orientation. Who wants to hire someone who will constantly comp

I'm over fifty and I call bullshit. Dress and appearance convey information about attitude and orientation. Who wants to hire someone who will constantly complain about the 80-character-per-line coding standard because they like 100 characters? Any team has all sorts of subtle norms, and wants someone who will adapt themselves to such things. If someone can't be bothered to dress properly, why would they bother to conform with any other workplace norm? I wouldn't try to be "current", I'd end up looking like an idiot. But I'd appear in a decent pair of pants and nice blue shirt and proper shoes. I'm very aware that much of my wardrobe would make me look out of touch and stubborn, and no, I don't think it unfair for an interviewer to notice such things. Really this is basic professionalism.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> If someone can't be bothered to dress properly, why would they bother to conform with any other workplace norm? > Really this is basic professionalism. Hmmmmmmmm. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000011.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000011.h... > My gym just fired the opening gun in a new skirmish, by posting dozens of signs reading "All lockers must be emptied of its contents by August 22 at 5:00 p.m." > Someone has learned, from the "singular their" fuss, a lesson that no one wanted to teach: Universally quantified ancedents should get singular pronouns. Or something like that. > This is clearly a case of hypercorrection. However, it's not clear which side has gained: the prescriptivists can claim (correctly?) that even their opponents surely agree that THIS is a mistake; the anti-prescriptivists can counter that pedantry is the root cause of the error. > It's interesting that everyone, prescriptivists and anti-prescriptivists alike, seems to think that hypercorrection is wrong, morally as well as logically. For the prescriptivists, any form that deviates from a postulated universal standard is wrong.. For (at least some of) their opponents, use makes right, as long as you conform to your own group's norms -- but it's a sin to imitate the norms of a more prestigious group, if you get it wrong. On this point, the prescriptivists seem to me to be fairer and more democratic in their attitudes, even if their particular prescriptions are often foolish. I once read an article breaking the hard-hitting (and outrageous!) news that the Dallas Cowboys provide their cheerleaders with a handbook on how to dress appropriately, groom appropriately, and maintain a standard of personal hygiene that is adequate for "polite company". I had a similar reaction to that as Mark Liberman had to the descriptivist attitude toward hypercorrection. Do you want to judge your candidates by how willing and able they are to conform to workplace dress norms? Then include an attachment when you invite them for an interview specifying how you want them to dress. Or is it more that you're uncomfortable with the idea of hiring someone who doesn't know -- as they obviously should -- what you feel is appropriate in your employees' dress?
rschachte 4y ago
I don’t know about you, but I just interviewed in a black tshirt at FAANG and got an offer. What does dress have to do with anything?
- oblio 4y ago
  Interview in a suit & tie, as a dev, next time, and see what happens. Casual IS the office wear at FAANGs. Business is very much NOT hip, and you'll get to notice that.
- latenightcoding 4y ago
  FAANGs have been very liberal about that for many years now, I don't think that is a good example.
- digisign 4y ago
  That is 'properly' in these parts.
soneca 4y ago
_”basic professionalism”_ means different things for different people. For me it means show up on time. If it is an online interview, one or two minutes late is ok because sometimes Zoom/Google Meet/etc behave weirdly. As for dress code, it just mean not showing up in pijama or similar. If the clothes are socially acceptable to wear in public, that’s enough professionalism. Style is just personal preference, not professionalism.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sarchertech 4y ago
>I wouldn't try to be "current", I'd end up looking like an idiot. But I'd appear in a decent pair of pants and nice blue shirt and proper shoes. So you're saying that you're over 50, so you can't look "current", and it's fine for companies to discriminate based on that? The advice in the article is literally "look current". The advice isn't "wear proper shoes", it's wear shoes that make you look younger.
- chernevik 4y ago
  Well, that's bad advice. Few things are more pathetic than a middle-aged man trying to look hip. But it is fair of you to notice that I don't agree with the article either. My point was, it is reasonable for an interviewer to notice my dress and what it says about me. Dress reasonably professionally and appropriately and it won't be a problem. For me to try to figure out today's sneakers would just be a disaster. I have good business casual shoes and they'll do fine.
  - sarchertech 4y ago
    It might be reasonable for an interview to notice how you dress. It's certainly not reasonable for an interviewer to discriminate against you because you don't dress like a 25 y/o. The article is about age discrimination. Given that age discrimination is real, blind interviews could potentially help reduce the effects.
    - chernevik 4y ago
      They're AARP, noticing age discrimination is their mission. Myself, I don't see much of it out there. "Blind" interviews would be bad for everybody. Zoom is already bad enough. There is an enormous amount of information conveyed by facial expression. I can tell by the look on your face if you aren't following me, or if you are super in-tune with it and I get more complicated still. If we're going to generalize, I suspect that most older candidates would be better at reading and reacting to such nonverbal signals.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> If someone can't be bothered to dress properly, why would they bother to conform with any other workplace norm? > Really this is basic professionalism. Hmmmmmmmm. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000011.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000011.h... > My gym just fired the opening gun in a new skirmish, by posting dozens of signs reading "All lockers must be emptied of its contents by August 22 at 5:00 p.m." > Someone has learned, from the "singular their" fuss, a lesson that no one wanted to teach: Universally quantified ancedents should get singular pronouns. Or something like that. > This is clearly a case of hypercorrection. However, it's not clear which side has gained: the prescriptivists can claim (correctly?) that even their opponents surely agree that THIS is a mistake; the anti-prescriptivists can counter that pedantry is the root cause of the error. > It's interesting that everyone, prescriptivists and anti-prescriptivists alike, seems to think that hypercorrection is wrong, morally as well as logically. For the prescriptivists, any form that deviates from a postulated universal standard is wrong.. For (at least some of) their opponents, use makes right, as long as you conform to your own group's norms -- but it's a sin to imitate the norms of a more prestigious group, if you get it wrong. On this point, the prescriptivists seem to me to be fairer and more democratic in their attitudes, even if their particular prescriptions are often foolish. I once read an article breaking the hard-hitting (and outrageous!) news that the Dallas Cowboys provide their cheerleaders with a handbook on how to dress appropriately, groom appropriately, and maintain a standard of personal hygiene that is adequate for "polite company". I had a similar reaction to that as Mark Liberman had to the descriptivist attitude toward hypercorrection. Do you want to judge your candidates by how willing and able they are to conform to workplace dress norms? Then include an attachment when you invite them for an interview specifying how you want them to dress. Or is it more that you're uncomfortable with the idea of hiring someone who doesn't know -- as they obviously should -- what you feel is appropriate in your employees' dress?

rschachte 4y ago

I don’t know about you, but I just interviewed in a black tshirt at FAANG and got an offer. What does dress have to do with anything?

oblio 4y ago
Interview in a suit & tie, as a dev, next time, and see what happens. Casual IS the office wear at FAANGs. Business is very much NOT hip, and you'll get to notice that.
latenightcoding 4y ago
FAANGs have been very liberal about that for many years now, I don't think that is a good example.
digisign 4y ago
That is 'properly' in these parts.

soneca 4y ago

_”basic professionalism”_ means different things for different people. For me it means show up on time. If it is an online interview, one or two minutes late is ok because sometimes Zoom/Google Meet/etc behave weirdly. As for dress code, it just mean not showing up in pijama or similar. If the clothes are socially acceptable to wear in public, that’s enough professionalism. Style is just personal preference, not professionalism.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sarchertech 4y ago

>I wouldn't try to be "current", I'd end up looking like an idiot. But I'd appear in a decent pair of pants and nice blue shirt and proper shoes. So you're saying that you're over 50, so you can't look "current", and it's fine for companies to discriminate based on that? The advice in the article is literally "look current". The advice isn't "wear proper shoes", it's wear shoes that make you look younger.

chernevik 4y ago
Well, that's bad advice. Few things are more pathetic than a middle-aged man trying to look hip. But it is fair of you to notice that I don't agree with the article either. My point was, it is reasonable for an interviewer to notice my dress and what it says about me. Dress reasonably professionally and appropriately and it won't be a problem. For me to try to figure out today's sneakers would just be a disaster. I have good business casual shoes and they'll do fine.
- sarchertech 4y ago
  It might be reasonable for an interview to notice how you dress. It's certainly not reasonable for an interviewer to discriminate against you because you don't dress like a 25 y/o. The article is about age discrimination. Given that age discrimination is real, blind interviews could potentially help reduce the effects.
  - chernevik 4y ago
    They're AARP, noticing age discrimination is their mission. Myself, I don't see much of it out there. "Blind" interviews would be bad for everybody. Zoom is already bad enough. There is an enormous amount of information conveyed by facial expression. I can tell by the look on your face if you aren't following me, or if you are super in-tune with it and I get more complicated still. If we're going to generalize, I suspect that most older candidates would be better at reading and reacting to such nonverbal signals.