Jump to content
TheGeneral

How much does appearance matter for success?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Since everyone has already has piled on OP’s post, I’ll answer the actual question: of course appearance matters.

There are tons of studies showing that attractive people get job offers more frequently, earn promotions more quickly, and make more money than similarly situated unattractive people. Anybody who suggests that appearance is unimportant in the job market is simply wrong. 

This is accurate, undeniably so, but there are plenty of very successful ugly lawyers, so if you're genuinely worried that your appearance will hinder your chances of becoming a successful lawyer, don't be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, georgecostanzajr said:

This is accurate, undeniably so, but there are plenty of very successful ugly lawyers, so if you're genuinely worried that your appearance will hinder your chances of becoming a successful lawyer, don't be.

Yeah, just be smarter than the pretty ones. That’s my life motto ;) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Since everyone has already has piled on OP’s post, I’ll answer the actual question: of course appearance matters.

There are tons of studies showing that attractive people get job offers more frequently, earn promotions more quickly, and make more money than similarly situated unattractive people. Anybody who suggests that appearance is unimportant in the job market is simply wrong. 

totally agree, and not limited to the legal profession. but in general i think optics matter slightly less in the government. i'm in a law-adjacent job and work in the same office as many gov lawyers. and let me tell you, some are a true eyesore (e.g. poorly fitted pants, ugly dad sandals), while others always look very sharp and put together. but i know these people get paid more or less the same, and nobody really cares. so there's some freedom there in terms of attire. of course when there are clients to meet or impt meetings everyone would be dressed appropriately. i'd guess that optics matter a bit more in the private sector, particular on bay st...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Physical attraction constitutes one factor of many that are simultaneously considered in multiple instances throughout an interview; both consciously and unconsciously. Unlike binary factors like the presence of relevant extracurricular, clinical, or general work experience in an area of law a firm practices on one's resume; which job applicants either possess or do not; physical attractiveness is subjective. Each of us here have a constantly changing, sometimes slightly, other times widely, differing idea of what physical attractiveness looks like, as well as varying ways of thinking about and interacting with people we perceive as relatively attractive. Suffice to say, a conversation about how attractiveness effects legal occupational success must account for extraneous psychological or social variables which may influence say; interviewers or clients; ideas of what exactly constitutes a physically attractive applicant/practitioner of law. If you are physically attractive to an interviewer/client it may effect your chance of experiencing professional success working with said parties, but there is no way of guaranteeing your physical attractiveness will significantly effect the level of success you achieve. Of course dress for the job/client interaction environment and pay mind to presenting yourself professionally, but I don't know if physical attractiveness is worth stressing over as a significant determinant of occupational success as its influence is in many ways unpredictable as it is predictable. 

Edited by LabouriousCorvid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, I wouldn’t worry about looks. Having read your posts, I think your personality and resume will be bigger issues.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be presentable and look like you care about your appearance. The way I see it, no one is going to trust someone to take care of their problems (legal or not) if that person doesn't look like they can take care of themselves. 

I'm not sure what to say in terms of physical features. No employer (at least one worth working for) is going to give a shit about whether you have a double chin, a straight smile or green eyes. You could be the most handsome looking prince in the world, but if you can't hold a half decent conversation during an interview, I doubt your looks will matter very much at all. With that being said, don't show up looking like you just got off a 3 day bender because you think you're really good at interviewing.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To echo an above poster:

 

OP is definitely male. The misogynistic undercurrents in this post are absolutely rank.

 

I find it interesting, for example, that OP doesn't use the example of a conventionally attractive Henry Cavill lookalike getting the job over a female interviewee with the same stats but a double chin. It's interesting how misogynists only ever conceive of a world where women get hired over men because the woman is hot (and not, for example, because the woman interviewed better) and never seem to use the opposite scenario as an example. "They got the job for reasons unrelated to their qualifications" is an allegation that seldom seems to be leveled at men, and it's a tired, lazy trope. Like... is that really the way your brain works when you don't get the job and a woman does? Do you tell yourself it's because she's hot and the interviewers wanted to sleep with her, instead of examining what she did better than you in order to secure that position? And the million dollar question: do you think the same way when a more attractive male gets the job instead of you? Or is it only women who are subjected to these kinds of insulting judgments from you?

 

I mean, sure, attractiveness can make people respond to you better off the bat. But the thing you're not considering here is that you still have to impress the interviewer in the actual interview in order to get the job. Just being pretty won't cut it, and I doubt it would give a person any kind of a leg up on its own. Unconscious bias is a thing, but I don't think it's enough of a thing in the situation you describe to really make a difference in the actual hiring process when it comes down to a decision between candidate A and candidate B.

 

Now, if we were having a discussion about racist biases or similar prejudices, you'd have a good argument there, because those unfortunately do often make their way into hiring decisions. But just being hotter than you isn't going to be enough for a candidate to get the job over you.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DavisFromCornerGas said:

OP is definitely male. The misogynistic undercurrents in this post are absolutely rank.

That's also in line with their (random and irrelevant) rant about "SJWs" in another thread, among other things. And their username definitely seems like something a man rather than a woman would be more likely to pick. OP is way more likely to be some repulsive incel than an attractive woman.

In any event, when you view the totality of their posts, the OP has some very bizarre conceptions of meritocracy and "fairness." They seem to be under the impression that if somebody else has performed better academically than them and has access to more opportunities and better outcomes as a result, that has nothing to do with merit and is all about our academic and employment systems being structurally broken (although they alternatively refuse to acknowledge that such people have advantages over them, while a moment later claiming that those advantages are somehow irrational, unreasonable and unfair). And despite strongly implying that their own credentials are not competitive for admission to a Canadian law school or success in the Canadian legal marketplace, this thread strongly implies that, again, if someone else achieves more than them, that has nothing to do with merit, but is due to unfair societal biases.

OP has a victim complex, believes that nothing is their fault, that everyone else is an idiot and that they are owed whatever academic and professional successes that they want. So yeah, your assessment is definitely correct.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • Hi GM! Get back to that Contracts outline! I'm pretty solidly centre-left/left leaning (even had a friend in Osgoode jokingly say that I might be "too left" for law), but still had some reservations that I wouldn't be "left enough" for UVic. Yes, I agree it is pretty overtly left-wing/social-justice oriented. It can be a bit overwhelming. I think it's worth bearing in mind that UVic is, in general, known for being a very left-leaning school as a whole. I personally really like the fact that the school makes clear, genuine efforts to make space for traditionally marginalized voices. At the same time, I completely understand why one would feel like the progressiveness is "intense and impenetrable." Zoom school sucks for getting to know people. In an online class setting, we only get a small glimpse of peoples' thoughts. I certainly think there's something lost with the limited interaction online, because there's just less of a chance to have the informal interactions where you get to know people and what they're thinking. When I've chatted with other 1Ls more informally, I find that people have pretty nuanced opinions that vary by topic. Some have views that are different from what I would have thought, had I only ever heard them speak in a more formal setting where we are often discussing complicated and controversial topics. But I also had the opportunity to meet with others in person during the summer/start of the semester, back when we could actually meet up and distance outside. Like a good chunk of the class, I'm not in Victoria though, so I don't really know what it's like there right now. I would take the graffiti in the city with a grain of salt, given what's transpired over the summer and the strong response to it. FWIW, I've only ever heard you say very smart things, and I like what you have to say. I think a fair amount of (most?) people would be more receptive to your views than you think... but I agree it's hard to get that given the overall 'class vibe', especially over Zoom. I think it's a BC thing in general, albeit the GVRD has quite a variety of views and rural BC is also different from the GVRD/Victoria. When I was at UBC, the "social justice and diversity" felt a lot more performative than anything (especially from the administration). It might have changed since I was there during my undergrad, but UBC certainly does have a more 'corporate' vibe. 1. GM is a great person, and I would be beyond shocked if anyone thought of GM as the next Donaldino Pumperino. 🤣 2. There is a co-op program, which is certainly helpful for work experience. As I've heard from upper-years and practicing lawyers, UVic has more or less the same opportunities as UBC so it really depends what you make of your time + grades. Things might be a bit different with COVID this year, though. 3. Every exam class is open book. I would be surprised if anyone even had the TIME to cheat, because the midterms were such a time crunch. Also, would anyone really want to put the fate of their grades in someone else's hands or jeopardize their future career? I doubt it. Second GM: Contracts is great! 10/10 profs. Only downside is having to read older UK decisions written by judges who don't know what paragraphs are. BUT, they've made it a semester-long course instead of a year long. We don't have Torts or Crim till next term. I personally would prefer reading 120 pages of 3 different courses, rather than 100 of 1 course, plus we just don't have that experience with issue identification that comes with time... so I think that's suffered from an online format. But it really depends on you as a person.
    • Thanks for the feedback I appreciate it!  If anyone else is wondering I heard back from admissions and they assess applications first round with the highest score on record, if they can give you an offer they do so, if not they reassess when Jan LSAT scores are released and readjust your index score for the second round of offers if your write in Jan and score higher. 
    • 3.54 and 3.75 per OLSAS conversion?

×
×
  • Create New...