Men's Interview Clothing Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is the bulge noticeable? That points to a jacket that's too tight around the waist, but it'd have to be pretty extreme or the belt would have to be pretty thick. I didn't see that happening in those pictures, for what it's worth.
 
This is exactly what people don't seem to understand....the idea of paying more for something that will last for ages. There is no way that a pair of 100 dollar shoes is being materialistic. Perhaps, you could make the argument when talking about a pair of >1K J Lobb shoes, but even then you are paying for incredible craftsmanship,

The same thing can be said about suits. Sure, your Macys suit may work but it is likely to fit poorly, be fused, and look like crap in a year of two (bubbling at the lapels etc). If you pay extra money for a quality suit that is half or fully canvassed, it will be something that can last you not only for med school interviews, but for residency interviews and other occasions in the future.

Not only that, but with a $1K pair of Lobbs, you're not contributing to landfills.
 
How did this thread get to be 16 goddamn pages lol...wow.

It's not hard, it's a damn suit. Find something that fits, conservative (aka not pimp purple or orange) --> DONE.
 
Anyone have an opinion on wearing suspenders? I figure that it would not matter much as you wear the jacket all day.

Don't do it. If you unbutton your jacket at any point, they will see you're not wearing a belt. That is completely disrespectful. And they won't see your suspenders, they'll just assume you decided to go beltless. My father always told me to wear a collar and wear a belt. Even if your pants fit perfectly.

Your misunderstanding the point. Of course no one is going to recall what you wore. Its about making a good, subconscious first impression. Interviewees who are well dressed in something that fits well provides an impression of professionalism

I think us "materialistic" members are getting a lot of flack. I think a factory churning out 10,000 suits a year for dirt cheap is material since all that material will end up in landfills within 3 years. A tailoring house that makes 900 suits a year and pays its employees well for their skills is not material. When I stop and think about the products I buy, I want to know if it will end up in the landfill, did it support quality employees, does it enrich culture, does it prop up big business?

As someone who enjoys history and economics, I notice there's always this race to the bottom. Let's make things cheap! Let's exploit labor. Let's fill landfills. And when I say "culture", I mean it. You have no idea how much history is present in what you wear. The question is this: in the thousands of years of perfecting the process of clothing through rigorous times (you try living from the 1600s through the 1800s...), are all those advancements better than the advancements during the industrial age (1890s) and the global age (today) and all the cheap labor that the global age allows?

In other words, do you think the rubber that goes into shoes today is better than the leather soles of shoes that were perfected in an age where roads were not the norm? I rather have my old leather sole technology made by hands of a skilled artisan over that of new age rubber technology made and installed by a computerized machine and inspected by a 12 year old Malay girl who is paid a dollar a day.

Probably the few things you encounter on a daily basis that has history is food, money, paper, and your clothes. The majority of your other belongings can be traced back a few decades. Just look at the Forbes billionaires list. Today, they are communications and technology moguls. Go back a few hundred years and the majority of the rich people were cloth and textile barons (and bankers/financiers).

I rather have quality over quantity. There's nothing materialistic about that. In fact, I can guarantee you that I have much fewer items of clothing than most of you if you take into account time. I don't partake in the American tradition of throwing away clothes. In fact, I just spent the entire day yesterday relining 4 pants. And by hand.

In the end, it is just a hobby. Just like any of you may love television or video games, some people just like old fashion things, art, and architecture. And not to mention capitalizing the beginning of sentences and using periods. Some people enjoy prosciutto-wrapped chicken breasts and some people like McDonald's Chicken Club (it's sad one of those is copyrighted and required capitalization). It is all a matter of values.



What is the rule for sitting down with a three button suit? Unbutton all the buttons or what?

For the purpose of interview, unbutton all. But if you have a choice in the future, get a double vented suit and you'll never have to worry. Double vents are also much better in all respects.
 
Last edited:
Nice site. Also, give these guys a try if you're in the LA area:
http://www.thickasthievesla.com/buy.html

They will personally measure you and ask about what you want. Tell them "interview" and they will set you up with something conservative and resistant to the whims of the times. And they are relatively cheap for that type of service. Their cloth comes from the respectable traditional English mills. You can get real horn or real mother of pearl buttons.

And prices are cheap in the $450 - $600 price range. Their suits will last you your entire life if you take care of it. And you're supporting an independent business instead of a giant conglomerate.

That's actually a very affordable price. From their site, you don't even have to be in LA to take advantage of their business. I wish now that I had bought a MTO suit.
 
Nice site. Also, give these guys a try if you're in the LA area:
http://www.thickasthievesla.com/buy.html

They will personally measure you and ask about what you want. Tell them "interview" and they will set you up with something conservative and resistant to the whims of the times. And they are relatively cheap for that type of service. Their cloth comes from the respectable traditional English mills. You can get real horn or real mother of pearl buttons.

And prices are cheap in the $450 - $600 price range. Their suits will last you your entire life if you take care of it. And you're supporting an independent business instead of a giant conglomerate.

TaT is a great company. The owner is very willing to work with you. Suits are great quality too...fully canvassed.

The only thing to be wary of is that you have to take your own measurements unless you are in the LA area. Take them a couple times as I have seen examples where the suit doesn't look that great due to poor measurements.
 
That's actually a very affordable price. From their site, you don't even have to be in LA to take advantage of their business. I wish now that I had bought a MTO suit.

Yes, but I would never send in my measurements. I want to interact with the people who are making my goods. Plus, I don't know how to measure certain criterions.
 
TaT is not conservative business dress.

I would say the conservative model Jason makes is...wider lapels, longer jacket, less tapered pants. I think that would be fine for med school interviews.

The house cut would not be that appropriate.
 
TaT is not conservative business dress.

Tell them "interview" and they will cut something conservative.

I actually think a tapered leg is more conservative but my definition of conservative is "traditional" while the younger student's definition of conservative is "what my peers are wearing." I don't find anything wrong with ticket pocket or side fasteners and think these should be more part of the "conservative" mainstream.
 
Tell them "interview" and they will cut something conservative.

I actually think a tapered leg is more conservative but my definition of conservative is "traditional" while the younger student's definition of conservative is "what my peers are wearing." I don't find anything wrong with ticket pocket or side fasteners and think these should be more part of the "conservative" mainstream.

I wore TaT to my interviews and, in a conservative charcoal, think it went well (sans the fact that I went 1 for 8 when I wore it...). The slimmer silhouette just looks better and no one notices things like ticket pockets or sidetabs. The only problem I consistently had with the jacket was the skirt length since I was a little self-conscious about showing off my behind while walking. The other problem is that you have to wear a shoe with a sleeker last, otherwise you look like you're plodding around in clogs.
 
does anyone on the interview panel care what dress shoes you wear? i've heard weird things like balmoral versus blucher and cap-toe vs plain-toe....anyone think that this is too much (and that the interview matters more) or is there some sense to it (as I've heard in the banking/law world)? any opinions?
 
does anyone on the interview panel care what dress shoes you wear? i've heard weird things like balmoral versus blucher and cap-toe vs plain-toe....anyone think that this is too much (and that the interview matters more) or is there some sense to it (as I've heard in the banking/law world)? any opinions?

Doesn't make a difference. At all. I highly doubt those on the admissions boards care to base their decisions on something as silly as shoes.

During my interviews I don't even think anyone looked down at my feet haha.
 
does anyone on the interview panel care what dress shoes you wear? i've heard weird things like balmoral versus blucher and cap-toe vs plain-toe....anyone think that this is too much (and that the interview matters more) or is there some sense to it (as I've heard in the banking/law world)? any opinions?

unless if you are trying to get a date on interview day, any shoe with a pointed toe should be fine.
 
does anyone on the interview panel care what dress shoes you wear? i've heard weird things like balmoral versus blucher and cap-toe vs , plain-toe....anyone think that this is too much (and that the interview matters more) or is there some sense to it (as I've heard in the banking/law world)? any opinions?

I think as long as they're nice dress shoes that's what's important. And you definitely want comfortable shoes since you'll be doing a lot of walking.

I'd highly recommend you shine your shoes before your interview--some interviewers specifically look at applicants shoes because the shoes are often the easiest thing to overlook or think "well no one will notice them." My dad does a lot of interviewing for positions because he's the VP of biostatistics, so he's in charge of the department. He always gets a good first impression from someone who took the time to shine their shoes before the interview. Attention to the little things, while they may be easily missed/ignored, can help make a good impression.

Of course, the way you dress is mostly all about first impressions--after that it's all about who you are! But it's always a lot easier to start talking to someone who already has a good impression of you than one who's thinking "this guy didn't even iron his shirt/wear a tie/etc..."

Often an interviewer makes up their mind within the first five or ten minutes, so first impressions are really important.
 
does anyone on the interview panel care what dress shoes you wear? i've heard weird things like balmoral versus blucher and cap-toe vs plain-toe....anyone think that this is too much (and that the interview matters more) or is there some sense to it (as I've heard in the banking/law world)? any opinions?

Just don't go square toed (but even then, it probably won't matter)
 
Doesn't make a difference. At all. I highly doubt those on the admissions boards care to base their decisions on something as silly as shoes.

During my interviews I don't even think anyone looked down at my feet haha.

Yeah, I'm going to disagree. Shoe choices (for men) are probably the most overlooked part of the interview day attire. Nothing looks worse than a decent suit paired with cruddy, beat up pair of shoes with a thick rubber sole. Men - put those boxy Kenneth Coles back in the closet and get a real pair of dress shoes.
 
I think as long as they're nice dress shoes that's what's important. And you definitely want comfortable shoes since you'll be doing a lot of walking.

I'd highly recommend you shine your shoes before your interview--some interviewers specifically look at applicants shoes because the shoes are often the easiest thing to overlook or think "well no one will notice them." My dad does a lot of interviewing for positions because he's the VP of biostatistics, so he's in charge of the department. He always gets a good first impression from someone who took the time to shine their shoes before the interview. Attention to the little things, while they may be easily missed/ignored, can help make a good impression.

Of course, the way you dress is mostly all about first impressions--after that it's all about who you are! But it's always a lot easier to start talking to someone who already has a good impression of you than one who's thinking "this guy didn't even iron his shirt/wear a tie/etc..."

Often an interviewer makes up their mind within the first five or ten minutes, so first impressions are really important.

+1. Plus, you never know how important the subconscious is. It wouldn't be the subconscious if it were conscious.
 
I wish I had a really nice pinstripe suit since I highly prefer pinstripe to a solid, but I don't think it's that big of a deal.
 
Hey guys. I was reading through this thread and have been getting mixed signals with pinstripe suits. I recently bought a charcoal gray suit with pinstripes very similar to the ones in this picture:

http://www.psyche.co.uk/man-145/suit-jackets-164/remus-grey-stripe-mix-504603-75487_zoom.jpg

Yea or nay?

stripes are very person and suit dependent. The suit you linked is pretty aggressively tailored, and the stripes are somewhat bold. However, it all comes down to you - you may be able to pull it off, you may not.
 
how do you guys feel about wearing skinny ties?
 
Agent_47.jpg


Like that, but without the fiber wire and gloves.
 
Yeah, I'm going to disagree. Shoe choices (for men) are probably the most overlooked part of the interview day attire. Nothing looks worse than a decent suit paired with cruddy, beat up pair of shoes with a thick rubber sole. Men - put those boxy Kenneth Coles back in the closet and get a real pair of dress shoes.

Kenneth Cole is a poor example, they actually make some great shoes if you look at the real line, not their offshoot "reaction" product line. A square toe is fine, and can be rather classy if you wear the right shoe. You're right in not wanting it boxy. Too many young men wear either basically square blocks on their feet or ugly rounded crap that was good when you in high school, but not you're a man. Personally, I wouldn't wear a square toe with an interview suit unless someone had a nice pair of loafers that thin towards the end. Think you're best best are some traditional lace up oxfords, not something with too pointed of a toe or too round of a toe. I agree with you though, shoes make or break a suit outfit. (edit: when I mentioned a 'good square' I mean something that thins at the end, not a big block, that is ugly, hope that clarifies a bit, but really the best idea would a rounded oxford)

A short thing of advice for people here that may be looking at more modern cut suits that are slimmer: if the lapels are thinner, like they've been making lately, don't wear an incredibly wide tie that is wider than the lapels, it just looks silly. Don't go in with a skinny tie necessarily, as some of those can be ridiculous as well, but something that is balanced and proportioned with the thinner look of a modern suit. Equally, wearing a slim tie with huge lapels is going to make your tie look foolish. You want to be balanced and have your accessories be complementary, not steal the show.
 
I'll add another tidbit that I firmly believe:

If you think a full windsor is too fat a knot for an interview, you're doing it wrong! 😛
I want to see someone try the Merovingian knot or its variations.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA-n2xkYX6s[/YOUTUBE]

As for my personal taste, I'm a bit opposite. For my favorite rich ties, I like the half windsor so it doesn't look so perfect and stuffy. For my slimmer ties, I use the full windsor to dress them up a bit.
 
Suspenders are in (application) season, fellas.

Psych,0.jpg
 
I want to see someone try the Merovingian knot or its variations.

[YOUTUBE]YA-n2xkYX6s[/YOUTUBE]

As for my personal taste, I'm a bit opposite. For my favorite rich ties, I like the half windsor so it doesn't look so perfect and stuffy. For my slimmer ties, I use the full windsor to dress them up a bit.

That's a sweet knot... thanks for posting that. 👍

Have to believe some interviewer would comment on it, score you some brownie points.
 
That's a sweet knot... thanks for posting that. 👍

Have to believe some interviewer would comment on it, score you some brownie points.

Depends if they were a Matrix fan or not. The "Merovingian" they refer to here is the same merovingian from the Matrix Reloaded. 😛 I've never seen this knot before, but it looks awfully similar to an "Ediety knot". I can't find a good reference for an Ediety knot on the web though. 🙁

EDIT:
(Wait a minute, is "Ediety" also something from a Wachowski brother's movie?)
 
Last edited:
Depends if they were a Matrix fan or not. The "Merovingian" they refer to here is the same merovingian from the Matrix Reloaded. 😛 I've never seen this knot before, but it looks awfully similar to an "Ediety knot". I can't find a good reference for an Ediety knot on the web though. 🙁

EDIT:
(Wait a minute, is "Ediety" also something from a Wachowski brother's movie?)
I'm not sure if it's from a Wachowski brothers' film, but the video poster does credit Ediety. It seems as if Ediety is a person on a forum that asks for credit in the comments section.
 
I'm not sure if it's from a Wachowski brothers' film, but the video poster does credit Ediety. It seems as if Ediety is a person on a forum that asks for credit in the comments section.

That's what I get for not listening to the sound. 🙁

On another note, I just found another knot from a lost age. This one is credited to Amanda Christensen. Apparently, she was a swedish tie designer from the early 1900s.
http://www.styleforum.net/archive/index.php/t-19666.html
 
Is a slightly more subtle (thinner stripes, not as shiny) version of this acceptable?

Fabolous-02-big.jpg


Is black with black stripes acceptable in general?
 
it would be acceptable. why not find a dark gray or navy suit instead, though? Although you're buying this for the interview, use it as an opportunity to buy a suit you'll actually want to wear again
 
it would be acceptable. why not find a dark gray or navy suit instead, though? Although you're buying this for the interview, use it as an opportunity to buy a suit you'll actually want to wear again
Yeah I like wearing suits every now and then so I would definitely wear it again. I currently have a double-breasted pinstripe Ralph Lauren suit but I don't think I will be wearing that to the interview.
 
How long is the jacket, I cant tell if its super long or if its the fireplace in the background.. But overall it looks nice
 
How long is the jacket, I cant tell if its super long or if its the fireplace in the background.. But overall it looks nice

It's down to about the curl of my fingers, as it should be; that is a fireplace in the background.

I'm trying to decide if a super-conservative color set would be good or if something slightly-different (lavender shirt, purple tie, no PS) or very-different (similar to what I had on, if not more extreme) is best for an interview. After all, you want to be just slightly memorable, but you don't want them to really focus on one aspect, right? (such as "that was the weird guy with the hanky?")
 
Here's a representation of the most flashy thing I'm considering wearing... is it too much? Do you think I need to go white shirt/blue tie/no PS (pocket square) for a med school interview?

Definitely ditch the pocket square. The only way I would even consider a pocket square is if it were neatly folded with the edge above the pocket, not the flared out style you showed.

Also, looks like you have a chain on your tie? I would ditch that as well.
 
Definitely ditch the pocket square. The only way I would even consider a pocket square is if it were neatly folded with the edge above the pocket, not the flared out style you showed.

Also, looks like you have a chain on your tie? I would ditch that as well.

Yeah a white TV folded square is probably much less flashy and maybe even says "professional." Why would you ditch the tie chain? I think of it the same as a tie bar so I'm a tad confused on that one.
 
So as far as interviews go, are shiny dress shoes or not so shiny dress shoes preferable? And pointed or squared off? A lot of people told me shiny and the end doesn't matter, but I just wanted your opinions. Thanks in advance.
 
Yeah a white TV folded square is probably much less flashy and maybe even says "professional." Why would you ditch the tie chain? I think of it the same as a tie bar so I'm a tad confused on that one.

I'm a conservative southern boy when it comes to grooming habits...tie bars and chains are seen as ostentatious by some (esp if combined with a flashy pocket square).
 
So as far as interviews go, are shiny dress shoes or not so shiny dress shoes preferable? And pointed or squared off? A lot of people told me shiny and the end doesn't matter, but I just wanted your opinions. Thanks in advance.

Depends on the shoe really. In general you want to have a well polished dress shoe. However, I have one nice, very traditional pair of cap-toed shoes, but they are in a softer leather that doesn't really get that "shine" to it even after a good polish.

As far as pointed vs square - I think you should avoid the super boxy looking shoes, but again it is very shoe dependent.
 
What's with the hate of box-toed shoes? I have both box-toed and traditional oxfords and have gotten numerous compliments on my box-toed shoes.

http://www1.macys.com/catalog/product/index.ognc?ID=234637&CategoryID=17228

In black obviously. I think I'm gonna risk the box-toed they just look better. I don't think adding a modern touch neccesarily makes it unconservative (and yes I realize the contradiction fo terms just talking on the whole appearance of the outfit).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top