If people have similar qualifications (i.e. on paper, they have the qualities necessary to do the job, and then some) typically the question becomes whether they are a good fit for the environment, and most likely you will hire the invididual you like more for a variety of reasons, attire/looks being one of them, after all, the person is representing your company, and you have to work with them on a daily basis. Â If you don't believe people aren't judged by their dress/appearance/demeanor during an interview and ruled out / selected based on many factors that may or may not have anything to do with their ability to do the position. Â That is not to say that I would hire a candidate over someone who is obviously more qualified, my point is that their ability to fit into our company is a primary concern, and their attitude, demeanor, appearance, and other factors are important.
Are you saying that once the candiates meets a certain minimum of standards, then all that experience gets thown out the window and the candidate is chosen primarily from their interview? I don't disagree with the importance of the candidate fitting in with the corporate culture. Obviously, if somebody comes off as a total freak or a-hole, he will get passed over. What I really took exception to was the fact that you seemed to pass over this candidate because he was wearing a double breasted suit. To me, it seemed somewhat arbitrary, and had nothing to do with anything about fitting in with the corporate culture. I don't see how wearing a DB means that he won't fit in with everybody else who's wearing a suit. What if everybody at your firm wears a 2 button suit, and a candidate shows up in a 3 button suit? And, would you like it if that same standard was applied to you? In the thread about i-banking, you seemed to be in the 'do your own thing and wear what you like' camp.