Conundrum wrote:
A candidate who doesn't understand risk assessment balanced against chance of gain would have a mark against them.
Don't misrepresent what I said based on those inflammatory responses. Of course the candidate is in that position. But the HR people don't really gain anything of value by putting them there.
They set a bar of "wear a suit," but anything else would achieve the same result. It could just as easily be "wear a top hat." They'd get to see which people valued the job enough to risk ridicule by wearing a top hat. Just as a fraternity checks which people value the fraternity enough to go through a hazing ritual.
But you can't expect to weed out many candidates that way, because almost every candidate overdresses by default. And even if that weren't the case, it's not a reliable test, as a candidate may have many reasons not to overdress other than poor risk-assessment skills. It's not necessary, because such things can be better assessed during the interview itself if the interviewer is competent. And its importance depends greatly on the position being sought. Investment banker? Important. Graphic designer? Programmer? Whatever.
There is no legitimate basis for it being such a big deal except that it traditionally is. I think HR people actually take a kind of pride in making people dress up. By making people act important, it makes them feel important too.