(Edit: I should read before I post! Sorry for the confusion! Both photos are from this week, showing the current length of my hair. The second photo is lit by a flash that makes the problem more pronounced. I don't know which is more "real" looking.)

I have an interview for a faculty job at a big city medical school on the east coast, this coming week. Scientists are pretty accepting of a wide range of appearances (from disheveled to weird to polished) -- the only thing I personally try to avoid is looking too appearance-focused because people can be sadly judgmental about that. I'll be wearing my favorite blazer, silk blouse, and probably slacks (possibly my very nicest black jeans).

Anyway, the question:

I have an undercut. It's really at its best with a #1 or #2 buzz. And once it grows long enough, the short side blends in surprisingly well with the rest of my (very long) hair so that people don't even notice it sometimes.

Unfortunately my hair is at an awkward in-between state. It's just long enough to start curling, so it ends up looking sort of sparse and sloppy, rather than covering my scalp evenly. It's not long enough to be in "stealth mode" yet.

I was planning to leave it longer for the interview so that I don't look like a punk. But now I'm caught up in uncertainty. I'm wondering if I'll be happier getting it trimmed to a #2 buzz. Not too short -- usually I shave it all off, so that I can go longer between trims, but that would look too extreme.

What do you think? Longer = less edgy (which is good, for the interview) but shorter = more intentional, less sloppy (which is also good).

If I'm going to trim it, I should try to get it done today.

This post has 2 photos. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.