I find this stuff interesting, but look out.
 
A couple years ago I posted an A-News article about some of the players and the meanings behind their tats, and posters came out of the woodwork to proclaim what a terrible image tattoos project and how none of these guys will ever get a job after college.

Belmont players (it appeared) didn't have any.

It's not like those with ink will not get jobs.  But I imagine it will have same effect.

When I hire people, beyond subject matter competence (which is assumed...you don't get an interview without it), I look for smarts, drive, integrity.  Judgment is part of that.  Someone who inks broadly may not strike me as someone who has early come to have good judgment.

Now, if I have good judgment, that doesn't stop me giving rightful consideration to a splendid candidate.  But it could be the difference maker if there are numerous excellent candidates.

The mark leaves a mark, like it or not.

I don't have a problem with others having tattoos, but I draw the line at neck tattoos and quarter-sized holes in their ears.  Right or wrong, the business world has not embraced all of these trends.  I cannot hire someone at my firm with tear drops below their eyes.  I've always felt like any tatoos should be able to be covered by a shirt just in case they don't sit well with a future decision maker. 

I tell our young guys it's the same with smoking weed.  For some reason, it is perfectly acceptable to go to a business function in the evening and have a few cocktails but you will never see a group of executives sharing a joint.  You just don't want to stand out for the wrong reasons.