resume help Forum

[northwood]

For my objective part of the resume, i have : to gain admission into law school.

Is that all I need to write, or should i explain further?

thanks for your help and suggestions

[sarahh]

Delete it - you don't need an objective.

[Ragged]

Delete it - you don't need an objective.

As far as I know that's right.

[northwood]

To be honest, i wasnt totally set on having it there, as it seems pretty obvious to me that law schools know I want to go there, but I was just looking for some feeback. should i have a summary part on the resume, or delete this as well??

[r6_philly]

No objective, no summary. Start with Education.

[ziggie]

Check out this link, they have sample resumes. If it's good enough for Harvard, it's probably good enough for most schools!

--LinkRemoved--

Btw, no objective line!

[Ragged]

No objective, no summary. Start with Education.

You think it would be a big nimus if I started with Work Experience?

[The Real Jack McCoy]

No objective, no summary. Start with Education.

You think it would be a big nimus if I started with Work Experience?

Not if your work experience is more impressive.

[r6_philly]

No objective, no summary. Start with Education.

You think it would be a big nimus if I started with Work Experience?

Not if your work experience is more impressive.

It's a resume aimed at an academic institution, I would put the education first. I have 10+ years of experience and I listed education first. Although my education section is pretty impressive so ... I modeled my resume off my CV, which is always education first. I feel like anything I send to a graduate school should have education first.

[The Real Jack McCoy]

No objective, no summary. Start with Education.

You think it would be a big nimus if I started with Work Experience?

Not if your work experience is more impressive.

It's a resume aimed at an academic institution, I would put the education first. I have 10+ years of experience and I listed education first. Although my education section is pretty impressive so ... I modeled my resume off my CV, which is always education first. I feel like anything I send to a graduate school should have education first.

99% of law school applicants should probably put education first, but I can think of some scenarios where work experience might come first. E.g. less than stellar undergraduate degree and record, but non-traditional and sufficiently long and stellar career in something impressive. If your "story" is that your work experience is a better reason to think you'll do well in law school and your legal career, highlighting it in your resume makes sense (as long as you have the actual credentials).

But I admit I'm no resume expert.

[northwood]

to make it easier heres the part where im having difficulty
graduated ug in 2006, earned master degree in 2008.
have 11 years work experience as a manager in a landscaping business ( theme of personal statement)

was a teacher for year and a half


right now i have education, teaching exp then management, then a list of computer skills and teaching certifications

should i go edu
management
teaching exp
certifications

or edu
management
teaching exp
certifications>?


i have 3 resumes ( 2 with the certifications and computer skills the order listed above)

[ziggie]

to make it easier heres the part where im having difficulty
graduated ug in 2006, earned master degree in 2008.
have 11 years work experience as a manager in a landscaping business ( theme of personal statement)

was a teacher for year and a half


right now i have education, teaching exp then management, then a list of computer skills and teaching certifications

should i go edu
management
teaching exp
certifications

or edu
management
teaching exp
certifications>?


i have 3 resumes ( 2 with the certifications and computer skills the order listed above)

Since both of the options you listed are exactly the same, I think either will be fine

[northwood]

thanks: one more question

I was a manager at a company for 6 years, left and took a position at another company ( same title, but had to leave since first company was downsizing), for a year and a half, then was recruited back ( same responsibilities but offered more money, time off, etc). Do i put 2 lines for the work dates, or make it 2 seperate things?

[txadv11]

--LinkRemoved--

Btw, no objective line!

+1

I know it is PURE preference, but I strongly suggest/like #2 or possibly #1.

[txadv11]

thanks: one more question

I was a manager at a company for 6 years, left and took a position at another company ( same title, but had to leave since first company was downsizing), for a year and a half, then was recruited back ( same responsibilities but offered more money, time off, etc). Do i put 2 lines for the work dates, or make it 2 seperate things?

It really depends on space IMHO.

Given the year and a half time frame, I'd probably do,
"Account Supervisor XYZ Accounting June 2004-May 2008, January 2010-Present "

"Account Supervisor ABC Accounting May 2008-January 2010 "

To me, this is clear that you didn't have a gap in WE.

[northwood]

thanks. thats what I was thinking, but I wanted to see see what the people out there thought.

[northwood]

unless other people want to use this thread, i think its safe to let this one slide into internet oblivion. Thanks for all of your help!