Top Law Schools

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

Delete it - you don't need an objective.

sarahhope82 wrote:Delete it - you don't need an objective.

As far as I know that's right.

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??

No objective, no summary. Start with Education.

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!

r6_philly wrote:No objective, no summary. Start with Education.

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

Ragged wrote:

r6_philly wrote: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.

The Real Jack McCoy wrote:

Ragged wrote:

r6_philly wrote: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.

r6_philly wrote:

The Real Jack McCoy wrote:

Ragged wrote:

r6_philly wrote: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.

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)

northwood wrote: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

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?

ziggie wrote:
--LinkRemoved--

Btw, no objective line!

+1

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

northwood wrote: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.

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

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!