Top Law Schools

How many interests do most people list, and how do they list them?

I did search the forum, and saw some people recommended not to have an interests section, others recommended 3-4 interests, while others recommended up to two lines.

Do people tend to list them as

Interests
A,B, and C.
Backpacking, historical fiction novels, and [local sports team].

or with more detail:

Interest
I enjoy A, reading B, and watching C.
I enjoy backpacking, reading historical fiction novels, and watching [local sports team] games.



Next, what do you all think of these hobbies in regard to being put on a resume?

Amateur astronomy, fossil collecting, playing hockey, watching the [local NHL team], backpacking, kayak camping, knife making, genealogy, reef scuba diving, history of ancient Sparta, and reading science fiction as well as fantasy novels.


Knife making is the only one I'm really on the fence about. My current employer asked me about it before I was hired, and I've been asked about it in a scholarship interview. People who know that I forge have asked me quite a bit about it and seem interested in it. On one hand it is something I can talk about for as long as needed and it indicates creativity as well as attention to detail. On the other hand there could be people that think I am a killer because I make knives.

I did not play any intramural, club, or university sports. I do play recreational ice & inline hockey though, so I thought that would be a good thing to list.


Which interests (if any of the above) would you recommend I definitely use? Which should I definitely not use? I'm assuming I should not have that many listed, so I'm really just trying to figure out which ones would be most valuable.


Any help is greatly appreciated!

I've never understood nor appreciated an "Interests" section on any resume beyond sophomore year of college. Save the space for your actual accomplishments and skills. Everyone has hobbies and skills.

HRomanus wrote:I've never understood nor appreciated an "Interests" section on any resume beyond sophomore year of college. Save the space for your actual accomplishments and skills. Everyone has hobbies and skills.

No.

HRomanus wrote:I've never understood nor appreciated an "Interests" section on any resume beyond sophomore year of college. Save the space for your actual accomplishments and skills. Everyone has hobbies and skills.

I put an interests section on my resume and I am pretty sure it benefitted me. Most of my callbacks were from interviews where I was asked about at least one of the hobbies I listed. That section lets your interviewer know you're not a drone and can also break up the monotony of their day.

avghopeful wrote:

HRomanus wrote:I've never understood nor appreciated an "Interests" section on any resume beyond sophomore year of college. Save the space for your actual accomplishments and skills. Everyone has hobbies and skills.

I put an interests section on my resume and I am pretty sure it benefitted me. Most of my callbacks were from interviews where I was asked about at least one of the hobbies I listed. That section lets your interviewer know you're not a drone and can also break up the monotony of their day.

The resume is a small component of law school admissions, so adding an interests section to let someone know you're a person (as if your actual achievements don't) doesn't have much of an effect. Few law schools do admissions (am I wrong?) so the interviewing purpose is almost null as well. Often times, your hobbies will exude onto the resume through your community involvement. For example, I love American history and so I volunteer at a local historic site.

HRomanus wrote:I've never understood nor appreciated an "Interests" section on any resume beyond sophomore year of college. Save the space for your actual accomplishments and skills. Everyone has hobbies and skills.

okay, maybe you're not real

anyriotgirl wrote:

HRomanus wrote:I've never understood nor appreciated an "Interests" section on any resume beyond sophomore year of college. Save the space for your actual accomplishments and skills. Everyone has hobbies and skills.

okay, maybe you're not real

Do you (or Mal) want to answer OP's question or directly critique my responses to him?

HRomanus wrote:

anyriotgirl wrote:

HRomanus wrote:I've never understood nor appreciated an "Interests" section on any resume beyond sophomore year of college. Save the space for your actual accomplishments and skills. Everyone has hobbies and skills.

okay, maybe you're not real

Do you (or Mal) want to answer OP's question or directly critique my responses to him?

I have all of my experience safely fitted on my resume and one line of interests. There is no compromising necessary. Also had a great number of conversations sparked through my interests.

Oh and it doesn't matter AT ALL for admissions purposes. You can take a shit on your resume and hand it in with an above median lsat and gpa and still get in.

Duo wrote: Amateur astronomy, fossil collecting, playing hockey, watching the [local NHL team], backpacking, kayak camping, knife making, genealogy, reef scuba diving, history of ancient Sparta, and reading science fiction as well as fantasy novels.


Knife making is the only one I'm really on the fence about. My current employer asked me about it before I was hired, and I've been asked about it in a scholarship interview. People who know that I forge have asked me quite a bit about it and seem interested in it. On one hand it is something I can talk about for as long as needed and it indicates creativity as well as attention to detail. On the other hand there could be people that think I am a killer because I make knives.

I did not play any intramural, club, or university sports. I do play recreational ice & inline hockey though, so I thought that would be a good thing to list.

This won't really matter for admissions unless it's for a school that does interviews, which is relatively rare. But for future job purposes...

I think you're fine with the rec hockey, amateur astronomy, watching NHL team, backpacking, kayak camping, knife making, reef scuba diving, and reading sci fi/fantasy.

The fossil collecting, Spartan history, and genealogy also sound super boring to me, but that's just me. The others show you're normal i.e. into sport and into doing things outdoors so you won't be living in the library like some weirdos. The knife making is unique and will be a fun topic to talk about in interviews. I knew someone in UG that made knives and swords and it was really fucking cool. Astronomy and sci fi can be hit or miss topics, but it shows you're well-rounded by caring about science in some way.

HRomanus wrote:I've never understood nor appreciated an "Interests" section on any resume beyond sophomore year of college. Save the space for your actual accomplishments and skills. Everyone has hobbies and skills.

Yeah, it totally doesn't matter for law school admissions. It does matter for legal hiring. Not that you can't get a job without interests, but it often makes the process go much more smoothly and sparks conversations that can help make the interviewer like you and find you an interesting person.

OP, for your LS app resume put whatever you'd like. For jobs I think 3-4 listed on one line ("basketball, knife making, genealogy") is the way to go. No need for verbs or conjunctions.

I had two pages of junk for law school admissions. Got in everywhere. Also know someone who applied to "Cornell" in their essays but send it in to Duke. Still go in. And this was in the time when people were still applying to law schools.

Post removed.

Mal Reynolds wrote:Oh and it doesn't matter AT ALL for admissions purposes. You can take a shit on your resume and hand it in with an above median lsat and gpa and still get in.

read a lot of stuff like this on TSL. is this really true? what's the point of making us submit resumes and essays if they don't count for anything??

walterwhite wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Oh and it doesn't matter AT ALL for admissions purposes. You can take a shit on your resume and hand it in with an above median lsat and gpa and still get in.

read a lot of stuff like this on TSL. is this really true? what's the point of making us submit resumes and essays if they don't count for anything??

To keep up the illusion they care about anything besides USNWR rankings.

walterwhite wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Oh and it doesn't matter AT ALL for admissions purposes. You can take a shit on your resume and hand it in with an above median lsat and gpa and still get in.

read a lot of stuff like this on TSL. is this really true? what's the point of making us submit resumes and essays if they don't count for anything??

They don't quite not count at all. They just probably count about maybe 5-7%: they can break ties between people with the same LSAT/GPA; they might be able to help splitters. After all, not everyone is above the median LSAT/GPA for the schools they're applying to. But if you are above median, that's by far the best way to get into a school.

(The exceptions are YS and maybe H; when everyone who applies has amazing stats you can afford to look at other factors.)

And even where the resume matters, whether you include interests/how you format them isn't going to make/break anything.

I'm not saying not to have a good resume. But they don't matter.

I have a related questions: if we have a skills section, should we leave off obvious computer skills (word, excel, etc;). Admissions officers don't want to see any of that junk right?

Yeah, don't list Microsoft Office programs. That's just a basic life skill at this point.

If you're a programmer or designer, then sure list your skills and certs.

Post removed.

Thanks for pointing out the one exception to the general rule. You're doing great work here.

Mal Reynolds wrote:Thanks for pointing out the one exception to the general rule. You're doing great work here.

Your schtick is getting old.

6lehderjets wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Thanks for pointing out the one exception to the general rule. You're doing great work here.

Your schtick is getting old.

It isn't a shtick. The data suggests most people with 3.6+ and like 170+ (rounding here) are practically in at H. One anecdotal exception isn't enough to undermine the overall statistical trend. Sometimes adcomms just don't like people even if they have good numbers.

OP, include interests. It came up in every single LS interview I had.

Attax wrote:

6lehderjets wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Thanks for pointing out the one exception to the general rule. You're doing great work here.

Your schtick is getting old.

It isn't a shtick. The data suggests most people with 3.6+ and like 170+ (rounding here) are practically in at H. One anecdotal exception isn't enough to undermine the overall statistical trend. Sometimes adcomms just don't like people even if they have good numbers.

OP, include interests. It came up in every single LS interview I had.

The data suggest nothing of the sort.

tiltedwindmill wrote:

Attax wrote:

6lehderjets wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:Thanks for pointing out the one exception to the general rule. You're doing great work here.

Your schtick is getting old.

It isn't a shtick. The data suggests most people with 3.6+ and like 170+ (rounding here) are practically in at H. One anecdotal exception isn't enough to undermine the overall statistical trend. Sometimes adcomms just don't like people even if they have good numbers.

OP, include interests. It came up in every single LS interview I had.

The data suggest nothing of the sort.

http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1415

It obviously isn't 100% so, but you're very competitive with numbers above those ranges. Its less of a blackbox than Y.