Language Skills Section of Resume - Don't Do This Forum

[Anonymous User]

Honestly, this whole thing is just reminder of how arbitrary this whole process is. This student got unlucky. He/she put a line on their resume that for no predictable reason, rubbed the interviewer the wrong way, and the interviewer acted like an asshole and refused to let it go. Who knows? That same line might have provoked some interesting conversation with another interviewer and been the (equally arbitrary) reason for a callback. Basically, good chunks of these screeners are completely out of your control.

The only useful advice I can see here? Mass mail. Bid wisely. Get as many fucking interviews as you can to minimize the damage one bad interview, or one asshole interviewer can inflict.

[jbagelboy]

I wonder what the chances are that the person who was interviewed has seen this thread...

I am confident that I timed and phrased the postings so that she will not know it was her.

I'm not sure how much "timing" would help. A good percentage of my friends in law school read (or at least glance at) TLS, and a lot of them are on the "Legal Employment" sub-forum around this time due to recruitment season, so I personally wouldn't be surprised if the interviewee has seen this thread. Not that this is a bad thing--you were respectful by being ambiguous about who the person was--but I can imagine being a bit shaken if I were the interviewee and I saw this. Most attorneys in BigLaw are too busy to post this often on TLS; if I were the interviewee, and I saw that my interviewer had made this many posts about me on an online Internet forum mostly meant for 0Ls and for current law students, I would be a bit weirded out. (Not criticizing you at all...just thinking about the interviewee's perspective.)

Anyway, I appreciate the advice you have given TLS, even if I disagree (and I do disagree) with how harsh you were to this interviewee who, for all we know, may have been told by her law school advisors to represent her language skills in that manner on her resume. This thread has certainly made me glad that I didn't include any of my language skills.

I'm removing my post because it crosses over into a less respectful type of humor that I'd rather not bring into this space. I apologize if I offended the OP with my joke.

[rpupkin]

Fun thread.

Although I come down on the side of those who think that the OP was being unfair to the applicant, I don't think it means that the OP is an asshole. He's got a pet peeve. Most interviewers have at least a couple. And these pet peeves won't always be grounded in fairness and rationality.

I'll share mine: I hate it when transfers list that they got onto law review at their old school before transferring, even though they left before actually joining law review. It particularly irks me when I have to read the resume carefully to figure out that they were "on" law review at the old school and not the new school.

I already can see that you had a nice shiny GPA at your 1L school. Why do I care that you made it onto a law review for which you did no actual work? No, I won't auto-ding you for it, but it's not going to create a good impression.

[Anonymous User]

Fun thread.

Although I come down on the side of those who think that the OP was being unfair to the applicant, I don't think it means that the OP is an asshole. He's got a pet peeve. Most interviewers have at least a couple. And these pet peeves won't always be grounded in fairness and rationality.

I'll share mine: I hate it when transfers list that they got onto law review at their old school before transferring, even though they left before actually joining law review. It particularly irks me when I have to read the resume carefully to figure out that they were "on" law review at the old school and not the new school.

I already can see that you had a nice shiny GPA at your 1L school. Why do I care that you made it onto a law review for which you did no actual work? No, I won't auto-ding you for it, but it's not going to create a good impression.

Pretty much this. Every law student who is all up in arms on this thread is missing the point. It doesn't matter whether OP was an asshole or not (and I'm not sure that he was). Rather than pushing back against OP, all you current law students should be thankful for the insight into hiring practices and use the information to put together stronger application materials. And OP is certainly not an outlier. Most every interviewer is going to have seen tens, if not hundreds, of resumes, and will have discovered that certain things annoy him/her. I actually saw a resume from a student who was attending school x, but who had listed in his/her resume the scholarships the student had evidently turned down at schools y and z in order to attend school x. It wasn't an autoding, but it certainly didn't help that student's chances.

The point is, when you have many more candidates than open positions, even small mistakes/issues can be costly. If I have 3 different candidates with all very similar grades, experience, whatever, on balance my recommendation is often going to come down to smaller things that, while minor in and of themselves and that might not tank a candidate if s/he was otherwise my top choice, still show a lack of good judgment.

[Anonymous User]

I disagree. The fact remains that the "error" wasn't an unambiguous error but something, as Campos pointed out a few posts up, that the interviewee would have no way of anticipating as a problem. I think most people realize that unambiguous errors such as outrightly lying, making typos, etc. would be red flags in interviews. The push back, I think, isn't a denial of how interviews work - everybody gets that all the power is on the person doing the interviewing and that's the way it is. The push back is due to irritation with how OP refuses to characterize the "error" as what it is, a personal pet peeve, and a lot of the self-righteousness that OP exhibited.

Though yes, it's good to get insight into the hiring process. Little mistakes count. Random shit that aren't even mistakes might lead to dings. You just never know, and it doesn't matter what anybody thinks.

[Neff]

.

[CicerBRo]

I disagree. The fact remains that the "error" wasn't an unambiguous error but something, as Campos pointed out a few posts up, that the interviewee would have no way of anticipating as a problem. I think most people realize that unambiguous errors such as outrightly lying, making typos, etc. would be red flags in interviews. The push back, I think, isn't a denial of how interviews work - everybody gets that all the power is on the person doing the interviewing and that's the way it is. The push back is due to irritation with how OP refuses to characterize the "error" as what it is, a personal pet peeve, and a lot of the self-righteousness that OP exhibited.

Though yes, it's good to get insight into the hiring process. Little mistakes count. Random shit that aren't even mistakes might lead to dings. You just never know, and it doesn't matter what anybody thinks.

This.

And I think people are slamming the OP too much. Even if he were exceptionally nitpick-y, it is good to know for the sake of knowledge that there are some interviewers who think in this way. These forums are a resource for law students, and the OP has expanded that resource.

[Anonymous User]

This is a good illustration of why the legal field continues to have systematically embedded problems of classism: its failure to insulate recruiting from the rest of the business. Corporations figured out decades ago that a Human Resources department was a necessity (i.e., not a luxury) because effective recruiting requires years of specialization and experience. Law firms seem to think that HR is good enough for hiring staff, but the thinking endures that lawyers need a special hand; this is especially ironic, since staff recruiting is much more skills-based than the personality-based recruiting 2Ls face.

This is all to say that being a lawyer does not bolster one's ability to detect the traits that will maximize profits at the firm. Instead, leaving recruiting to practicing attorneys only serves to perpetuate homogeneity within the firm because people are naturally attracted to similar people, and in the United States, similar people (geography, interests, education) tend overwhemingly to be of the same *economic* class. And worst of all, it leaves otherwise ideal candidates on the wayside because of the idiosyncratic preferences of recruiting novices.

This isn't bad for the candidate (they'll find work elsewhere in that scenario). It's bad for the firm. And the only justification I can muster is something about "culture" or "fit," which is sort of confusing. Does Starbucks have a culture problem? Apple? Boston Consulting Group? I don't think so, and their hiring is highly professionalized. Now, do law firms have a culture problem? Hmmm...

[dixiecupdrinking]

Fun thread.

Although I come down on the side of those who think that the OP was being unfair to the applicant, I don't think it means that the OP is an asshole. He's got a pet peeve. Most interviewers have at least a couple. And these pet peeves won't always be grounded in fairness and rationality.

I'll share mine: I hate it when transfers list that they got onto law review at their old school before transferring, even though they left before actually joining law review. It particularly irks me when I have to read the resume carefully to figure out that they were "on" law review at the old school and not the new school.

I already can see that you had a nice shiny GPA at your 1L school. Why do I care that you made it onto a law review for which you did no actual work? No, I won't auto-ding you for it, but it's not going to create a good impression.

Pretty much this. Every law student who is all up in arms on this thread is missing the point. It doesn't matter whether OP was an asshole or not (and I'm not sure that he was). Rather than pushing back against OP, all you current law students should be thankful for the insight into hiring practices and use the information to put together stronger application materials. And OP is certainly not an outlier. Most every interviewer is going to have seen tens, if not hundreds, of resumes, and will have discovered that certain things annoy him/her. I actually saw a resume from a student who was attending school x, but who had listed in his/her resume the scholarships the student had evidently turned down at schools y and z in order to attend school x. It wasn't an autoding, but it certainly didn't help that student's chances.

The point is, when you have many more candidates than open positions, even small mistakes/issues can be costly. If I have 3 different candidates with all very similar grades, experience, whatever, on balance my recommendation is often going to come down to smaller things that, while minor in and of themselves and that might not tank a candidate if s/he was otherwise my top choice, still show a lack of good judgment.

What do you make of the fact that many if not most of the people pushing back against this are lawyers (and one is a law professor)?

[sparty99]

I just received the resume for someone I will be interviewing at her callback next week. In her "Language Skills" section she wrote something along the lines of "Fluent in Language 1, Studied Language 2 for x years" and I absolutely cringed. There have been threads dedicated to similar topics, but the bottom line is if you are not able to state with confidence your level of proficiency in a particular language, it shouldn't go on your resume. The fact that you have studied a language for any length of time is irrelevant. I happen to be one hundred percent fluent in Language 2 and I am absolutely going to make this candidate speak it with me. My reaction is either going to be "why didn't she say she was conversational" or "how did she learn nothing in x years of study?" Bottom line, she loses either way. This may sound harsh, but I have little time to consider her candidacy, so she is going to be facing a tremendous uphill battle to get a good evaluation from me. I value honesty and integrity above most other traits and have little patience with candidates trying to fluff up their resumes.

Something that candidates may not realize is that law firm recruiting departments actually try really hard to match candidates up with associates/partners with similar interests and experiences for interviews. Language skills is probably one of the easiest areas to do this with, so you need to honestly ask yourself if you can stand behind what you have written on your resume. (Or, in the case of my interviewee, ask yourself if what you have written means anything at all.)

Also, be aware that there are very few (if any) languages that law firms aren't able to find native/fluent speakers for. Don't think that you are special because you happened to study a language that you think is hard. Firms looking for foreign language speakers these days are looking for (and readily find) candidates with either native level or full business proficiency. Being able to muddle through a conversation at a two-year old level does not add value.

With the above in mind, if you do feel the urge to mention that you have studied a language but are not comfortable claiming a level of proficiency, consider including that in your "Interests" section. That way you can have a safe and honest conversation about it without being called out for claiming skills that you don't have.

Get over yourself, you self-absorbed munt.

[Anonymous User]

This is why more law firms should follow S&C's model of hiring based on grades. Screening for "personality" just makes the process more arbitrary. It doesn't actually keep the assholes out.

[TooOld4This]

OP is a prick, not because he dinged someone over language skills, but because he hopped on here, mischaracterized the real story, and then proclaimed his dramaticized opinion to be some sort of advice from the heavens that law students should all follow and thank him for.

The only take away here is that there are a million reasons you can not get a job and you can only control for a small subset of them.

Some interviewers like paragraphs, some like bullets; some expect interest sections, some think they signal lack of skill and immaturity; some will toss your resume if it goes over one page, some will be annoyed if you truncate 10 years of experience into a single page. There is obvious advice (don't lie, be able to discuss anything on your resume, control for typos, follow directions, don't have a shitty writing sample, etc.). Beyond that, it's really all noise. The process is arbitrary. I could miss out on an excellent candidate because of one of my biases. You could miss out on an excellent job because you had a bad day.

Hopefully the law of large numbers works in all of your favor and you look back on the opportunities that didn't come through as bullets dodged.

[Old Gregg]

OP is a prick, not because he dinged someone over language skills, but because he hopped on here, mischaracterized the real story, and then proclaimed his dramaticized opinion to be some sort of advice from the heavens that law students should all follow and thank him for.

The only take away here is that there are a million reasons you can not get a job and you can only control for a small subset of them.

Some interviewers like paragraphs, some like bullets; some expect interest sections, some think they signal lack of skill and immaturity; some will toss your resume if it goes over one page, some will be annoyed if you truncate 10 years of experience into a single page. There is obvious advice (don't lie, be able to discuss anything on your resume, control for typos, follow directions, don't have a shitty writing sample, etc.). Beyond that, it's really all noise. The process is arbitrary. I could miss out on an excellent candidate because of one of my biases. You could miss out on an excellent job because you had a bad day.

Hopefully the law of large numbers works in all of your favor and you look back on the opportunities that didn't come through as bullets dodged.

[09042014]

OP is an asshole for many reasons.

Dinging someone for accurately describing their language ability.

Testing someone on a language they didn't claim conversational ability.

Touting himself as an expert.

Thinking someone who isn't fluent in their THIRD language is a bad resume line.

Being a lawyer.