Resume/Law Review Advice Forum

[dixiecupdrinking]

If you apply to any job, anywhere, claiming a title on your resume that wasn't ever yours, and the hiring people find out, you will not get the job. If you worked in a restaurant as a server and your boss asked you to do some random managerial duty, it doesn't mean you can say you were Acting Assistant Manager for two hours. This is not a legal industry issue, although if you want to be a lawyer you should probably get used to being more precise than the average person in what language you use in referring to things. Don't say you were "interim Editor in Chief" unless the EIC will vouch for the fact that that was your position.

[Renzo]

It's threads like this that make me despair for law. We're in a profession obsessed with pretentious credentials.

Either title is fine. If the employer genuinely has a problem with you putting EIC on a resume after doing the work, you probably wouldn't want to work for them anyway.

It is a profession obsessed with pretentious credentials, which is why either title is not OK. Knowing that the whole occupation is hyper-obsessed with credentials means that you need to be impeccably honest about them.

I'm with ggocat: if I saw it on a resume and couldn't easily verify the position via transcript/masthead, I would throw the resume in the trash and consider the applicant a liar without an opportunity to explain. You don't ever get to make up your own job titles. And "you probably wouldn't want to work for them anyway" is a fine sentiment in many situations; in the crowded and competitive legal market, it might be an express ticket to unemployment.

You honestly think that interviewers spend the time to look at a law review's masthead? Can't tell if serious...

No, I've never done hiring for a law firm; I was talking about what I would actually have done in the past when I had hiring responsibilities in another field, and did actually investigate candidates' resumes. As for what law firm interviewers do, I suspect it's more like what ggocat described above.

[lbeezy]

Ask him how to list your increased responsibilities on your resume.

As if he'll know how to answer it.

I say list put interim EIC on your resume. It's what you did, it's accurate, there's no reason to check with anyone else to see if they think it's okay. If questioned in an interview (which is your intention) then you'll explain the situation.

[Anonymous User]

Two things:

First, the fact that you handled all of the EIC's duties for an issue does not mean you were "interim EIC." The EIC position at the time was not vacant; the position-holder simply wasn't able to perform his duties at the time. But when you were doing his duties, he was still EIC--meaning there could be no interim EIC.

Second, no matter how much you may think you deserve the resume line "interim EIC," not everyone will agree. As this thread illustrates, some people will find it ridiculous that you call yourself "interim EIC." You'd be best off not putting anything controversial on your resume.

[Anonymous User]

If I could discern that OP didn't actually receive that title, it would make me question OP's integrity.

As you suggested, I think it's more about character/integrity than prestige.

This is why the concern is silly. The concern with "character" and "honesty" is about title and hierarchy, not about honesty over what the applicant actually did. Do you not see how easy this is to mock?

Yes, the desire to be recognized for one's work that went beyond their job description is exclusively a pretentious characteristic of law students, and the legal professional as a whole. Idiot.

Sorry? The OP, and other law students, aren't pretentious for wanting to be recognized for work. I totally support OP getting full credit for being interim EIC, or whatever you want to call it. The profession is pretentious in that it is obsessed with titles that may or may not reflect actual work. Name another profession even more obsessed with this.

sarcasm breh

[crooked]

Second, no matter how much you may think you deserve the resume line "interim EIC," not everyone will agree. As this thread illustrates, some people will find it ridiculous that you call yourself "interim EIC." You'd be best off not putting anything controversial on your resume.

I think this is the most important point. The disagreement in this thread to me indicates that it would be safer to write your actual masthead position with a line to indicate that you fulfilled all the duties of the EiC in the absence of the actual EiC. If you write anything other than your official title on your application, you open yourself up to the possibility that some potential employers might think you lack integrity (which to me is enough to make that approach not worth it). The alternative approach - your actual title with a bullet about your added responsibilities - carries all the positives of the "interim EiC" listing without any of the associated possible negatives. Employers will see that you stepped up and took on extra responsibilities just the same, but no one will question whether you're trying to misrepresent your role to get a job.

[Anonymous User]

OP again. Thanks to everyone for the responses. I always try to take the conservative approach to resumes, so it's helpful to see the potential range of responses. I was hoping to avoid a bullet point under my journal position (just for aesthetic reasons) but as the more conservative approach that is what I'm going to do. Hopefully it will be unusual enough to attract attention in interviews.