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

[Anonymous User]

I have things on my resume that hint at language proficiency (program in another country that speaks X, volunteering with a community that speaks language Y) but I don't put actual language proficiency on my resume because I'm fluent in neither. It seems like a good route to take because it allows an interviewer who speaks X or Y to bring it up and test me on it, but it doesn't come across as filler or disingenuous.

Unless you did something interesting in another language or are fluent in it, I don't really see how it adds anything important.

ETA: and I don't think the interviewer is necessarily being a dick about this. If you put down that you studied economics or biochemical engineering for X years, you should damn well be able to talk about those things in great depth without being caught of guard.

[20141023]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Now I am worried that an interviewer will ask me if I know that pressing CTRL and + will add or CTRL and - will delete rows in Excel since I wrote "Microsoft Office Suite: Business-level Proficiency" on my resume. I wonder if I should have included it in my interests section instead...

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I am not going to defend myself except to say that every person who is dinged on a callback is dinged for a reason, even though he/she has a stellar resume. The responses on this thread make it look like the candidate is entitled to a job, which is absolutely untrue. We are up to our ears in candidates and, frankly, one thing I look for when interviewing is reasons to shorten the list. The candidate in question just made my job a lot easier by writing something in the resume that set me off. It also happened to be something that the candidate could have avoided by leaving "resume filler" off.

Also, if you are still a law student your comments are interesting but irrelevant. I was just posting this example of why one person is likely going to get dinged as advice about including language skills on a resume. I may sound like a prick for being honest, but most of you will be surprised at how many seemingly nice people throughout the interview process don't give you offers.

[Anonymous User]

Delete

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

This is the problem with TLS these days: OP, an interviewer, discloses a resume pet peeve for the benefit of everyone here. Instead of taking OP's advice, people attack OP. Guess what 1L/2L's, I guarantee you that if OP has this pet peeve, other interviewers will also have this pet peeve. And I also guarantee you that every single one of you will have their own pet peeves when you're in OP's shoes.

OP demonstrating his assholery in the context of sharing advice does not make OP less of an asshole. But yes, it's good for TLSers to know.

I agree with the sentiment, though I would refrain from calling OP an asshole. There's not really malicious intent; he's just a pedant. He can be a pedant at the same time he's sharing good advice, in the same way it's not mutually exclusive to say "Cops are power-hungry thugs" and "You should follow every instruction a cop gives you."

Candidate wrote "studied language X for # years". You happen to speak language X. If candidate wrote "fluent" or "conversational" or "advanced", yeah I get your point. But they just wrote the # of years they studied. It's a weak line on a resume, on that you win. But it's 100% factual. Talking to them in the language will neither prove/disprove the resume point. Candidate is not exaggerating or puffing up their resume with this line. Your quibble, which you admitted already, is that the point is listed under "language skills" and not "interests." That seems pretty minor to me and is really subjective.

This gets at the heart of what I think is the pedantry--the candidate hasn't really done anything wrong. I totally agree that it's entirely fair to get called out on your language skills (or anything else on your resume) and to be dinged if you're found to be bullshitting. But that's not what happened here--the candidate maybe might've phrased it differently. Look, language skills are typically there on the off-chance you find them useful. It's not like a candidate's fluency in Swedish is going to come into play in the vast majority of the work a junior associate does. Suppose the candidate is something less than conversational? That might not do her the candidate good, but it's hardly a reason to ding the candidate. I spent four years studying Language X, but before I lived for several months in a country where X is the national language, I was not yet "conversational." I still would've wanted to identify that I had some degree of proficiency in it, though. If you really want to know, just ask the candidate how well he/she speaks Language 2.

Okay - how many people does the average interviewer interview a day? How many positions are available versus number of people interviewed? You're going to get dinged for a lot of "crappy" reasons. That's what happens when one side of the table has all the bargaining power.

I, and most of my fellow students, are sympathetic to this. We get it--you see a whole lot of people who blend together, and the reasons for giving someone a CB/offer or not have to be somewhat arbitrary. And we know that associate labor is a buyer's market. But if your reasons go past "the candidate did something wrong" to merely "the candidate did something differently than I might've done it," your decision process is grasping at straws. That's the risk you take when you adopt an approach like "look[ing] for...reasons to shorten the list." When you have to be arbitrary, I would much rather see reasons like "Candidate A seemed more engaged than Candidate B." Heck, even "Candidate A has a 3.48 while Candidate B has a 3.43" makes more sense than what OP dings for.

[Julius]

OP, congrats on knowing a second language. That is really impressive. You're right to treat it like a brass ring and I too would police any hint of advertising the skill if I could claim such a feat. I suspect the blowback ITT is from people who don't know second languages.

[AnonAssociate]

This gets at the heart of what I think is the pedantry--the candidate hasn't really done anything wrong. I totally agree that it's entirely fair to get called out on your language skills (or anything else on your resume) and to be dinged if you're found to be bullshitting. But that's not what happened here--the candidate maybe might've phrased it differently. Look, language skills are typically there on the off-chance you find them useful. It's not like a candidate's fluency in Swedish is going to come into play in the vast majority of the work a junior associate does. Suppose the candidate is something less than conversational? That might not do her the candidate good, but it's hardly a reason to ding the candidate. I spent four years studying Language X, but before I lived for several months in a country where X is the national language, I was not yet "conversational." I still would've wanted to identify that I had some degree of proficiency in it, though. If you really want to know, just ask the candidate how well he/she speaks Language 2.

It sort of reflects poor judgment though. You only get one page to sell yourself. Why on earth would you take up an entire line sharing a skill that is not useful? You're competing against people who can fill an entire resume and/or are fluent in that language. Use that space more effectively.

I get that people think the OP and I are jerks, but the truth is that a lot of folks here don't seem to understand how law firm hiring works. It's not like law school where nice you hit a certain combination of numbers, you're in. I interviewed two people this week with strong work experience and ~4.0 GPAs at top law schools and neither of them got offers. It can be tough out there. To the extent someone is telling you "hey, this practice might hurt you," that's useful information even if you don't agree with it.

I have things on my resume that hint at language proficiency (program in another country that speaks X, volunteering with a community that speaks language Y) but I don't put actual language proficiency on my resume because I'm fluent in neither. It seems like a good route to take because it allows an interviewer who speaks X or Y to bring it up and test me on it, but it doesn't come across as filler or disingenuous.

Agree that this is the ideal way to approach it if you want to talk about language study/travel during an interview.

[Anonymous User]

I, and most of my fellow students, are sympathetic to this. We get it--you see a whole lot of people who blend together, and the reasons for giving someone a CB/offer or not have to be somewhat arbitrary. And we know that associate labor is a buyer's market. But if your reasons go past "the candidate did something wrong" to merely "the candidate did something differently than I might've done it," your decision process is grasping at straws. That's the risk you take when you adopt an approach like "look[ing] for...reasons to shorten the list." When you have to be arbitrary, I would much rather see reasons like "Candidate A seemed more engaged than Candidate B." Heck, even "Candidate A has a 3.48 while Candidate B has a 3.43" makes more sense than what OP dings for.

OP again. This comment sums up the problem with responses in this thread. You are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective. What students think (or wish) does not necessarily reflect reality and is largely irrelevant. My reaction may appear to be "grasping at straws" in your view, but from my perspective adding meaningless resume filler is actual grasping at straws and borderline dishonest. It suggests that a candidate thinks this language skill is a meaningful addition to the firm when she does not have one. Again, moving to the the interest section (which I feel is designed to be a legitimate place for resume filler) would have solved the problem.

Perhaps it is time for full disclosure. First, during my 2L OCI, a classmate and I both had callback interviews for the same firm that was looking for "y language" speakers. This classmate exaggerated his language skills on his resume and during his interviews and received an offer from the firm. He then turned down the offer for a much less prestigious firm because he was scared to face the fact that he had not been entirely honest on his resume. I, on the other hand, did not receive an offer. While I am a hundred percent sure that there was no correlation between him receiving an offer and me not receiving one, that experience has stuck with me until now. There is no way that I am giving a candidate a pass for anything even close to what my classmate (and now good friend) did.

This is why I keep trying to hammer home the point that you need to be extremely careful what you write on your resume. You just never know what experiences an interviewer has had.

Second disclosure, this interview has now already happened. I played with the timing a bit to protect the my (and the candidate's) anonymity. I saw the resume and had the reaction that I described in my original post. During the interview I asked the candidate some questions in this language, which it turns out the candidate had a minor in, but she had zero proficiency in the language. She could not even answer the most basic questions when spoken slowly. In short, she did not have even the semblance of a language skill in this area and should have left it off.

At our firm after an interview we can choose to recommend an offer, a no offer, or give no recommendation. Generally, "blah" candidates end up getting no recommendation, but it doesn't take much to swing me either direction. This candidate's lack of common sense got her a recommendation for no offer.

[dixiecupdrinking]

OP, I think your perspective is a valuable data point for people to hear, but I think you're making a mistake. Even though you only have so many job offers to make, and even though you may be looking for reasons to ding people, this strikes me as a capricious reason to do so. That's not helpful to your firm, forget about fairness to the candidate.

If she overstated her proficiency that's one thing, but you just don't like that she listed something truthful. Getting upset about this is about like getting upset at someone for listing that they were in the choir in college because it's not relevant. I mean, fine, but just move on.

I'm a biglaw associate so this isn't sour grapes fwiw.

[Old Gregg]

OP, I think your perspective is a valuable data point for people to hear, but I think you're making a mistake. Even though you only have so many job offers to make, and even though you may be looking for reasons to ding people, this strikes me as a capricious reason to do so. That's not helpful to your firm, forget about fairness to the candidate.

If she overstated her proficiency that's one thing, but you just don't like that she listed something truthful. Getting upset about this is about like getting upset at someone for listing that they were in the choir in college because it's not relevant. I mean, fine, but just move on.

I'm a biglaw associate so this isn't sour grapes fwiw.

OP won't listen, but I applaud the attempt.

Biglaw associate too, by the way, so this isn't sour grapes either.

[20141023]

.

[wiseowl]

Lot of 0Ls/1Ls in this thread who have some cold realities ahead on what working with lawyers in your daily life is like.

And a lot of associates who should know better.

Can't really judge OP one way or another without knowing what the languages are and what relevance they have to practice. At my firm a candidate would 100% get a leg up on recruiting if they claimed proficiency in any one of several languages - in fact, we have specifically selected for those languages and/or "encouraged" existing associates to take ongoing course study in that language in order to achieve business proficiency.

If the language in question here is Aramaic or something, then who cares. But there are several languages where it does matter. It's 100% possible that the candidate got to the CB stage because of what she put down. At that stage, she'd better be ready to defend every word on the resume. In most cases, as interviewers, that's all we've got.

OP is providing a valuable insight/lesson here. If you choose to nitpick him/her for it, have at it. Life's not fair.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I, and most of my fellow students, are sympathetic to this. We get it--you see a whole lot of people who blend together, and the reasons for giving someone a CB/offer or not have to be somewhat arbitrary. And we know that associate labor is a buyer's market. But if your reasons go past "the candidate did something wrong" to merely "the candidate did something differently than I might've done it," your decision process is grasping at straws. That's the risk you take when you adopt an approach like "look[ing] for...reasons to shorten the list." When you have to be arbitrary, I would much rather see reasons like "Candidate A seemed more engaged than Candidate B." Heck, even "Candidate A has a 3.48 while Candidate B has a 3.43" makes more sense than what OP dings for.

OP again. This comment sums up the problem with responses in this thread. You are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective. What students think (or wish) does not necessarily reflect reality and is largely irrelevant. My reaction may appear to be "grasping at straws" in your view, but from my perspective adding meaningless resume filler is actual grasping at straws and borderline dishonest. It suggests that a candidate thinks this language skill is a meaningful addition to the firm when she does not have one. Again, moving to the the interest section (which I feel is designed to be a legitimate place for resume filler) would have solved the problem.

Again, Issue A is whether your advice is good. I think most people ITT have agreed that you should only list languages you actually speak. That is entirely separate from Issue B--whether the whole thing is an exercise in pedantry. It may be "irrelevant" to someone who believes Issue A is the only thing that matters; that doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning.

If the candidate has ZERO proficiency in the language while implying on her resume that she has some, then okay, that's not good. But you were essentially prepared to ding her regardless of her answer, because you were looking at it as a false dilemma; i.e. that the candidate had either overstated or understated her experience. You did so because you don't think someone should put down a language skill that's not "relevant," but as I'm sure you'll agree, many, perhaps most, foreign language skills never become relevant in U.S. practice. Suppose your firm does a lot of work in France, the candidate has "studied French for five years", and I'm fluent in Nahuatl. Whose language experience is more "relevant?"

I'm not trying to radically alter the system; I just think it's a worthwhile exercise to hear the candidate out for 20-30 minutes before you make a decision that might be the difference between whether someone will be able to pay back their loans or not--perhaps the candidate might be able to clarify something. Which is, again, an entirely different question from what the candidate ought to do to maximize his/her chances.

[Julius]

I, and most of my fellow students, are sympathetic to this. We get it--you see a whole lot of people who blend together, and the reasons for giving someone a CB/offer or not have to be somewhat arbitrary. And we know that associate labor is a buyer's market. But if your reasons go past "the candidate did something wrong" to merely "the candidate did something differently than I might've done it," your decision process is grasping at straws. That's the risk you take when you adopt an approach like "look[ing] for...reasons to shorten the list." When you have to be arbitrary, I would much rather see reasons like "Candidate A seemed more engaged than Candidate B." Heck, even "Candidate A has a 3.48 while Candidate B has a 3.43" makes more sense than what OP dings for.

OP again. This comment sums up the problem with responses in this thread. You are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective. What students think (or wish) does not necessarily reflect reality and is largely irrelevant. My reaction may appear to be "grasping at straws" in your view, but from my perspective adding meaningless resume filler is actual grasping at straws and borderline dishonest. It suggests that a candidate thinks this language skill is a meaningful addition to the firm when she does not have one. Again, moving to the the interest section (which I feel is designed to be a legitimate place for resume filler) would have solved the problem.

Perhaps it is time for full disclosure. First, during my 2L OCI, a classmate and I both had callback interviews for the same firm that was looking for "y language" speakers. This classmate exaggerated his language skills on his resume and during his interviews and received an offer from the firm. He then turned down the offer for a much less prestigious firm because he was scared to face the fact that he had not been entirely honest on his resume. I, on the other hand, did not receive an offer. While I am a hundred percent sure that there was no correlation between him receiving an offer and me not receiving one, that experience has stuck with me until now. There is no way that I am giving a candidate a pass for anything even close to what my classmate (and now good friend) did.

This is why I keep trying to hammer home the point that you need to be extremely careful what you write on your resume. You just never know what experiences an interviewer has had.

Second disclosure, this interview has now already happened. I played with the timing a bit to protect the my (and the candidate's) anonymity. I saw the resume and had the reaction that I described in my original post. During the interview I asked the candidate some questions in this language, which it turns out the candidate had a minor in, but she had zero proficiency in the language. She could not even answer the most basic questions when spoken slowly. In short, she did not have even the semblance of a language skill in this area and should have left it off.

At our firm after an interview we can choose to recommend an offer, a no offer, or give no recommendation. Generally, "blah" candidates end up getting no recommendation, but it doesn't take much to swing me either direction. This candidate's lack of common sense got her a recommendation for no offer.

If your point is that students should be careful about what they put on their resume because their interviewer might be a capricious prick who'll twist and bend what was claimed -- possibly out of some psychological issues stemming from a law school trauma wherein he lost a competition for a job -- in order to justify a hiring decision that has nothing to do with the skill in question I think you've proved your point.

And, again, congrats on the language skill your friend does not have. Impressive stuff.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not trying to radically alter the system; I just think it's a worthwhile exercise to hear the candidate out for 20-30 minutes before you make a decision that might be the difference between whether someone will be able to pay back their loans or not--perhaps the candidate might be able to clarify something. Which is, again, an entirely different question from what the candidate ought to do to maximize his/her chances.

OP again. I completely agree with this point from wiseowl:

At my firm a candidate would 100% get a leg up on recruiting if they claimed proficiency in any one of several languages - in fact, we have specifically selected for those languages

This language is one of these types of languages. When I interviewed as a law student the language was circled on my resume before it was passed around. I was never tested on it, but it was one of the main reasons I got the job. The candidate I interviewed was probably going to receive the same treatment, especially since she listed two desired languages and I was the only one in position to test her on "y language" during callbacks. Who knows, she may still receive an offer, but it won't be because of my recommendation.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think some people ITT are underestimating how much something unhelpful sticks out on a resume

[wiseowl]

I'm not trying to radically alter the system; I just think it's a worthwhile exercise to hear the candidate out for 20-30 minutes before you make a decision that might be the difference between whether someone will be able to pay back their loans or not--perhaps the candidate might be able to clarify something. Which is, again, an entirely different question from what the candidate ought to do to maximize his/her chances.

If you're a candidate, why would you want to waste even a second of precious CB time (let alone "20-30 minutes") justifying something that you spent seconds mindlessly listing on your resume?

[BruceWayne]

Law is such an awful profession for so many reasons even ignoring the difficulty of getting a job to being with. The OP exemplifies the types of personalities that you have to deal with day in and day out in law. Yes what the OP is saying is logical; but it's an unnecessary approach (particular for a candidate who is probably interviewing for one of their first ever professional jobs, let alone law jobs, and is probably pretty young) where the potential harm to the candidate far outweighs the supposed issue that it's trying to address/remedy. Just because there is some justification for it doesn't mean it's the appropriate approach. Further, the OP is essentially going out of their way to do this; it would actually be less work to just ask the person to explain it briefly and to just move on with the interview.

There's a certain type A personality that one has to have to get borderline excited about an opportunity to lambaste someone for something like this; and it's a personality type that runs rampant in the legal field. I have to admit, the sad truth is that you are preparing the person for the realities of being an attorney. Ugh.

[Anonymous User]

Law is such an awful profession for so many reasons even ignoring the difficulty of getting a job to being with. The OP exemplifies the types of personalities that you have to deal with day in and day out in law. Yes what the OP is saying is logical; but it's an unnecessary approach (particular for a candidate who is probably interviewing for one of their first ever professional jobs, let alone law jobs, and is probably pretty young) where the potential harm to the candidate far outweighs the supposed issue that it's trying to address/remedy. Just because there is some justification for it doesn't mean it's the appropriate approach. Further, the OP is essentially going out of their way to do this; it would actually be less work to just ask the person to explain it briefly and to just move on with the interview.

There's a certain type A personality that one has to have to get borderline excited about an opportunity to lambaste someone for something like this; and it's a personality type that runs rampant in the legal field. I have to admit, the sad truth is that you are preparing the person for the realities of being an attorney. Ugh.

See, this is that violin playing bullshit that annoys me. Because of her resume and supposed experience in this language, she could be taking a job from someone else, who will then end up in the vale because someone fluffed their resume. There are a finite number of jobs available in Biglaw - I have no problem with a sorting process that removes people from the pool who seek an unfair/borderline dishonest advantage over the others vying for that position.

As to the rest (first professional job/age/etc.) - thems the breaks. Maybe my CSO is better, but we're constantly told that you shouldn't put anything on your resume you're not able to discuss, and to not put languages down if you're not prepared to speak it. She put down that she had x years experience in a language, signalling that it was a skill she thought would be of a benefit to the firm she was applying to - when it turns out to not be a benefit upon examination, what else should be done?

[TheSpanishMain]

This is the problem with TLS these days: OP, an interviewer, discloses a resume pet peeve for the benefit of everyone here. Instead of taking OP's advice, people attack OP. Guess what 1L/2L's, I guarantee you that if OP has this pet peeve, other interviewers will also have this pet peeve. And I also guarantee you that every single one of you will have their own pet peeves when you're in OP's shoes.

Of course people are allowed to have their personal pet peeves. Hopefully they're self aware enough to know that it's just that: their personal pet peeve, and they remind themselves of that so they don't end up treating a relatively minor resume flub (saying "x years of language" vs. "conversational in language") as some unpardonable sin.

Edit: Although I agree that if you interviewed her and it turned out she couldn't do anything in the language besides ask where the restroom is, that's legitimately bad.

[sundance95]

ITT: TLS discovers the normative/positive distinction.

[Old Gregg]

The candidate I interviewed was probably going to receive the same treatment, especially since she listed two desired languages and I was the only one in position to test her on "y language" during callbacks. Who knows, she may still receive an offer, but it won't be because of my recommendation.

Sounds like your firm did a shitty job screening and shouldn't have circled it when the candidate wasn't claiming proficiency here. The fact that the candidate wasn't claiming that is a frequently over looked fact in this thread. At worst, the resume line is irrelevant, useless and space-wasting. At best... you and your firm are at fault for whatever credence you give to that resume line.

But you make it sound like the candidate jizzed in your Apple Jacks. Get a life.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I'm not trying to radically alter the system; I just think it's a worthwhile exercise to hear the candidate out for 20-30 minutes before you make a decision that might be the difference between whether someone will be able to pay back their loans or not--perhaps the candidate might be able to clarify something. Which is, again, an entirely different question from what the candidate ought to do to maximize his/her chances.

OP again. I completely agree with this point from wiseowl:

At my firm a candidate would 100% get a leg up on recruiting if they claimed proficiency in any one of several languages - in fact, we have specifically selected for those languages

This language is one of these types of languages. When I interviewed as a law student the language was circled on my resume before it was passed around. I was never tested on it, but it was one of the main reasons I got the job. The candidate I interviewed was probably going to receive the same treatment, especially since she listed two desired languages and I was the only one in position to test her on "y language" during callbacks. Who knows, she may still receive an offer, but it won't be because of my recommendation.

I fully agree on the ding now that, having talked to her, you know it's entirely bullshit. My objection was to the ding prior to having spoken to her. Dinging someone after failing to properly explain herself is much different from dinging someone based on an inference you drew from her resume that may or may not be correct.

[Julius]

I think some people ITT are underestimating how much something unhelpful sticks out on a resume

It was clearly a terrible decision to put the line in under skills section (under "interests" it might be fine as a discussion piece) and getting dinged for a shitty resume seems fair game. And, sure, one line, and maybe this one, is enough to sink a resume. But I'm sure many of us could care less about that. OP's self-absorption and insufferable personality seemed more noteworthy. Truth was she was already dinged before she got in the interview room so the decision to put her on the spot was born entirely of malice and strange hangups from law school.

Why not say, "I noticed you said X. In the future, it is more helpful to say Y or not say anything at all." And then ding her. Because OP's a dick.