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

[wiseowl]

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.

Sorry, OP isn't obligated to do what the candidate, her career services, or any one of the dozens of people that have probably seen her resume by now should have done for her.

I've been away from TLS for a while; I forgot just how much "special flower" there is among the ranks.

When you reach biglaw you will meet people with personalities that make OP seem like your loving grandmother. The sooner you folks learn this, the better you will be.

[Rowinguy2009]

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

Things that are unique (and therefore, probably "unhelpful") almost certainly stick out, but I don't think this is a bad thing. Almost every time I have ever been interviewed, the things on my resume that I get asked about the most are my prior job as an ocean rescue lifeguard and the prior endurance challenges/sports I have done. Having done these things says nothing about my ability to practice law (you could perhaps spin them as being something that taught me "work ethic"), but almost always sparks positive conversation. In an interview you want to stand out in every (good) way possible. Having been on the attorney side of the table at OCI - I can say that most people are pretty forgetable. Being forgetable means no callback/offer. I would rather piss off 50% of my interviewers for putting something "unhelpful" on my resume and cause the other 50% to remember me as something more than just another middle of the stack applicant (assuming those are the two options, which is admittedly being more simplistic than necessary).

Unless you are absolutely top of your class or EIC of law review or somethig like that, you are probably not going to stand out for something "helpful." Almost everyone has generic clubs, some kind of prior work expereince, etc. So -- find something else to be remebered for, otherwise you will go through interview season having not "offended" anyone, but having also not received a job offer.

Just to keep this comment fairly relevant - a lot of people in our generation have skils in a language other than english. If your language skills are not helpful to the firm/practice group you are applying to, then listing language skills is neither helpful to the practice group nor a tool that helps you stand out.

Just my $0.02.

[Old Gregg]

When you reach biglaw you will meet people with personalities that make OP seem like your loving grandmother.

So because there are even bigger pieces of shit biglaw, the smaller pieces of shit should get a pass? No, that's not how it works.

[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.

Sorry, OP isn't obligated to do what the candidate, her career services, or any one of the dozens of people that have probably seen her resume by now should have done for her.

I've been away from TLS for a while; I forgot just how much "special flower" there is among the ranks.

When you reach biglaw you will meet people with personalities that make OP seem like your loving grandmother. The sooner you folks learn this, the better you will be.

OP was obligated not to behave like a dick if he didn't want to be a dick. Did I say anywhere that this kind of dickishness doesn't pervade workplaces? Seems like you're the special flower who doesn't want dicks called out as dicks.

I'm already a lawyer, thanks. I know OP and his ilk well enough. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to say he's a healthy human being.

[Rowinguy2009]

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.

Sorry, OP isn't obligated to do what the candidate, her career services, or any one of the dozens of people that have probably seen her resume by now should have done for her.

I've been away from TLS for a while; I forgot just how much "special flower" there is among the ranks.

When you reach biglaw you will meet people with personalities that make OP seem like your loving grandmother. The sooner you folks learn this, the better you will be.

OP was obligated not to behave like a dick if he didn't want to be a dick. Did I say anywhere that this kind of dickishness doesn't pervade workplaces? Seems like you're the special flower who doesn't want dicks called out as dicks.

I'm already a lawyer, thanks. I know OP and his ilk well enough. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to say he's a healthy human being.

+1

[wiseowl]

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.

Sorry, OP isn't obligated to do what the candidate, her career services, or any one of the dozens of people that have probably seen her resume by now should have done for her.

I've been away from TLS for a while; I forgot just how much "special flower" there is among the ranks.

When you reach biglaw you will meet people with personalities that make OP seem like your loving grandmother. The sooner you folks learn this, the better you will be.

OP was obligated not to behave like a dick if he didn't want to be a dick. Did I say anywhere that this kind of dickishness doesn't pervade workplaces? Seems like you're the special flower who doesn't want dicks called out as dicks.

I'm already a lawyer, thanks. I know OP and his ilk well enough. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to say he's a healthy human being.

When you reach biglaw you will meet people with personalities that make OP seem like your loving grandmother.

So because there are even bigger pieces of shit biglaw, the smaller pieces of shit should get a pass? No, that's not how it works.

You two have made your positions clear. I'm speaking to the rest of the students reading the thread. OP's reaction and its dickishness therein is essentially meaningless to the lesson here. The lesson is: don't list extraneous shit on resumes unless it's in the Hobbies/Interests section. Otherwise, prepare for it to be part of the interview.

Feel free to argue until you're blue in the face about how allegedly mean and unfair things are. Does that pay your loans and rent? The candidate here consciously or unconsciously rolled the dice on listing language info. She asked for those skills and experiences to be evaluated, and they were. It's unfortunate that that "decision" could cost her dearly. Someone in her CSO should have looked out for her.

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.

It is so not at all interviewers' job to give candidates job coaching. That might make the process nicer for candidates, but people need to realize there is absolutely no incentive at all to make things easier for candidates. The only interest interviewers have is identifying the best candidates with as little effort as possible so they can get back to work. Candidates don't get points for effort. OP may not have stated this diplomatically, but applicants need to get over the idea that employers are at all interested in looking at things from the applicant's point of view.

Also, to rowing guy: I agree about standing out, but random stuff listed under interests is, to me, very different from listing something as a skill and therefore presenting it as part of you qualifications. A number of people have already said that if the applicant put this under interests it wouldn't have stuck out. (Which may be what you said, sorry if I'm misrepresenting.)

As for "ding based on possibly mistaken inference from reading resume before talking to candidate," well, it's kind of on the job candidate to write a resume that doesn't lend itself to mistaken inferences.

[jbagelboy]

hey here's another corporate attorney still bitter about a rejection years ago leading to a mildly less prestigious outcome who indulges his modicum of power to hurt the lives of others rather than deal with his own longstanding insecurity

[baal hadad]

This thread pretty much exemplifies TLS

TLS newbs should be linked to this thread so they can see what TLS is about

[Julius]

You two have made your positions clear. I'm speaking to the rest of the students reading the thread. OP's reaction and its dickishness therein is essentially meaningless to the lesson here. The lesson is: don't list extraneous shit on resumes unless it's in the Hobbies/Interests section. Otherwise, prepare for it to be part of the interview.

Feel free to argue until you're blue in the face about how allegedly mean and unfair things are. Does that pay your loans and rent? The candidate here consciously or unconsciously rolled the dice on listing language info. She asked for those skills and experiences to be evaluated, and they were. It's unfortunate that that "decision" could cost her dearly. Someone in her CSO should have looked out for her.

1. I agree on the resume.

2. I didn't say a word about fairness. The world isn't a fair place and it won't become one (funny thing, though, it was the OP who was attempting to make the world a fair place by nailing anyone who attempted to feign his language skills to the wall). But I know enough to at least try and pick offices that don't employ people like you and OP. That's the other lesson here for the OCI people. Some office drones are so beyond the pale they can't treat a dinged candidate like a human being and/or don't think that might be customary because, well, why not? If you can (you usually can't), choose an office that doesn't have those people.

Was it OP's job to help the student out? No. So what? Why not offer common courtesy and a little bit of professionalism if it doesn't cost you anything?

Anyways, I've said my piece.

[wiseowl]

You two have made your positions clear. I'm speaking to the rest of the students reading the thread. OP's reaction and its dickishness therein is essentially meaningless to the lesson here. The lesson is: don't list extraneous shit on resumes unless it's in the Hobbies/Interests section. Otherwise, prepare for it to be part of the interview.

Feel free to argue until you're blue in the face about how allegedly mean and unfair things are. Does that pay your loans and rent? The candidate here consciously or unconsciously rolled the dice on listing language info. She asked for those skills and experiences to be evaluated, and they were. It's unfortunate that that "decision" could cost her dearly. Someone in her CSO should have looked out for her.

1. I agree on the resume.

2. I didn't say a word about fairness. The world isn't a fair place and it won't become one (funny thing, though, it was the OP who was attempting to make the world a fair place by nailing anyone who attempted to feign his language skills to the wall). But I know enough to at least try and pick offices that don't employ people like you and OP. That's the other lesson here for the OCI people. Some office drones are so beyond the pale they can't treat a dinged candidate like a human being and/or don't think that might be customary because, well, why not? If you can (you usually can't), choose an office that doesn't have those people.

Was it OP's job to help the student out? No. So what? Why not offer common courtesy and a little bit of professionalism if it doesn't cost you anything?

Anyways, I've said my piece.

Well, if you actually are an attorney in private practice and actually are involved in recruiting, which your posts don't support, you'd know it does "cost" something. Every minute I'm not billing, which includes interviewing and preparing for interviews, "costs" me on at least some level.

Here's my "common courtesy" and "free" professionalism for all you guys out there: try not inflating your credentials.

And if that doesn't work, then hey, best of luck in "choosing an office" that doesn't have stressed out people who strangely don't have the time or the interest in extending a mentoring hand to someone whose first impression borders on deceptiveness.

[Julius]

You two have made your positions clear. I'm speaking to the rest of the students reading the thread. OP's reaction and its dickishness therein is essentially meaningless to the lesson here. The lesson is: don't list extraneous shit on resumes unless it's in the Hobbies/Interests section. Otherwise, prepare for it to be part of the interview.

Feel free to argue until you're blue in the face about how allegedly mean and unfair things are. Does that pay your loans and rent? The candidate here consciously or unconsciously rolled the dice on listing language info. She asked for those skills and experiences to be evaluated, and they were. It's unfortunate that that "decision" could cost her dearly. Someone in her CSO should have looked out for her.

1. I agree on the resume.

2. I didn't say a word about fairness. The world isn't a fair place and it won't become one (funny thing, though, it was the OP who was attempting to make the world a fair place by nailing anyone who attempted to feign his language skills to the wall). But I know enough to at least try and pick offices that don't employ people like you and OP. That's the other lesson here for the OCI people. Some office drones are so beyond the pale they can't treat a dinged candidate like a human being and/or don't think that might be customary because, well, why not? If you can (you usually can't), choose an office that doesn't have those people.

Was it OP's job to help the student out? No. So what? Why not offer common courtesy and a little bit of professionalism if it doesn't cost you anything?

Anyways, I've said my piece.

Well, if you actually are an attorney in private practice and actually are involved in recruiting, which your posts don't support, you'd know it does "cost" something. Every minute I'm not billing, which includes interviewing and preparing for interviews, "costs" me on at least some level.

Here's my "common courtesy" and "free" professionalism for all you guys out there: try not inflating your credentials.

And if that doesn't work, then hey, best of luck in "choosing an office" that doesn't have stressed out people who strangely don't have the time or the interest in extending a mentoring hand to someone whose first impression borders on deceptiveness.

Listen, you have a strange habit of misunderstanding what's being said. He was interviewing her regardless. How he chose to conduct that interview was the only question at issue. Zero cost in this instance.

As to the rest, fill your boots.

[Anonymous User]

Was it OP's job to help the student out? No. So what? Why not offer common courtesy and a little bit of professionalism if it doesn't cost you anything?

Anyways, I've said my piece.

OP here again. Who ever said that I was a prick when performing the interview? Just because the candidate was close to an auto-ding in my view does not mean I had to be rude or dismissive during the interview. It was polite and pleasant, but it did not result in an offer. I'm sure many candidates have had a similar experience and I am just providing an example of why it happened to one person.

[Julius]

Was it OP's job to help the student out? No. So what? Why not offer common courtesy and a little bit of professionalism if it doesn't cost you anything?

Anyways, I've said my piece.

OP here again. Who ever said that I was a prick when performing the interview? Just because the candidate was close to an auto-ding in my view does not mean I had to be rude or dismissive during the interview. It was polite and pleasant, but it did not result in an offer. I'm sure many candidates have had a similar experience and I am just providing an example of why it happened to one person.

Fair enough, my mistake.

[6lehderjets]

This thread pretty much exemplifies TLS

TLS newbs should be linked to this thread so they can see what TLS is about

Happy belated one month on TLS anniversary.

[jbagelboy]

This thread pretty much exemplifies TLS

TLS newbs should be linked to this thread so they can see what TLS is about

Happy belated one month on TLS anniversary.

this isn't baal's first rodeo

[Georgia Avenue]

Here's my "common courtesy" and "free" professionalism for all you guys out there: try not inflating your credentials.

And if that doesn't work, then hey, best of luck in "choosing an office" that doesn't have stressed out people who strangely don't have the time or the interest in extending a mentoring hand to someone whose first impression borders on deceptiveness.

wat

what the candidate said was not at all deceptive or misleading or inflated or whatever OP's supporters are wishing it was.

[6lehderjets]

This thread pretty much exemplifies TLS

TLS newbs should be linked to this thread so they can see what TLS is about

Happy belated one month on TLS anniversary.

this isn't baal's first rodeo

I'm well aware.

[DELG]

(OP gives bad review on interviewee, with or without disclosing that interviewee overstated language skills)
(Hiring committee uses OP's review form to wipe ass, offers or doesn't offer for unrelated reasons)

[wiseowl]

Here's my "common courtesy" and "free" professionalism for all you guys out there: try not inflating your credentials.

And if that doesn't work, then hey, best of luck in "choosing an office" that doesn't have stressed out people who strangely don't have the time or the interest in extending a mentoring hand to someone whose first impression borders on deceptiveness.

wat

what the candidate said was not at all deceptive or misleading or inflated or whatever OP's supporters are wishing it was.

So you don't think she wanted people to know that she "knew" that language? I accept and agree that she did not list proficiency. Fine. But saying "___ years of study" is indisputably trying to do the same thing. If it isn't, what's the point? Should you list your entire college courseload?

OP has represented that skills in that language are valued at his firm and likely factor into hiring decisions. She may have known that, she may not have.

When the chips were down, she couldn't speak a lick of it. Maybe she wasn't actively "deceptive" or "misleading," but it's damn close.

Put it this way: Say you're going into a software programming interview for a position that you know uses C++ on a daily basis. You listed (in an "Experience"/"Skills" section of a resume) that you "had studied C++" (or whatever language you want) for four years. Then, when quizzed on it you couldn't do anything. Would you not expect the interviewing firm to be a little pissed, particularly if you've made it through multiple rounds of recruiting? How is this not different?

Sweet edit, by the way.

[Anonymous User]

[

wat

what the candidate said was not at all deceptive or misleading or inflated or whatever OP's supporters are wishing it was.

OP here. It was deceptive, even if unintentional. The candidate stated that she had studied this language for a significant period of time in her language skills section (right next to a language that she claimed fluency in). Someone who does not speak a foreign language or is not otherwise sensitive to this issue could easily have assumed that the candidate has achieved a level of proficiency in the language and given her extra points in the interview because of it. (Again, this language is one that my firm regularly hires for.) Given that most of us look at resumes for about 30 seconds each, it is easy for interviewers to make these types of assumptions.

[Georgia Avenue]

Right, but that's the thing - it's a language your firm hires for. isn't it possible candidate put it on her resume so it would come up and she could demonstrate her knowledge of the firm and state a desire in that practice group, that she'd start studying it again, etc? look, I'm talking ex ante here. if it gets into the interview and she claims proficiency and then bombs, sure, nuke her. but I don't think it's fair to assume deception before the interview takes place.

[Anonymous User]

Here's my "common courtesy" and "free" professionalism for all you guys out there: try not inflating your credentials.

And if that doesn't work, then hey, best of luck in "choosing an office" that doesn't have stressed out people who strangely don't have the time or the interest in extending a mentoring hand to someone whose first impression borders on deceptiveness.

wat

what the candidate said was not at all deceptive or misleading or inflated or whatever OP's supporters are wishing it was.

So you don't think she wanted people to know that she "knew" that language? I accept and agree that she did not list proficiency. Fine. But saying "___ years of study" is indisputably trying to do the same thing. If it isn't, what's the point? Should you list your entire college courseload?

OP has represented that skills in that language are valued at his firm and likely factor into hiring decisions. She may have known that, she may not have.

When the chips were down, she couldn't speak a lick of it. Maybe she wasn't actively "deceptive" or "misleading," but it's damn close.

Put it this way: Say you're going into a software programming interview for a position that you know uses C++ on a daily basis. You listed (in an "Experience"/"Skills" section of a resume) that you "had studied C++" (or whatever language you want) for four years. Then, when quizzed on it you couldn't do anything. Would you not expect the interviewing firm to be a little pissed, particularly if you've made it through multiple rounds of recruiting? How is this not different?

Sweet edit, by the way.

Your analogy sucks. This is an interview for a US SA position, where the foreign language skill is probably not required. If that language was required, go nuts.

Yes, candidates should be able to speak intelligently about everything on their resumes. However, there are ways to do that without being a dick. OP said he didn't plan to be a dick about it. But his earlier post suggested that he was.

[wiseowl]

Here's my "common courtesy" and "free" professionalism for all you guys out there: try not inflating your credentials.

And if that doesn't work, then hey, best of luck in "choosing an office" that doesn't have stressed out people who strangely don't have the time or the interest in extending a mentoring hand to someone whose first impression borders on deceptiveness.

wat

what the candidate said was not at all deceptive or misleading or inflated or whatever OP's supporters are wishing it was.

So you don't think she wanted people to know that she "knew" that language? I accept and agree that she did not list proficiency. Fine. But saying "___ years of study" is indisputably trying to do the same thing. If it isn't, what's the point? Should you list your entire college courseload?

OP has represented that skills in that language are valued at his firm and likely factor into hiring decisions. She may have known that, she may not have.

When the chips were down, she couldn't speak a lick of it. Maybe she wasn't actively "deceptive" or "misleading," but it's damn close.

Put it this way: Say you're going into a software programming interview for a position that you know uses C++ on a daily basis. You listed (in an "Experience"/"Skills" section of a resume) that you "had studied C++" (or whatever language you want) for four years. Then, when quizzed on it you couldn't do anything. Would you not expect the interviewing firm to be a little pissed, particularly if you've made it through multiple rounds of recruiting? How is this not different?

Sweet edit, by the way.

Your analogy sucks. This is an interview for a US SA position, where the foreign language skill is probably not required. If that language was required, go nuts.

Yes, candidates should be able to speak intelligently about everything on their resumes. However, there are ways to do that without being a dick. OP said he didn't plan to be a dick about it. But his earlier post suggested that he was.

OP has repeatedly stated that his firm highly values this language and that he himself was hired at least in part because of that language. Sure, it's not "required," but it's also not a non-factor.

[09042014]

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.

Edit: I just want to add that I think it's such a subjective point that, if I were you, I'd ask someone else in your office who speaks a 2nd language what their take is before you grill this applicant. I get it that in resume season you see a lot of puffery by kids who haven't held a job longer than 9 months, which gets annoying to deal with. But I don't think that's the case here.

I agree with this. I'm a native speaker of a very rare foreign language. If I interviewed a candidate who put "conversational in [very rare language]" on his/her resume, I'd hold it against that person for not being able to speak it. If the candidate put "minored in [very rare language]" or "studied [very rare language] for X years" I agree that it's an odd resume line, and I'd probably ask about it, and if the person could not speak my language I'd only conclude that learning rare foreign languages wasn't his/her thing or perhaps the person didn't get a chance to actually visit the country (perhaps because the person is not from a privileged background). I would not, however, conclude anything about whether that person had potential to be an effective associate at my firm.[/quote

How is nobody pointing out how crazy this is.

How dare you learn my language only a little!