Top Law Schools

is it ok?

Anonymous User wrote:is it ok?

Usually it's a separate document. Maybe as a space filler? Still, I'd err on the side of having it on a separate sheet.

CSO told me to put them on resume, so I did. FWIW family member who did hiring for a large Federal office said this was absolutely moronic.

rad law wrote:CSO told me to put them on resume, so I did. FWIW family member who did hiring for a large Federal office said this was absolutely moronic.

Shit. I've never heard that. Maybe it's okay then.

megaTTTron wrote:

rad law wrote:CSO told me to put them on resume, so I did. FWIW family member who did hiring for a large Federal office said this was absolutely moronic.

Shit. I've never heard that. Maybe it's okay then.

Read the second sentence. CSOs say all sorts of moronic things. Just because they say so doesn't mean it's ok. If you know actual practicing attorneys who are involved in hiring or looking at resumes on a regular basis, go with their opinion over a CSO. Remember, the job of the CSO is to make their stats look good, not to make you look good (and if you looking good could possibly make your peers not look as good in comparison, they will go for mediocre cookie cutter advice most of the time).

LurkerNoMore wrote:

megaTTTron wrote:

rad law wrote:CSO told me to put them on resume, so I did. FWIW family member who did hiring for a large Federal office said this was absolutely moronic.

Shit. I've never heard that. Maybe it's okay then.

Read the second sentence. CSOs say all sorts of moronic things. Just because they say so doesn't mean it's ok. If you know actual practicing attorneys who are involved in hiring or looking at resumes on a regular basis, go with their opinion over a CSO. Remember, the job of the CSO is to make their stats look good, not to make you look good (and if you looking good could possibly make your peers not look as good in comparison, they will go for mediocre cookie cutter advice most of the time).

FWIW he never hired recent grads, only experienced attys.

LurkerNoMore wrote:

megaTTTron wrote:

rad law wrote:CSO told me to put them on resume, so I did. FWIW family member who did hiring for a large Federal office said this was absolutely moronic.

Shit. I've never heard that. Maybe it's okay then.

Read the second sentence. CSOs say all sorts of moronic things. Just because they say so doesn't mean it's ok. If you know actual practicing attorneys who are involved in hiring or looking at resumes on a regular basis, go with their opinion over a CSO. Remember, the job of the CSO is to make their stats look good, not to make you look good (and if you looking good could possibly make your peers not look as good in comparison, they will go for mediocre cookie cutter advice most of the time).

I don't think I like your tone. Maybe go back to lurking?

megaTTTron wrote:

LurkerNoMore wrote:

megaTTTron wrote:

rad law wrote:CSO told me to put them on resume, so I did. FWIW family member who did hiring for a large Federal office said this was absolutely moronic.

Shit. I've never heard that. Maybe it's okay then.

Read the second sentence. CSOs say all sorts of moronic things. Just because they say so doesn't mean it's ok. If you know actual practicing attorneys who are involved in hiring or looking at resumes on a regular basis, go with their opinion over a CSO. Remember, the job of the CSO is to make their stats look good, not to make you look good (and if you looking good could possibly make your peers not look as good in comparison, they will go for mediocre cookie cutter advice most of the time).

I don't think I like your tone. Maybe go back to lurking?

Sorry -- was just trying to support your first post. <shrug>

LurkerNoMore wrote:

megaTTTron wrote:
I don't think I like your tone. Maybe go back to lurking?

Sorry -- was just trying to support your first post. <shrug>

Hahaha, totally kidding, but it was too easy with your user name.