Interests Section? Forum

[rinkrat19]

I play ice hockey. I've played recreationally for 10 years. I can talk about game strategy, tournaments and cities in which I've played, why I prefer men's/coed to women's leagues, and why I use composite one-piece sticks. I will never play in the NHL ("expert"), but it's a legitimate interest.

Total thread derail: Is one reason because they can't check/hit? I'm a female who has gotten seriously into hockey in the last few years and was super depressed to learn that (at least in the leagues in my area), checking/hits are illegal in the women's league.

All the rec leagues in my area (as well as all the tourneys in the PNW that I've played in) have been non-checking. There's too wide a range in skill level, size and strength in the lower leagues to allow people to purposely hit each other. (In our higher leagues, made of guys who played college/juniors/lower minors, they let them get away with a lot more physical contact.) I know 5'3" women who play with 6'7" guys--checking is just flat-out unsafe in that situation. And there are pretty small men in the leagues, too, who wouldn't survive full checking. Especially consider that most rec-leaguers (at least around here) either didn't grow up playing organized hockey at all, or didn't stay in boys' hockey past pee-wees when they're taught how to give and receive a check.

That's not to say there's no contact, obviously. It's not possible to play hockey without running into each other and physically muscling each other around. But you can't line someone up and take them out (without getting a penalty).

So no, that's not the reason I don't like women's hockey as much. It's almost entirely for social reasons. The women players in my city are very clique-y, and if you don't ALWAYS play exclusively with them, you're on the outside of the gang and will feel like an outsider. They get pissy over the smallest things, and will hold grudges for literally years. When they venture to play in the men's league (like right now there's an all-female team in one of my men's leagues), they play cheap and dirty hockey (lots of holding, elbows, and slashing), and bitch and moan if they don't get away with it. And they think I'm retarded for preferring to play with the guys, so I get a weird attitude from them. I usually play in 1 or 2 tourneys a year with the women just to keep my name around, but I love my guys.

[Anonymous User]

On a scale of 1-10, how toolish is the following interest:

"Anything and everything Abraham Lincoln"

I'm a pretty big Lincoln-phile even though I wouldnt normally come across as such (i.e. don't have a beard like some of the true whackadoos).

[Anonymous User]

On a scale of 1-10, how toolish is the following interest:

"Anything and everything Abraham Lincoln"

I'm a pretty big Lincoln-phile even though I wouldnt normally come across as such (i.e. don't have a beard like some of the true whackadoos).

I actually included "Presidential History and Theodore Roosevelt" as an interest, and it got a few (positive) questions during interviews. The "anything and everything" is a bit much, but I'd absolutely include that in an interests list.

[Aston2412]

I'm well versed in the internal anatomy of a dragon, including its musculature, nervous system and bone structure. I declined to put that as an interest on my resume. Think I made a mistake?

[rinkrat19]

On a scale of 1-10, how toolish is the following interest:

"Anything and everything Abraham Lincoln"

I'm a pretty big Lincoln-phile even though I wouldnt normally come across as such (i.e. don't have a beard like some of the true whackadoos).

I wouldn't phrase it as "anything and everything," but I think it's a legitimate interest. Maybe something a little more 'scholarly' sounding like "American Civil War history; specifically, Abraham Lincoln."

[leobowski]

I'm well versed in the internal anatomy of a dragon, including its musculature, nervous system and bone structure. I declined to put that as an interest on my resume. Think I made a mistake?

Troll post? Or serious? If this is serious, youdunfuckedup.

[3ThrowAway99]

.

[Hadlendale]

I'm well versed in the internal anatomy of a dragon, including its musculature, nervous system and bone structure. I declined to put that as an interest on my resume. Think I made a mistake?

dragon

You sir, made the correct decision.

[0 and 16]

If your interests don't come through in your extracurricular activities, then you're trying too hard.

[California Babe]

If your interests don't come through in your extracurricular activities, then you're trying too hard.

You're only interested in things you do in conjunction with your law school? You sound terribly boring.

[0 and 16]

If your interests don't come through in your extracurricular activities, then you're trying too hard.

You're only interested in things you do in conjunction with your law school? You sound terribly boring.

Let me clarify. I like sports. I played as a D. III athlete as an undergrad. and in law school participate in intramural sports. I do not need a separate "interests" section to convey an involvement in sports. The same goes for most of my other interests outside of law school.

[California Babe]

If your interests don't come through in your extracurricular activities, then you're trying too hard.

You're only interested in things you do in conjunction with your law school? You sound terribly boring.

Let me clarify. I like sports. I played as a D. III athlete as an undergrad. and in law school participate in intramural sports. I do not need a separate "interests" section to convey an involvement in sports. The same goes for most of my other interests outside of law school.

One of my interests is nature traveling (famous parks, hiking, etc.). Am I "trying too hard" because I have not joined a nature traveling club at my law school? Does it matter that there aren't any nature traveling clubs? Should I start a Nature Traveling Law Society so that I don't need an interests section?

[Cupidity]

Back to the intitial topic, assuming you decide to put an interests topic, is it better to show consistency or diversity of interests?

Example (And try not to judge the weakness of these in particular, I just wrote this quick):

Consistency: College Hockey, Professional Football, Semi-Professional Running

Diversity: Acoustic Guitar, Sportsfishing, French Cooking, Shakespeare

[Aston2412]

Diversity - you'll establish a broad base and will be more likely to connect with interviewers.

If one person likes a sports, its likely they have at least some knowledge of another sport and can discuss it with you to a point.

If you wind up with an interviewer who has never watched ESPN but saw Julie & Julia five times in theaters, guess what? Your diversity allocation just gave you something to talk about, where otherwise you wouldn't have it.

[bdubs]

Diversity - you'll establish a broad base and will be more likely to connect with interviewers.

If one person likes a sports, its likely they have at least some knowledge of another sport and can discuss it with you to a point.

If you wind up with an interviewer who has never watched ESPN but saw Julie & Julia five times in theaters, guess what? Your diversity allocation just gave you something to talk about, where otherwise you wouldn't have it.

+1 - Real diversity will help you connect with interviewers. Your consistency/authenticity needs to come through in the conversations that follow in the interview.

[ebeth]

This is random, but how do you guys feel about listing a Confederate general, specifically Stonewall Jackson? I quoted him in an admissions essay I sent to one school and some of my friends who read it said that was a poor choice. Obviously I don't support the Confederate cause, but he's such a neat historical figure (as anyone who's read about him would know).

[California Babe]

This is random, but how do you guys feel about listing a Confederate general, specifically Stonewall Jackson? I quoted him in an admissions essay I sent to one school and some of my friends who read it said that was a poor choice. Obviously I don't support the Confederate cause, but he's such a neat historical figure (as anyone who's read about him would know).

The number one rule of getting a job is do not give anyone any reason to not like you.

[ebeth]

This is random, but how do you guys feel about listing a Confederate general, specifically Stonewall Jackson? I quoted him in an admissions essay I sent to one school and some of my friends who read it said that was a poor choice. Obviously I don't support the Confederate cause, but he's such a neat historical figure (as anyone who's read about him would know).

The number one rule of getting a job is do not give anyone any reason to not like you.

Good call. Thanks.

[Kilpatrick]

This is random, but how do you guys feel about listing a Confederate general, specifically Stonewall Jackson? I quoted him in an admissions essay I sent to one school and some of my friends who read it said that was a poor choice. Obviously I don't support the Confederate cause, but he's such a neat historical figure (as anyone who's read about him would know).

I think if you know anything about the Civil War its not offensive. Jackson is the Confederate general I have the most respect for. But for someone that doesn't know anything about the war I think it might be a problem. Just put Civil War history or something without naming him specifically.

[Cupidity]

This is random, but how do you guys feel about listing a Confederate general, specifically Stonewall Jackson? I quoted him in an admissions essay I sent to one school and some of my friends who read it said that was a poor choice. Obviously I don't support the Confederate cause, but he's such a neat historical figure (as anyone who's read about him would know).

I think if you know anything about the Civil War its not offensive. Jackson is the Confederate general I have the most respect for. But for someone that doesn't know anything about the war I think it might be a problem. Just put Civil War history or something without naming him specifically.

Good suggestion. And honestly, the odds of making a connection with someone based on "Stonewall Jackson" is going to be insanely improbable, while a broader "Military History," might snag a decent handful. Simmilar reasoning went into my decision to List "Science Fiction Literature," rather than "Kurt Vonnegut" or "Isaac Asimov."

[ebeth]

This is random, but how do you guys feel about listing a Confederate general, specifically Stonewall Jackson? I quoted him in an admissions essay I sent to one school and some of my friends who read it said that was a poor choice. Obviously I don't support the Confederate cause, but he's such a neat historical figure (as anyone who's read about him would know).

I think if you know anything about the Civil War its not offensive. Jackson is the Confederate general I have the most respect for. But for someone that doesn't know anything about the war I think it might be a problem. Just put Civil War history or something without naming him specifically.

Good suggestion. And honestly, the odds of making a connection with someone based on "Stonewall Jackson" is going to be insanely improbable, while a broader "Military History," might snag a decent handful. Simmilar reasoning went into my
decision to List "Science Fiction Literature," rather than "Kurt Vonnegut" or "Isaac Asimov."

thanks for the replies. I just have american civil war listed now and i'll keep it that way.

[Anonymous User]

If your interests don't come through in your extracurricular activities, then you're trying too hard.

lolwut?

[Kilpatrick]

This is random, but how do you guys feel about listing a Confederate general, specifically Stonewall Jackson? I quoted him in an admissions essay I sent to one school and some of my friends who read it said that was a poor choice. Obviously I don't support the Confederate cause, but he's such a neat historical figure (as anyone who's read about him would know).

I think if you know anything about the Civil War its not offensive. Jackson is the Confederate general I have the most respect for. But for someone that doesn't know anything about the war I think it might be a problem. Just put Civil War history or something without naming him specifically.

Good suggestion. And honestly, the odds of making a connection with someone based on "Stonewall Jackson" is going to be insanely improbable, while a broader "Military History," might snag a decent handful. Simmilar reasoning went into my
decision to List "Science Fiction Literature," rather than "Kurt Vonnegut" or "Isaac Asimov."

thanks for the replies. I just have american civil war listed now and i'll keep it that way.

If applying in the South change this to the War of Northern Aggression

[Aston2412]

If applying in the South change this to the War of Northern Aggression

+1

[LS18]

where are you guys placing interests on your resume? I don't have room for a whole new section, so I figured I'd combine it with volunteering/community work. Is it ok to just have one bullet point listing 3-4 interests?