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

09042014 · Post by **09042014** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:01 pm

What are the odds OP gets banned from giving interviews by recruiting.

I'd get talked to if I sperglorded over some poor kid who took two years of arabic.

Also knowing a little language can be helpful. We have a secretary who can only read Korean and she helps all the fucking time.

OP is a bundle of smokes.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:17 pm

Desert Fox wrote:What are the odds OP gets banned from giving interviews by recruiting.

I'd get talked to if I sperglorded over some poor kid who took two years of arabic.

Also knowing a little language can be helpful. We have a secretary who can only read Korean and she helps all the fucking time.

OP is a bundle of smokes.

OP again. First, this candidate stated that they had studied far more than 2 years (it was actually more than 4 years). It was enough time that someone would easily assume they had a level of proficiency. Second, I did not abuse the candidate. I broached the topic, asked if the candidate minded speaking the language, started a brief conversation and politely ended it as soon as it was apparent that she could not continue. We then transitioned back into English and continued the interview. I would not be surprised if she thought the interview went well and I doubt she would guess that I am the one who dinged her. Third, I was very explicit in my evaluation as to why I made the recommendation, which means recruiting is free to discount it as they see fit.

I may have come across as harsh when making my original post, but that was to make the point that has been made throughout this thread. This resume line rubbed me the wrong way and it created a poor first impression that the candidate did not overcome. It could have been avoided by not adding it in a deceptive manner.

MistakenGenius · Post by **MistakenGenius** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:49 pm

Post removed.

BruceWayne · Post by **BruceWayne** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:53 pm

OP isn't really an asshole; he isn't even "wrong". He's just type A/intense as hell. I think people considering law school and other similar professions (finance etc.) need to understand that these fields have a lot of people like this in them and they need to be prepared to handle this kind of thing. If you're not you need to reconsider the field and go with something that attracts more even keeled personalities.

wiseowl · Post by **wiseowl** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:55 pm

MistakenGenius wrote:OP, I'm not going to go so far to say you're an asshole. I don't know you personally. Zweitbuster did nail it, and I will say that you're a stupid fuck that was given a tiny bit of authority and is now abusing your employers' trust. You did them a disservice by dinging someone who could have been excellent for a very arbitrary reason. Why is bagelboy the only person to mention that you have admitted you are biased because of some BS that happened in your past? You should have recused yourself from the decision and given no recommendation. As others have pointed out, the candidate did nothing wrong, but you took out your frustration from being no offered in the past against her. OP, you are the type of person who gives lawyers a bad name. You're a loser who I'm guessing is actually very insecure and unhappy with your lot in life.

That said, I do think this can be an important lesson for everyone in this thread. Like it or not, worthless, power-hungry dumb-asses are given the authority to say yes or no on your future with a firm. Biglaw (all corporations really) happens to attract some major shitheads who will nitpick, twist your words, and make up problems even when there aren't any. Be sure to be very accurate on your resume and be prepared to back up ever single word on it.

OP, you made your point about your little quirk. As you can see, 95% of us think you're just an idiot. Go away now.

Lot of shade from a 0L.

MistakenGenius · Post by **MistakenGenius** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:05 pm

Post removed.

rahulg91 · Post by **rahulg91** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:07 pm

If you are conversational in a language (can speak fluently, but cannot read/write) is it even worth it to include in you resume? Wasn't thinking of a whole new section, just a bullet under "Skills" or something.

A. Nony Mouse · Post by **A. Nony Mouse** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:08 pm

The thing is, tons (maybe all) of the people who go to screeners and get dinged could be excellent candidates. It's a buyer's market, and employers are looking for reasons to cut people. So it isn't at all weird to consider dinging someone for a relatively arbitrary reason, if you can characterize exercising arguably poor judgment on a resume as arbitrary. Look at it this way - the phrasing on the resume was a red flag, the OP pursued that, and the candidate dinged herself. Your job is to offer a resume without red flags. I don't think it was crazy to see that as a red flag, and obviously the interviewer's reaction was correct because the candidate couldn't speak the language. Would you rather be that candidate getting dinged, or would you rather be careful about what you put on your resume and not get dinged? Why does the interviewer have to explore further or give any benefit of the doubt when they have a ton of other excellent candidates?

I'm not saying putting that on her resume makes the applicant a poor candidate for a job - I don't think it really says anything about her ability to lawyer. But these days you have to find other things to ding a candidate for besides the ability to lawyer.

wiseowl · Post by **wiseowl** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:11 pm

MistakenGenius wrote:
wiseowl wrote:
MistakenGenius wrote:OP, I'm not going to go so far to say you're an asshole. I don't know you personally. Zweitbuster did nail it, and I will say that you're a stupid fuck that was given a tiny bit of authority and is now abusing your employers' trust. You did them a disservice by dinging someone who could have been excellent for a very arbitrary reason. Why is bagelboy the only person to mention that you have admitted you are biased because of some BS that happened in your past? You should have recused yourself from the decision and given no recommendation. As others have pointed out, the candidate did nothing wrong, but you took out your frustration from being no offered in the past against her. OP, you are the type of person who gives lawyers a bad name. You're a loser who I'm guessing is actually very insecure and unhappy with your lot in life.

That said, I do think this can be an important lesson for everyone in this thread. Like it or not, worthless, power-hungry dumb-asses are given the authority to say yes or no on your future with a firm. Biglaw (all corporations really) happens to attract some major shitheads who will nitpick, twist your words, and make up problems even when there aren't any. Be sure to be very accurate on your resume and be prepared to back up ever single word on it.

OP, you made your point about your little quirk. As you can see, 95% of us think you're just an idiot. Go away now.
Lot of shade from a 0L.
1L now bro. I checked with a mod first. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't take a JD to know if someone's an idiot and a bad employee.

Welcome to law school and to the forum.

I just think it's funny that you won't call OP an "asshole" since you don't know him "personally," but then you proceed to refer to him as:

"a stupid fuck";
"abusing [his] employer's trust";
"a loser";
a "worthless, power-hungry dumb-[ass]";
a "major shithead";
"an idiot" (2X); and
"a bad employee."

Make sure you're a little more internally consistent in that all-important first New Haven special flower legal writing memo. Also, avoid appealing to authority on topics you know jack shit about.

Paul Campos · Post by **Paul Campos** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:31 pm

The claim that the candidate's resume was arguably misleading is false. The candidate clearly differentiated on her resume between language #1, in which she claimed fluency, and language #2, which she made clear she did not speak, precisely by juxtaposing it with language #1, and saying she had only studied it for some time. Any person of normal intelligence and adequate socialization who read that resume would realize immediately that the candidate didn't speak language #2, wasn't claiming the ability to speak language #2, and would probably be anything between befuddled and humiliated during an interview in which she was spoken to in language #2.

Indeed the OP realized this from the beginning, which is why he decided to play his little game, probably, as JDBB points out, for neurotic reasons that had exactly nothing to do with the candidate's merits. But since lots of good candidates have to be dinged for essentially arbitrary reasons, it becomes crucial after the fact for people to rationalize this situation by blaming the candidate for not anticipating she would be interviewed by somebody who would ding her for this arbitrary reason, as opposed to some other arbitrary reason.

It's crucial to rationalize in this way because it creates the illusion of control and agency: see, she would have gotten the job if she hadn't had a "misleading" line on her resume (even though it wasn't misleading).

CicerBRo · Post by **CicerBRo** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:40 pm

Even if the OP is indeed an obnoxious cold-hearted a-hole, the advice is good advice. I once completed an application for something that asked me to rank my language proficiency in different languages on a scale from 1-10. Because I spoke a bit of Spanish (took 4 years in high school), I wrote "2." Somehow during the interview the interviewer took that to mean I was fluent and started speaking Spanish with me during the interview... I handled it fine, but it took me by surprise. So if you list a language on your resume, even if you list low proficiency, be prepared for a question that tests your language skills.

wiseowl · Post by **wiseowl** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:45 pm

Paul Campos wrote:The claim that the candidate's resume was arguably misleading is false. The candidate clearly differentiated on her resume between language #1, in which she claimed fluency, and language #2, which she made clear she did not speak, precisely by juxtaposing it with language #1, and saying she had only studied it for some time. Any person of normal intelligence and adequate socialization who read that resume would realize immediately that the candidate didn't speak language #2, wasn't claiming the ability to speak language #2, and would probably be anything between befuddled and humiliated during an interview in which she was spoken to in language #2.

Indeed the OP realized this from the beginning, which is why he decided to play his little game, probably, as JDBB points out, for neurotic reasons that had exactly nothing to do with the candidate's merits. But since lots of good candidates have to be dinged for essentially arbitrary reasons, it becomes crucial after the fact for people to rationalize this situation by blaming the candidate for not anticipating she would be interviewed by somebody who would ding her for this arbitrary reason, as opposed to some other arbitrary reason.

It's crucial to rationalize in this way because it creates the illusion of control and agency: see, she would have gotten the job if she hadn't had a "misleading" line on her resume (even though it wasn't misleading).

I'm sorry, your whole premise requires that she "made clear" that she didn't speak the language through semantic hoop jumping.

In other words, you freely concede that she listed a language on her resume that she had no actual skills in whatsoever. Since this firm actively seeks to hire candidates that know this language, and since HR's search function quite possibly flagged her because her resume contained reference to that language, you truly believe this "mistake" was harmless? That dinging her for this is a "game" that humiliated her?

You must have a different definition of arbitrary than I do.

I've spent way more time in this thread today than I meant to, mainly because I'm utterly baffled by some of the responses and logic employed. Criticize OP all you want - he made this thread to try to provide a service. A ton of 0Ls and other people who aren't in any position to call OP on anything then proceed to shit all over him. I recall this happening a lot in the V15 interviewer thread too.

Paul Campos · Post by **Paul Campos** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:57 pm

wiseowl wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:The claim that the candidate's resume was arguably misleading is false. The candidate clearly differentiated on her resume between language #1, in which she claimed fluency, and language #2, which she made clear she did not speak, precisely by juxtaposing it with language #1, and saying she had only studied it for some time. Any person of normal intelligence and adequate socialization who read that resume would realize immediately that the candidate didn't speak language #2, wasn't claiming the ability to speak language #2, and would probably be anything between befuddled and humiliated during an interview in which she was spoken to in language #2.

Indeed the OP realized this from the beginning, which is why he decided to play his little game, probably, as JDBB points out, for neurotic reasons that had exactly nothing to do with the candidate's merits. But since lots of good candidates have to be dinged for essentially arbitrary reasons, it becomes crucial after the fact for people to rationalize this situation by blaming the candidate for not anticipating she would be interviewed by somebody who would ding her for this arbitrary reason, as opposed to some other arbitrary reason.

It's crucial to rationalize in this way because it creates the illusion of control and agency: see, she would have gotten the job if she hadn't had a "misleading" line on her resume (even though it wasn't misleading).
I'm sorry, your whole premise requires that she "made clear" that she didn't speak the language through semantic hoop jumping.

In other words, you freely concede that she listed a language on her resume that she had no actual skills in whatsoever. Since this firm actively seeks to hire candidates that know this language, and since HR's search function quite possibly flagged her because her resume contained reference to that language, you truly believe this "mistake" was harmless? That dinging her for this is a "game" that humiliated her?

You must have a different definition of arbitrary than I do.

I've spent way more time in this thread today than I meant to, mainly because I'm utterly baffled by some of the responses and logic employed. Criticize OP all you want - he made this thread to try to provide a service. A ton of 0Ls and other people who aren't in any position to call OP on anything then proceed to shit all over him. I recall this happening a lot in the V15 interviewer thread too.

No, I said she made clear she wasn't fluent in the language, not that "she had no actual skills in whatsoever," which is surely not true, given that she studied it for several years.

The OP knew that the candidate wasn't fluent in the language when he read her resume. He concedes as much in his first post, since the candidate's resume makes clear she isn't fluent. He then proceeds to twist this into a ridiculous claim that the candidate is trying to put something over on the firm by mentioning the language at all in the skills section of her resume. I concede this was a mistake -- but only because the candidate could end up interviewing with somebody like the OP. That's the "lesson" for 0Ls and law students in all this, and it doesn't have anything to do with the candidate's supposed flaws.

Monochromatic Oeuvre · Post by **Monochromatic Oeuvre** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:32 pm

ITT: Law students, practicing lawyers, and law professors unwittingly make a powerful case against entering the legal profession or associating with it in any way.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:29 pm

Paul Campos wrote:
It's crucial to rationalize in this way because it creates the illusion of control and agency: see, she would have gotten the job if she hadn't had a "misleading" line on her resume (even though it wasn't misleading).

OP here. It is absolutely misleading to claim a language skill that you do not have. Stating that you have studied a language for 4+ years in your language skills section suggests to interviewers that you have some level of proficiency in that language and it is misleading if you actually have almost zero ability to communicate in that language. I have not, and will not, given out additional details from the candidate's resume, but I can assure you that no one reading her resume would assume that she had no level of spoken proficiency. She could have avoided this misperception by not including fluff in the language section, but she didn't. I don't feel like any sort of hero for this, but if I had not pursued this issue she may have gotten an offer because others honestly believed that she could speak this language with some level of proficiency.

I think much of the anger directed towards me is because I had almost made up my mind before the interview started. From my perspective, the candidate was trying to walk a fine line between lying on her resume (which she did not technically do) and getting credit for a language skill that she did not really have. This is classic misleading and a candidate deserves to be dinged for it. If it was accidental, then it reflects poor judgment. If it was intentional then it reflects downright dishonesty. Either way, I would rather give the offer to a candidate who does not make these types of mistakes.

dixiecupdrinking · Post by **dixiecupdrinking** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:30 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:ITT: Law students, practicing lawyers, and law professors unwittingly make a powerful case against entering the legal profession or associating with it in any way.

TBF the law professor ITT has quite wittingly made more compelling cases than this against entering the legal profession.

dixiecupdrinking · Post by **dixiecupdrinking** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:
It's crucial to rationalize in this way because it creates the illusion of control and agency: see, she would have gotten the job if she hadn't had a "misleading" line on her resume (even though it wasn't misleading).
OP here. It is absolutely misleading to claim a language skill that you do not have. Stating that you have studied a language for 4+ years in your language skills section suggests to interviewers that you have some level of proficiency in that language and it is misleading if you actually have almost zero ability to communicate in that language. I have not, and will not, given out additional details from the candidate's resume, but I can assure you that no one reading her resume would assume that she had no level of spoken proficiency. She could have avoided this misperception by not including fluff in the language section, but she didn't. I don't feel like any sort of hero for this, but if I had not pursued this issue she may have gotten an offer because others honestly believed that she could speak this language with some level of proficiency.

I think much of the anger directed towards me is because I had almost made up my mind before the interview started. From my perspective, the candidate was trying to walk a fine line between lying on her resume (which she did not technically do) and getting credit for a language skill that she did not really have. This is classic misleading and a candidate deserves to be dinged for it. If it was accidental, then it reflects poor judgment. If it was intentional then it reflects downright dishonesty. Either way, I would rather give the offer to a candidate who does not make these types of mistakes.

What people ITT have pointed out to you is that your inference that this was misleading or done in bad faith or reflected poor judgment is not supported by the evidence, which consists of a person listing on her resume quite literally exactly what her qualifications were.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:
It's crucial to rationalize in this way because it creates the illusion of control and agency: see, she would have gotten the job if she hadn't had a "misleading" line on her resume (even though it wasn't misleading).
OP here. It is absolutely misleading to claim a language skill that you do not have. Stating that you have studied a language for 4+ years in your language skills section suggests to interviewers that you have some level of proficiency in that language and it is misleading if you actually have almost zero ability to communicate in that language. I have not, and will not, given out additional details from the candidate's resume, but I can assure you that no one reading her resume would assume that she had no level of spoken proficiency. She could have avoided this misperception by not including fluff in the language section, but she didn't. I don't feel like any sort of hero for this, but if I had not pursued this issue she may have gotten an offer because others honestly believed that she could speak this language with some level of proficiency.

I think much of the anger directed towards me is because I had almost made up my mind before the interview started. From my perspective, the candidate was trying to walk a fine line between lying on her resume (which she did not technically do) and getting credit for a language skill that she did not really have. This is classic misleading and a candidate deserves to be dinged for it. If it was accidental, then it reflects poor judgment. If it was intentional then it reflects downright dishonesty. Either way, I would rather give the offer to a candidate who does not make these types of mistakes.

.

CicerBRo · Post by **CicerBRo** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:35 pm

I wonder what the chances are that the person who was interviewed has seen this thread...

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:47 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote: What people ITT have pointed out to you is that your inference that this was misleading or done in bad faith or reflected poor judgment is not supported by the evidence, which consists of a person listing on her resume quite literally exactly what her qualifications were.

Just because I did not provide all of the evidence does not mean it does not exist. I have no interest in potentially compromising this candidate's identity here, so I chose to point out the one line that could have saved the candidate as a teaching point on how to one could write a safer "language skills" section.

Also, no one is debating whether the candidate actually studied the language for 4+ years. The point is that factual statements in the wrong place can be misleading and perceived as dishonest.

All of that aside, let's just assume for a moment that I am the biggest prick to ever walk the face of the planet (which nobody could possibly know based on this thread). That doesn't make my advice any less valid. Why risk setting me off and losing an employment opportunity by ignoring my perfectly sound advice? You can argue until you're blue in the face about how unreasonable and arbitrary the process is, but that is not going to change the fact that candidates have to get dinged every day until recruiting season is over.

minnbills · Post by **minnbills** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: Make her speak it with you? That seems unnecessary. Unless the interview is for a foreign office where the language skill is required, her language section is probably resume filler. It sounds like a simple resume faux pas. For all you know her school's CSO told her that was the proper way to add it. Instead of putting her on blast during the interview and potentially throwing her off for the rest of the CB, just broach the subject tactfully.
OP here. The beautiful thing about sitting on the other side of the chair is that, within reason, I can ask whatever I want as long I don't violate any anti-discrimination laws. While nothing is "necessary" during an interview, testing a candidate's purported language skills is definitely within the realm of reasonable. I have no interest in "throwing somebody off for the rest of the CB," but I have every right to transition into a dialogue in this particular language to see if she actually has a language skill.

My response to this resume demonstrates why candidates have to be really careful in choosing what to include in their resumes. Interviewers are all sensitive to different issues. While other interviewers may not care at all, I have little patience for "resume filler" that candidates aren't willing/able to back up, especially with regards to language skills.

Finally, I could care less what the candidate's CSO told her. It isn't my problem that she received bad advice, and it doesn't take too much common sense to distinguish a language skill from the lack thereof.

Well you sound like a real joy to work for

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:52 pm

CicerBRo wrote:I wonder what the chances are that the person who was interviewed has seen this thread...

I am confident that I timed and phrased the postings so that she will not know it was her.

wiseowl · Post by **wiseowl** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:52 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Paul Campos wrote:
It's crucial to rationalize in this way because it creates the illusion of control and agency: see, she would have gotten the job if she hadn't had a "misleading" line on her resume (even though it wasn't misleading).
OP here. It is absolutely misleading to claim a language skill that you do not have. Stating that you have studied a language for 4+ years in your language skills section suggests to interviewers that you have some level of proficiency in that language and it is misleading if you actually have almost zero ability to communicate in that language. I have not, and will not, given out additional details from the candidate's resume, but I can assure you that no one reading her resume would assume that she had no level of spoken proficiency. She could have avoided this misperception by not including fluff in the language section, but she didn't. I don't feel like any sort of hero for this, but if I had not pursued this issue she may have gotten an offer because others honestly believed that she could speak this language with some level of proficiency.

I think much of the anger directed towards me is because I had almost made up my mind before the interview started. From my perspective, the candidate was trying to walk a fine line between lying on her resume (which she did not technically do) and getting credit for a language skill that she did not really have. This is classic misleading and a candidate deserves to be dinged for it. If it was accidental, then it reflects poor judgment. If it was intentional then it reflects downright dishonesty. Either way, I would rather give the offer to a candidate who does not make these types of mistakes.
What people ITT have pointed out to you is that your inference that this was misleading or done in bad faith or reflected poor judgment is not supported by the evidence, which consists of a person listing on her resume quite literally exactly what her qualifications were.

So again, should I have listed on my resume that while in college, I studied three semesters of calculus, two plus years of chemistry, and over a year of Southern United States literature? If not, why not?

One way or the other, the language "qualifications," whatever they were, were listed in an attempt to get some sort of credit or attention for those skills.

OP represents that he was assigned to interview her at least in part because of their mutual assumed skills in the language. There's no way to verify if that's true, but assuming it is, it became his job as an interviewer representing the firm to fairly evaluate those skills.

I don't agree that she "quite literally exactly" represented her qualifications at all. If that were true, she would have listed something like "can read and understand spoken ___ at a low level of proficiency." That would have made perfectly clear what her skills were, and probably would have signaled to OP what her actual level was. She chose to hide the ball, and it cost her.

wiseowl · Post by **wiseowl** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:13 pm

Bottom line: you can choose to handwring like gunner 1Ls over the INFERENCES, EVIDENCE, and MOTIVATIONS!!!!1!1 of the OP. Or you can take it in the spirit I believe it was intended: that as we enter callback and mass mailing season in an era where ZERO is promised you, make sure your application materials are airtight and unambiguous.

CicerBRo · Post by **CicerBRo** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
CicerBRo wrote:I wonder what the chances are that the person who was interviewed has seen this thread...

I am confident that I timed and phrased the postings so that she will not know it was her.

I'm not sure how much "timing" would help. A good percentage of my friends in law school read (or at least glance at) TLS, and a lot of them are on the "Legal Employment" sub-forum around this time due to recruitment season, so I personally wouldn't be surprised if the interviewee has seen this thread. Not that this is a bad thing--you were respectful by being ambiguous about who the person was--but I can imagine being a bit shaken if I were the interviewee and I saw this. Most attorneys in BigLaw are too busy to post this often on TLS; if I were the interviewee, and I saw that my interviewer had made this many posts about me on an online Internet forum mostly meant for 0Ls and for current law students, I would be a bit weirded out. (Not criticizing you at all...just thinking about the interviewee's perspective.)

Anyway, I appreciate the advice you have given TLS, even if I disagree (and I do disagree) with how harsh you were to this interviewee who, for all we know, may have been told by her law school advisors to represent her language skills in that manner on her resume. This thread has certainly made me glad that I didn't include any of my language skills.