I often find that resumes of students who are looking for jobs as lawyers, judicial clerks, or summer associates note in passing that the person knows Microsoft Office Suite, WordPerfect, LEXIS and WESTLAW, or some such.
I've long thought this sort of entry is a (mild) minus rather than a plus. (1) While knowing these applications is indeed valuable, you're going to be hired for your legal knowledge and not your word processing skills or even your knowledge of LEXIS and WESTLAW. (2) Most applicants are expected to know these things, so if you don't mention them, no-one will assume that you somehow never learned them. (3) More importantly, drawing attention to these lower-status skills subtly draws attention away from your higher-status credentials. (I speak here of the way the world and its pecking orders actually work, not the way they should.)
Am I right, or is this just an idiosyncratic reaction of mine?
They said that employers LOVE it! I can't believe that Thompson-West would lie!
All joking aside, these are skills that can be assumed. Things that might actually be useful, but I'd still probably leave off the resume, would include the ability to use the Shepard's books- not everyone has clients that are willing to pay $5.99 a minute for Lexis/Westlaw citechecking, after all.
I say this as somebody who, though graduating from Harvard in 1975, started my professional career as a temproary typist.
I have to know: is the typo in "temproary typist" a deliberate joke? Either way, it adds to the humor.
Also, I continue to be amazed at the people I encounter who are NOT able to use public transportation or the phone . . .
Time is flying by. Just 8 years ago, all of those things were unusual skills to have. It's just right now, in 2006 that it would be unusual for a college graduate to not know how to search an online database, use a word processing program, and create slide shows on their laptop computers.
p.s., Eugene, if I were to see those on a resume I would assume that the applicant has nothing better to talk about. I think it's similar to listing "legal knowledge" as one's skills.
Prof V: Agreed; those skills should always be assumed for law school graduates. It's hard to think of a computer-based skill which would be worth listing.
If I encountered someone wasting space to tell me they have a "skill" most middle schoolers have mastered, I'd throw their resume in the trash.
It is a net neutral.
I'd say that 80% of interviewers would begin with some item of extraneous BS I put on the resume. I came to subsequently know some of these guys very well and they were excellent managers. However, they couldn't conduct an interview to save their lives. The interviewee has to make sure the interviewer can succeed.
I have thought it rather insane to mention one's skills in Word with an obviously computer generated resume, or how you could pass law school without using WestLaw.
strawsskills.As a side note, does anyone still use Wordperfect?
It seems to me you want to leave pointless stuff off your resume. This is all standard knowledge, and what is the point of adding it to your resume, other than to detract from relevant information.
Most of the people who work at my firm have no faint clue how to use Excel. Meanwhile, if one more associate sends me a draft Word document with headings formatted by using tabs, I am going to go postal.
Harumph.
When I retired in July I told my boss: never mind whether the prospective replacement even has a degree, just give me someone proficient in Excel and SAP and I'll teach him/her the rest.
If your resume is actually very thin and this is obvious, then you might want to include side-skills in order to make yourself more attractive as an entry-level candidate. But if you are a decent applicant for the position in question, you will only look like that poor candidate by including such skills on your resume.
The downside is that candidates these days tend to include lots of fluff in their resumes, and WAY too many business buzzwords, because the old page constraint is no more.
Meanwhile, they don't make adequate use of the career services offices at their own law schools.
Other resume gaffes from law students:
Resumes with "Objectives" at the top were a pet peeve of mine. They make some sense for MBAs, because MBAs look for all sorts of jobs coming out (even there, though, if I'm hiring a brand manager for Kraft Foods, and your resume is in my hands, I'll assume it's because you're looking for a job in brand management; I don't need to be told). For 2nd year law students applying to firms, "Objectives" on a resume are a a waste of space. Ditto for "References available on request."
Very few employers check references until they decide to extend an offer, and by then you'll have had to fill out their internal forms where that info will be asked for.
For those seeking more "out of the box" opportunities, some of the foregoing may be inapplicable. But we're talking about law students, n'est-ce pas?
I do. I like it. It beats Word. Most lawyers at one time used it. Some Feds even used it until recently; one fed agency, a client, told me they had to switch to Word and delete WP from their systems. However, lets not start a war about it. Arguing about word processor software will eventually flush out a lonesome Mac user who needs to convince us again that his machine is superior.
The Federal Judiciary.
We oldsters can remember back to when an attorney wasn't expected to type. That was the secretary's job. And when a friend spent $15,000 on a computer that used 8" floppies... and found it worthwhile, since he could use something called "forms" in her divorce practice. I'd say in 1985 an attorney's skill with word processing would have been something to boast about ... 21 years later it's a bit different.
Applying for and getting a job seems like an bizarre task. Not only is there the issue of getting the skills to actually do the job, you have to learn about and avoid all these irrational pet peeves. ("I will throw your resume in the trash if it lists Westlaw or Lexis!")
It is all enough for one to question whether markets are really all that efficient if there is this much irrationality in interviewing. In a world of perfect competition, employers would not be able to afford to express irrational preferences unrelated to job performance (i.e. listing Westlaw or Lexis on your resume is bad!).
I find that the most annoying (mis)use of Powerpoint. Show a screen and read it to you. Usually much slower than normal speech would have been (I have no idea why the person slows down -- perhaps they assume their listeners are semi-literates who take ten seconds to read five words?)
So, perhaps mentioning Excel or Powerpoint on a resume would be a good idea. But Lexis, or Westlaw, or Word? No.
As an alternative, I would propose our eager-beaver resume writer include really useful skills, such as: "knows how to use Reply, instead of Reply All" and "can already set up a conference call among the associate, the senior partner and two clients". Now THOSE are useful abilities.
I used to work in an Embassy here in Washington in the 90s. There was a push to modernize the office environment. With new computers came the desire to reduce staff. The adminstrators decided that Counsellors did not need a secretary now that PCs were available.
The Counsellor Finance - Treasury's representative in the US, refused. He said he was not paid to be in the US to type and arrange his own appointments.
...they couldn't conduct an interview to save their lives. The interviewee has to make sure the interviewer can succeed.
It's important for the interviewee to know how to "control the interview". First: establish rappport (Like a good saleman does) Find topics of interest (to the interviewer) Make him comfortable (He'll like you for that!) When he's ready, he'll direct the conversation to the questions he has. Just remeber to redirect the interview, when necessary, to what you want to get across. The secret is to not let him think or realize that it is you that is controlling the interview. Heck, I've even used the technique on lawyers while on the witness stand! It works. But as an aside just don't get too cocky
How about word processors like the dreaded and notorious MS Word? I remember the days before you were expected to use word processors. It was wonderful. You wrote up your report or journal article on a pad and gave it to a secretary (now called an administrative assistant). You got a typed copy back, which you then marked up and gave back. After not more than one or two iterations, everything was finished. The secretary or reports department was on overhead. Now you do your own word processing, and graphics, and equations. The reports department is on a re-charge basis and you can’t use it because it’s too expensive. Now you might go through 50 iterations in writing a large report if you have a bunch of authors. Since it’s so easy to make a change everyone keeps making changes. I think word processing might actually be a net negative for large organizations.
I like resumes that don’t list Microsoft Office.
I agree with Eugene on the resume - listing assumed skills is a mild negative.
If it's true that people who list such things aren't very skilled or experienced, then listing those *could* be related to job performance--someone who lists them is less skilled and less experienced, and less likely to perform well.
Of course, the whole thing does depend on people being irrational. However, the irrational people are the candidates (who list such skills even though it decreases their chance of getting hired), not the employers.
Yeah, old people. Bada bing.
Check out First Circuit Local Rule 32, which requires parties to file an electronic copy of the brief in WordPerfect format.
Re However, it seems to me that an usually high degree of proficiency in a common piece of software like Office or Lexis would be a significant advantage for an associate.
What is "high proficiency" in Lexis? How would you prove it?
When I was applying for faculty positions, I ran across an advertisment for a tenure-track position at a "major research university" which proudly stated that all faculty members have "high-end personal computers" at their desks! This was 2003 or 2004.
I did not apply.
And those clients are not that bright -- the attorney time it takes to manually shepardize a case as opposed to using Lexis/Westlaw is much more expensive than the charges for it (which is not 5.99/minute; at least not with the deal most firms have, it is by the transaction, which is usally around 5 bucks per case, and 20 bucks to Shepardize, or something like that).
Suppose you have an applicant who has only known Apple products. If your office is (as most are) a microsoft friendly environment, then employing someone not familiar with the software means that your firm will have to pay for the familiarization.
That this is a factor may be deduced from the frequency with which you encounter Linux based law offices.
But then, I work in statistics on economic surveys, so familiarity with certain sorts of systems is clearly a plus.
The only exception is tf the resume went through a service first, including some of the meatmarkets at universities, which seem to think they need to put every possible keyword on each and every resume.
There's a version of that sentence on a second page for the temp agencies, when they know they're sending it to someone who needs people who can work with Macs or (not joking here) DOS-based interfaces. And there's a WordPerfect line I can insert into the original, while keeping the resume to one page. One agency also insisted I create a version of my resume that mentioned I spent a year as computer science major (before switching to political science.) And it was only maybe a year ago that they said it was okay to take off the list of Windows and Word versions I was "familiar with," which was easily the silliest line I've ever been told to put on a resume: "Competent in operating Windows 3.1x, 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000 Professional, and XP; proficient in all versions of Word from 2.0 forward." Or something like that.
Anyway, 1Ls aren't supposed to have jobs, and it seems like it's not that usual for younger people to deliberately work in professional positions for a few years before law school (and I doubt you get many "I got my PhD in chemistry, worked for Dow for twenty years, and now I want to try something new" candidates submitting entry-level legal resumes, let alone resumes that tout their Word skills.) When, in the case of someone who actually worked during college, does the "take Word off your resume" memo get issued?
College students also get a lot of screwy advice. I was pretty much ordered to include an "Objective" on my resume, and I still don't know what good it's supposed to do. At least the keywords list will help with scanned resumes... but who even reads the objective, anyway?
I used to know how. Today the only folks who use WordPerfect are in the federal district court, which requires draft orders to be submitted in WordPerfect. (I assume Windows WP, since unlike Word it's not cross-platform).
I know of at least one major PI attorney who has stopped taking federal matters because neither he nor his secretary know how to generate a pdf file and do the online filing.
No. It's really not. A 2L going through on-campus recruiting at a top school with a multi-page resume is going to look like an idiot.
During my ten years with Dept of Interior HQ in DC, it was more like:
Write your stuff on a pad (in my case, print it -- my handwriting is pretty bad).
Give it to a secretary.
About 2-3 days later get it back. With at least one typo per paragraph, and often one per sentence.
Correct it.
Get it back in 1-2 days with only a quarter as many typos. Repeat process as necessary.
And since one of your "critical elements" in the job description was 90% of documents with no typos, and your bosses were obsessive on it (once had a very important emergency recommendation on appeal sent back because there was one space between period ending a sentence and first letter of the next sentence, when the Government Style Manual called for two spaces), I knew some attorneys who proofed everything with a ruler, moving it slowly down one line at a time so as to concentrate on each line.
Of course in private practice we'd had a secretary who took dictation, knew legal citation, and made typos so rarely that I can't remember one. And knew where we were at any moment of the day, which clients were good and which were pests, who our girlfriends were and how it was going with them, etc., etc.
Once had a gov't secretary, who had 10+ years experience, ask me about "certainly denied." I figured out she meant "cert. denied." I guess she thought that was a particularly emphatic way of denying review.
I do have an objective, especially on Monster and the resume that goes to recruiters, as well as a summary. I no longer have "references available upon request" but I do have a line of interests, which has given interviewers something easy to talk about while we synchronize.
I list my word processors and editors, but separately from my languages and operating systems.
Not *every* Circuit.
But for first years, summers, and externs, why should Lexis and Westlaw be considered "lower status skills"? We don't hire them because we're interested in their views on the nuances of emerging jurisprudence.
Side note (well, this whole thing isn't that pertinent, so I guess it's a side-side note)
A big firm in my area has a great sense of humor. Both its NALP entry and its entire "careers" page on its website are full of sly jokes and absurdities. For example, the NALP entry claims that the firm has set its partner track to music and requires associates to sing it at their yearly evaluations. Since I am a professionally trained singer, should I work that into my cover letter? Even funnier, I was looking through the firm's list of new hires, and there is a female attorney named Norah Jones!
Oh, and Word skills? Nah. How about being able to type over 100 wpm?
As for creating a table of authorities. Yes, Wordperfect can do it, but it is a pain in the rear. For one of my appellate briefs, with an average amount of citations, it would take about 30 to 45 minutes to create a table of authorities. Except for briefs where many other attorneys have input, it is not worth the effort.
I also use Word. In general, I believe that Wordperfect is the more powerful program, but Word is easier to use.
I know of at least one company law department that proposed more than once, to get the message across, in connection with the introduction of computers and word processing software that its attorneys be able to pass a typing test.
One might think those things are not so relevant anymore - the youngsters have sufficient skills so they don't need to mention them, and geezers ain't never gonna learn them if they haven't learned them yet.
Are any
secretariesadministrative assistants required to know shorthand?I've found the same rule applies to people who say they are "quick learners", or that they have "good interpersonal skills" or "good math skills" or "knowledge of Excel." (I work in quantitative finance, and I'm currently trying to hire a C++ programmer, so, I'm seeing a lot of these). If they say that, then no, they aren't. The people who really know something don't bother to put such vague or low-level skills. The people who say they have "good math skills" usually got a B in their one calculus class 10 years ago. The people who are actually good might list a published paper or a couple courses in real analysis, but if asked they will say they are dissatisfied with their math skills.
Isn't there probably some selection bias in these comments, though? Maybe big employers think this way, but I bet a lot of small employers wouldn't know better than to think it might be useful.
Well, actually, this is wrong. The associate will be hired for his/her intellectual potential, and the fancy law school where s/he attended, and his/her personal charm... and "legal knowledge" is about 10th on the list. First-year associates in BigLaw firms spend most of their time doing careful review of documents, adjusting the formatting, and so forth. Real proficiency in MS Word (if you understand how to work with headers, how to create outlines, etc. etc.) is actually extremely valuable.
That said, yeah, I agree that putting "Microsoft Office" as a skill on your resume is lame.
COURSES COMPLETED
Constitutional Law
Contracts
Torts
Criminal Law
Civil Procedure
Property
Legal Writing
Now that's a sexy resume.
As for WordPerfect, I used it today, but I almost always use Word and other MS Office suite products (Excel, Powerpoint). The federal courts require you to submit proposed orders in WordPerfect.
I do sometimes miss having secretaries/word processing departments who would take my dictation tapes, or my handwritten yellow legal pad pages, and create nice briefs and memoranda from them. Dictating is a lost art, and word processing makes writing sloppier. (I know, you can use Dragon Naturally Speaking, but it is a poor substitute for an excellent secretary). Now, I type all of my own stuff, and it is much less fun (I say this as someone who can generate tables of content and authorities in Word, and WordPerfect).
Yeah, yeah, I understand economics and limited supply of brainpower and marginal revenue product of labor and all that, but it still seems screwy...
While I've not had to hire baby lawyers, I'd much rather see an applicants express affirmatively that they have these skills than to discover later on that they don't. You know, I'm sure, the adage about 'assume'.
BTW, State Dept. used to be married to Word Perfect, but the company defaulted on its promise to provide support for particular foreign languages (notably Arabic) in a timely manner. MS Word did have that support in a usable form. The switch was made, albeit with a lot of griping in-house. Except from those who needed the languages.
State--and most of the federal bureaucracy--was quick to get rid of secretaries and clerical support as supernumeraries, under the assumption they would save a lot of money in staffing costs. They didn't realize that most of the officers at the time would take far longer to produce the same or lesser products. Most of the old farts, of course, are gone now, but then so too are the support staffs. Now, though, a typical mid-level officer will have a 1/4 to 1/8 share of a clerical support person.
State now has about two dozen real secretaries--and yes, they do shorthand--assigned to very senior officials and some ambassadors. Otherwise, there are OMSs, Office Management Support people, who generally don't do shorthand, but do handle the correspondence and filing, appointments, schedules, etc. A confluence of technological developments and the need for a 'peace dividend' got rid of most secretarial positions.
I am a power user of MS Office. In theory, I agree with you, but in practice, whenever someone wanted a formatting change, the general reaction from TPTB would be "give it to your secretary" -- never mind that (with one exception) I inevitably knew the program far better than my secretary. Whenever I pawned off such work, it inevitably would have taken me a fraction of the time it took the secretary.
As for Excel, I once had a colleague told me that "Excel is a program for accountants, not lawyers," and another told me that "lawyers should never try to use Excel, that's only for bankers" (despite the fact that I can do financial modelling and, quite frankly, can usually do a better spreadsheet than the bankers).
I therefore agree with Eugene that decisionmakers at law firms will see this entry as a negative on a resume. Smaller firms without extensive support staff may be different.
This is the key question, and the biggest problem with what I see on resumes.
If the only thing on your resume is a list of skills, whether legal or clerical, it's nearly pointless. Your resume should list the results you achieved. If I'm hiring a 3-5 year associate for a litigation position, _every_single_ applicant better have taken some solo depositions, a bunch of second chair trial work and depo's and maybe a few solo matters of substance. I want to hire the att'y who made a notable difference on a case, advanced in responsibility quickly, or became the firm expert in discovery burdens in e-mail archives - so tell me that stuff.
Likewise with Word or Lexis - I expect you to know if, if your unusually proficient you'll have some results to report on your resume (it's not unusual proficiency to be the associate that the staff/summers seek out for formatting help - that just means you're gullible or attractive).
First, there is a very high probability the applicant took an undergrad class that required writing a resume a certain way. I would never deduct for something that was ON the Resume, only what was off it.
Second, while I cannot speak to the Law based programs, (westlaw, etc.) I can speak to WORD and Excel. I think that the Hotel rule mentioned above is probably pretty accurate here. I would recommend using the “proficient in OFFICE” to find how honest the applicant is. Ask why it’s there. Ask what programs make up office. Ask when they’ve used Access and why. Ask what his/her favorite feature in Word is. Ask why they think that knowledge is important at the new company. Ask about basics that you expect them to know (Table of contents, auto sorting, importing a graph.) Operating systems provide even more opportunity. Ask how many times they’ve installed Windows. Hopefully most people here can understand the value in an employee who will not break their computer.
Last, treat nothing like a given in interviewing. Interviewing is selling the company just as much as the interviewer is selling himself (or herself). Remember, a customer lies, steals, and then lies again. If you need an employee who knows more than how to open up Word, ask! While I have no horror stories, they are out there.
After reading your post I looked at my resume to ensure that I didn't have such things on it, and was pleased to see that I didn't.
WordPerfect doesn't give you control over that much, really. Now TeX... that's control. You wanna change how stretchy the interletter spacing is as compared to the interword spacing? We can hook you up.
Anyhow, as for this resume business, I don't know why lawyers don't move to the CV model. Don't tell me what you "can do", which I have to take at your word. Tell me what you've done.
1) All of the job postings at my company, even in the engineering department, include a Microsoft Office requirement.
2) I've dealt with the Human Resources department before. They feed the resumes through a big filter looking for keywords. I put the buzzwords in so that my resume hits all the keywords and gets a good score, thus improving its chances of being read by an intelligent human being.
And this is how a computer geek trained since the age of three ends up bragging about their Office skills.
Now, when I arrive, I was typing everything myself. But I learned (after having it suggested to me by two different partners and the other associate here), that it was actually inefficient for me to type my own work rather than dictating.
And it's best for the client, as well. We don't bill out secretary time, so a 4 page letter that might take me 2 hours to type and edit myself instead takes me a half hour to dictate and another half hour to revise (depending on the number of revisions, I either do these myself or hand-write them, etc.). And that extra hour is, of course, spent billing another file. I guess, though, with a small firm it is more important to provide efficient service since your clients are generally not the types who want to pay a Big Firm to have 4 associates do the same work and 4 partners to review the work the associates did.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the big deal with tabs? Do people actually use styles for the indents of a new paragraph?
I'm able to use most of the basic features to create lists, tables, styles, etc. but quite frequently, it's just faster not to have to deal with all the bells and whistles. And I have substantial computer experience.
I'm not the biggest fan of Access, but I guarantee you that there were things you did where an excellent understanding of Excel would have made your job much easier and cleaner.
I recently worked with a corporate attorney who was keeping all the stock option information for the officers and directors on a ledger. Sheesh, a different grant price for every entry over 10 years on a legder? If you wanted to know the precise value of each holders options at any given moment it could take him hours. In a well designed spreadsheet, plug in today's stock price and you are done. It isn't that Excel is 'needed'. It is just that once you know how to use it, you would be crazy not to.
Yeah, I'm a control freak. I'm a power WP user, I can make it dance and sing. I use styles, tables, and merging to make forms that are easy for anyone to use. I write macros, too. I'm a specialist: it makes no sense to me to have an attorney stumble along doing something when I could win an Olympic medal doing it. I keep up on formatting changes and timelines and how each judge prefers us to submit documents (only on paper? by email? burned onto a CD? as a pdf? as a Word document?--we can convert), so the attorneys can focus on the facts and the argument.
I've got the stuff I'd want human managers to see at the front of my resume, and the buzzwords for the filters on later pages marked "supplemental". (I've also got an "examples" page with illustrations from some of the "look what I just did" memos about which I'm most proud. The graphics look impressive, and if we get that far it's easier than having to draw them on a whiteboard mid-interview.) That also means my Summary-Experience-Skills-Examples fits the paradigm of "Tell them what you're going to say, then say it, then tell them what you said, then make them remember it".
Tumbling Dice - I'm not so sure you're right. If you dictate, you have to dictate, give to sec'y to type, revise and proof, give back to sec'y, then do final proof and sign, have envelope made, and send out ltr.
Our atty's usually type and e-mail as attachment or fax directly from computer with e-fax. Done.
Also, even if dictation is faster, I'd bet that you write longer letters if you dictate and eat up any gains. No offense intended, but I can usually tell when a dictated letter comes in because it tends to be verbose.
The two admins I work most with here are incredibly good; they are well-versed in the law (compared to any other layperson) and I doubt they would make the "certainly denied" mistake mentioned above. Their work product is flawless; like computers, if you have a problem with the output, it almost invariably was due to user error in the input. :)
I type 30 words a minute. Writing my own letters is much, much slower than it will be when I am admitted and able to submit my own work to the admins, even if I revise/proof three or four times.
Power Corrupts.
PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely.
I have lost the ability to compose longhand. It is too stifling compared to the flexibility I have in editing as I type.
None taken, of course.
However, having typed my own letters and document revisions for the first couple of years and now having gone mostly to dictation for first drafts and any lengthy or major revisions, my experience has been that using my secretary and dictation is much more efficient. Yes, I have to do one more review of the document before it heads out (the final one after the last bit of revisions), but I have also spent a lot less time on the whole.
And while I do tend to agree that my initial drafts are usually longer than the final product, my editing process corrects this initial problem. In part, I probably compose slower than I dictate because I am trying to get it perfect as I type. Stopping to make revisions as I go along, etc. I've found that it's just faster for me to dictate and revise.
All you need is LSAT, Grade Point and Class Rank... unless you are a female Asian American.
If you can bench brief, you can handle a one page resume.
I'd only mention proficiency in LEXUS/NEXUS if I was applying for a job as a drive through hair stylist.
BTW, I'm a current WP user, [Word at home] who once had a FatMac as my legal secretary.
First of all, such a listing of computer skills might include assistive technologies for the blind (screen readers) or autistics (speech recognition). By listing these, the law firm hiring will be put on notice its computer system must be accessible to these technologies. Moreover, law firms woulld not want to hire candidates who do not know about these assistive technologies, since such ignorance could pose monetary liability for a law firm under an EEOC or lawsuit Title I Americans With Disabilities Act claim.
Second, what State Bar Examination actually does a performance-based test that includes LEXIS/WESTLAW research skills? A person who lacks such research skills cannot meet the "essential functions" of the practice of law necessary to protect the public under attorney licensure. I am sure, as a prof at a top law school, and having Clerked for the Supreme Court, you are among people who do possess such excellent research skills. In the litigation my husband (Equire) has been involved in, I have seen way too many lawyers and law clerks who really do not have even adequate LEXIS/WESTLAW research skills. Lawyers do not in all isntances simply delegate important research to their assistants. When I worked for a Harvard LLM treatise author, prof, and attorney, I observed him every day do his own LEXIS research, and many times his research added cases even I could not find. So, yes, until such time as the 50 States use a completely performance test-based Bar Examination, and include testing and scoring legal research ability on LEXIS/WESTLAW, and manually (for those who need to check something at the last minute at a Court's library when there for a hearing), it IS appropriate for resumes to list such skills, since otherwise employers cannot rely on licensure as a substitute proxy for competency in these necessary skills.
Finally, I have personally trained numerous law clerks with J.D.s for an attorney and have found many cannot even do the basics on Microsoft Word or manage intenet searches or CM/ECF filing (including creation of pdf files). In sum, EV, you cannot assume every bulb shines as brightly as yours.
It seems to me, while really law firms should be valuing the higher credentials of which you speak, unless the entire legal profession immediately adopts oral-spoken communication methods, knowing (and listing knowledge of) these computer skills conveys that the candidate is competent in the machinery necessary to put down in written format all those higher fuctoning lawyer skills thought and/or spoken. Some law firms require personal use of computers; other law firms supply support staff. Some law firms use Microsoft Word; others use Word Perfect. That is why it is not helpful to make assumptions. Try going to a Court sometime and telling the Court you have to communicate orally rather than use a computer to place pleadings in written format, Ha!
While we are on this topic, I do have a pet peeve No-No for law firm employers out there. Being one who uses speech recognition assistive technology (I speak to the computer, instead of keyboarding), it is very inappropriate for employers to ask for a word per minute keyboarding typing speed or typing certificate -- it impermissibly forces a person with disabilities who is qualified for employment to disclose the disability pre-employment, and I can personally testify to how many law firm employers freak out the moment they are confronted with this speech recognition technology they have not seen before -- only about 1:2000 are willing to hire a speech recognition user. They assume a person who would use such assistive technology is incompetent or unable to perform the work. That is deplorable. Especially since speech recogition does about 90 wpm, faster than many keyboardists.
Excel is so useful, I couldn't imagine not having it available even for simple calculation.
Was that just a setup for the Asian American joke, or do people actually put LSAT scores on legal resumes? I've never seen that, and I don't think I'd be particularly impressed by it, regardless of the score.
Everybody except disabled people who cannot keyboard ... La! State Bars really need to start doing mandatory CLEs and MCLEs on disbaility sensitivity and awareness to eliminate ignorance. You made my case.
Yeah, and there is a lot on this topic over on Sam Bagenstros' Disability blog about all the people who can NOT use public transportation -- it is a disability access issue.
First, there's a right way and a wrong way to do things. It is usually better to learn the right way.
Second, nothing in basic formatting is so difficult that bypassing it will save any time.
Third, when you have to reformat a document because you've added something or taken something away, if you have used the tab key to reformat, you are going to have to adjust your formatting. In the long run, it is easier and faster to do it right the first time.
And here is another employer No-No. The exact functional limitation of autism. Imagine the serial ADA/Unruh Act lawsuits an autistic could bring in the Central District f California.