St. Albans School - how big a deal?

[Anonymous]

I was also told to include my local public high school when applying for law firm jobs - they liked seeing the high school gpa & the connection to the area & the awards won (like national merit scholar). Also graduated from a top law school. Once I had a law firm job, I removed it from my resume.

[Anonymous]

NOT a big deal, really tacky and quite pathetic and insecure. DO NOT HIRE!

[Anonymous]

I don't see the big deal. Sure, a 55 year old EVP at a government contractor would look silly. But in anything people/network centric, in the first half of ones career, its an all else besides tie breaker, because there is in fact a tight alumni group and a strong network there. I listed HS thinks like NMSF until I was 30, and would have listed STA until 40 if I had gone there, and it was a DC job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At law school, we were all advised to include our high schools for resumes for jobs in the City or town where the high school is located. This was Harvard Law school, so it wasn't as though we were grasping to find some school to gain us a privileged edge that was lacking. The reason for including the high school was to indicate in the resume, without the firm needing to read through a cover letter, that we were from the town where the job was located, which would make it seem we would be more likely to stay. Especially in transient cities like Washington, employers may be more interested in hiring people they believe will remain long-term, rather than get DC experience then move back to their home towns. It made sense to me, so I included my area high school on my resume for DC law firms, but not on resumes going to firms in other cities. All turned out fine.

Good try, but NO!

I mean, if you have a law degree from Harvard but still need your HS credential to set yourself apart from other applicants, you are going to need more than your HS' name to get you the job! And in any professional setting, employers are looking for best candidate, not best "local" candidates!

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I included the name of my high school so that firms would know I would likely remain local. It is a huge cost to law firms to lose associates they would prefer to keep due to the predictable urge to move closer to home. It's not that I "needed"A high school credential, it is that I was a thoughtful person conveying relevant information to potential employers. I received offers from most all of the top local firms, including Covington, Hogan, Wilmer, and W&C, and spent many happy years at one of them before moving to a client. People can have different views on including local high schools, and my high school was not one of the ones frequently written about on this board, but you don't need to be dense about the reasoning.

Also, there may be a gender dynamic going on. Woman I find tend to be much more easily put off by people being explicit about their connections or legitimate successes. I don't think men would find it nearly as offputting. And, for better or worse, men are still doing most of the hiring. I don't think there is one right answer, but I do think men would be more impressed with a candidate being assertive and Balsey enough to include an elite high school on a resume, seemingly acknowledging that the perceived status or connections may be of value to the employer.

This is an interesting observation re: gender. I'm one of the folks upthread who shreds (virtually, of course) any resume that lists a high school after receipt of undergraduate degree, but I'm a woman. I also work in the nonprofit sector, in one of those jobs that is high prestige and low pay. So, not only do I make assumptions about candidates cocky enough to list an elite high school on a resume, I also probably feel like they would be a poor fit for the organization.

Either way, I have found that those candidates don't tend to have the relevant experience that I'm looking for, anyway. One thing about growing up with wealth is that you assume you can do anything, so you apply for jobs that you don't have much qualification for.

Of course, I'll take the St. Alban's resume people over the assholes who get their dad to call the organization's president over an internship position. Those people are terrible.

[Anonymous]

You sound like a really sensitive witch OP. Get a life. No big deal they listed their high school.

[Anonymous]

It's creepy seeing someone older than 30 listing his/her HS on the resume.

I understand for those 20 something just starting out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At law school, we were all advised to include our high schools for resumes for jobs in the City or town where the high school is located. This was Harvard Law school, so it wasn't as though we were grasping to find some school to gain us a privileged edge that was lacking. The reason for including the high school was to indicate in the resume, without the firm needing to read through a cover letter, that we were from the town where the job was located, which would make it seem we would be more likely to stay. Especially in transient cities like Washington, employers may be more interested in hiring people they believe will remain long-term, rather than get DC experience then move back to their home towns. It made sense to me, so I included my area high school on my resume for DC law firms, but not on resumes going to firms in other cities. All turned out fine.

Good try, but NO!

I mean, if you have a law degree from Harvard but still need your HS credential to set yourself apart from other applicants, you are going to need more than your HS' name to get you the job! And in any professional setting, employers are looking for best candidate, not best "local" candidates!

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I included the name of my high school so that firms would know I would likely remain local. It is a huge cost to law firms to lose associates they would prefer to keep due to the predictable urge to move closer to home. It's not that I "needed"A high school credential, it is that I was a thoughtful person conveying relevant information to potential employers. I received offers from most all of the top local firms, including Covington, Hogan, Wilmer, and W&C, and spent many happy years at one of them before moving to a client. People can have different views on including local high schools, and my high school was not one of the ones frequently written about on this board, but you don't need to be dense about the reasoning.

Also, there may be a gender dynamic going on. Woman I find tend to be much more easily put off by people being explicit about their connections or legitimate successes. I don't think men would find it nearly as offputting. And, for better or worse, men are still doing most of the hiring. I don't think there is one right answer, but I do think men would be more impressed with a candidate being assertive and Balsey enough to include an elite high school on a resume, seemingly acknowledging that the perceived status or connections may be of value to the employer.

This is an interesting observation re: gender. I'm one of the folks upthread who shreds (virtually, of course) any resume that lists a high school after receipt of undergraduate degree, but I'm a woman. I also work in the nonprofit sector, in one of those jobs that is high prestige and low pay. So, not only do I make assumptions about candidates cocky enough to list an elite high school on a resume, I also probably feel like they would be a poor fit for the organization.

Either way, I have found that those candidates don't tend to have the relevant experience that I'm looking for, anyway. One thing about growing up with wealth is that you assume you can do anything, so you apply for jobs that you don't have much qualification for.

Of course, I'll take the St. Alban's resume people over the assholes who get their dad to call the organization's president over an internship position. Those people are terrible.

PP, your STA applicant just MIGHT have been there on financial aid and the child of a parent or two who might work in the nonprofit sector. So please do not make assumptions that the kid is a clueless rich kid with a sense of entitlement. FWIW, the young men I know from STA are fairly well grounded even if they do come from money, but they are NOT all born with a silver spoon in their mouth or taught to act like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At law school, we were all advised to include our high schools for resumes for jobs in the City or town where the high school is located. This was Harvard Law school, so it wasn't as though we were grasping to find some school to gain us a privileged edge that was lacking. The reason for including the high school was to indicate in the resume, without the firm needing to read through a cover letter, that we were from the town where the job was located, which would make it seem we would be more likely to stay. Especially in transient cities like Washington, employers may be more interested in hiring people they believe will remain long-term, rather than get DC experience then move back to their home towns. It made sense to me, so I included my area high school on my resume for DC law firms, but not on resumes going to firms in other cities. All turned out fine.

Good try, but NO!

I mean, if you have a law degree from Harvard but still need your HS credential to set yourself apart from other applicants, you are going to need more than your HS' name to get you the job! And in any professional setting, employers are looking for best candidate, not best "local" candidates!

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I included the name of my high school so that firms would know I would likely remain local. It is a huge cost to law firms to lose associates they would prefer to keep due to the predictable urge to move closer to home. It's not that I "needed"A high school credential, it is that I was a thoughtful person conveying relevant information to potential employers. I received offers from most all of the top local firms, including Covington, Hogan, Wilmer, and W&C, and spent many happy years at one of them before moving to a client. People can have different views on including local high schools, and my high school was not one of the ones frequently written about on this board, but you don't need to be dense about the reasoning.

Also, there may be a gender dynamic going on. Woman I find tend to be much more easily put off by people being explicit about their connections or legitimate successes. I don't think men would find it nearly as offputting. And, for better or worse, men are still doing most of the hiring. I don't think there is one right answer, but I do think men would be more impressed with a candidate being assertive and Balsey enough to include an elite high school on a resume, seemingly acknowledging that the perceived status or connections may be of value to the employer.

This is an interesting observation re: gender. I'm one of the folks upthread who shreds (virtually, of course) any resume that lists a high school after receipt of undergraduate degree, but I'm a woman. I also work in the nonprofit sector, in one of those jobs that is high prestige and low pay. So, not only do I make assumptions about candidates cocky enough to list an elite high school on a resume, I also probably feel like they would be a poor fit for the organization.

Either way, I have found that those candidates don't tend to have the relevant experience that I'm looking for, anyway. One thing about growing up with wealth is that you assume you can do anything, so you apply for jobs that you don't have much qualification for.

Of course, I'll take the St. Alban's resume people over the assholes who get their dad to call the organization's president over an internship position. Those people are terrible.

Pp you are quoting here. I also think there is a gender difference in what jobs people apply to, And that you may well be right but it also applies to people who attend elite schools. Generally, I have found that men believe that they are competent and well-qualified for jobs that they may have relatively little training for, and that they believe in their own smart and that they will be quick studies and the organization will be lucky to have them. Many women, however, seem to avoid applying for jobs unless they are 100% sure that they have fully satisfied all the listed requirements on the job description. These women seem to feel that they are incredibly lucky if offered a job, while the men seem to feel it is really the organization that hire them that is the lucky one. I think this is one of the ways men get ahead. Sadly.

A person only need to get one job. So, if a man applies for 10 jobs for which he is insufficiently qualified, he may still get one. Then, you'll get the good experience of working at the job most likely, and progress from there. Meanwhile, someone who shoots only for jobs that are well within their reach may receive more offers, but will then gained experience at a lower level. Unfair, but sadly true, I think.

[Anonymous]

No dog in this fight but St Albans is impressive and I have never met someone who graduated from this school who wasn't smart and a class act. When you see the jealous folk on DCUM a putting a listing of DCUM a down I think they are jealous folk. If a resume came across my desk with St Albans on it I would be impressed. That's life. Oh and most of the jobs they graduates are applying to get this as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You sound like a really sensitive witch OP. Get a life. No big deal they listed their high school.

Agreed. I've always listed my high school, because I'm proud of all the awards I had gotten. (national merit scholar, other academic awards, scholarships, etc). OP sounds like a beyatch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I am screening resumes, and more than one applicant listed there high school - St. Albans - of the 700 or so other resumes, none listed high schools. What gives? A bit presumptous, eh?

It's his, not "there," and the word you're looking for is pretentious. Ugh, learn to speak English!

^^ this. sounds like OP is uneducated and a little jealous.

[Anonymous]

Like one of the PP stated: TACKY!

Even if the candidate is qualified and impressive, it would still leave a little "negative" taste behind.

Doesn't mean the person can't do the job or rude or anything like that....but I think it would leave the opposite impression of what the candidate is trying to convey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At law school, we were all advised to include our high schools for resumes for jobs in the City or town where the high school is located. This was Harvard Law school, so it wasn't as though we were grasping to find some school to gain us a privileged edge that was lacking. The reason for including the high school was to indicate in the resume, without the firm needing to read through a cover letter, that we were from the town where the job was located, which would make it seem we would be more likely to stay. Especially in transient cities like Washington, employers may be more interested in hiring people they believe will remain long-term, rather than get DC experience then move back to their home towns. It made sense to me, so I included my area high school on my resume for DC law firms, but not on resumes going to firms in other cities. All turned out fine.

Good try, but NO!

I mean, if you have a law degree from Harvard but still need your HS credential to set yourself apart from other applicants, you are going to need more than your HS' name to get you the job! And in any professional setting, employers are looking for best candidate, not best "local" candidates!

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I included the name of my high school so that firms would know I would likely remain local. It is a huge cost to law firms to lose associates they would prefer to keep due to the predictable urge to move closer to home. It's not that I "needed"A high school credential, it is that I was a thoughtful person conveying relevant information to potential employers. I received offers from most all of the top local firms, including Covington, Hogan, Wilmer, and W&C, and spent many happy years at one of them before moving to a client. People can have different views on including local high schools, and my high school was not one of the ones frequently written about on this board, but you don't need to be dense about the reasoning.

Also, there may be a gender dynamic going on. Woman I find tend to be much more easily put off by people being explicit about their connections or legitimate successes. I don't think men would find it nearly as offputting. And, for better or worse, men are still doing most of the hiring. I don't think there is one right answer, but I do think men would be more impressed with a candidate being assertive and Balsey enough to include an elite high school on a resume, seemingly acknowledging that the perceived status or connections may be of value to the employer.

This is an interesting observation re: gender. I'm one of the folks upthread who shreds (virtually, of course) any resume that lists a high school after receipt of undergraduate degree, but I'm a woman. I also work in the nonprofit sector, in one of those jobs that is high prestige and low pay. So, not only do I make assumptions about candidates cocky enough to list an elite high school on a resume, I also probably feel like they would be a poor fit for the organization.

Either way, I have found that those candidates don't tend to have the relevant experience that I'm looking for, anyway. One thing about growing up with wealth is that you assume you can do anything, so you apply for jobs that you don't have much qualification for.

Of course, I'll take the St. Alban's resume people over the assholes who get their dad to call the organization's president over an internship position. Those people are terrible.

Pp you are quoting here. I also think there is a gender difference in what jobs people apply to, And that you may well be right but it also applies to people who attend elite schools. Generally, I have found that men believe that they are competent and well-qualified for jobs that they may have relatively little training for, and that they believe in their own smart and that they will be quick studies and the organization will be lucky to have them. Many women, however, seem to avoid applying for jobs unless they are 100% sure that they have fully satisfied all the listed requirements on the job description. These women seem to feel that they are incredibly lucky if offered a job, while the men seem to feel it is really the organization that hire them that is the lucky one. I think this is one of the ways men get ahead. Sadly.

A person only need to get one job. So, if a man applies for 10 jobs for which he is insufficiently qualified, he may still get one. Then, you'll get the good experience of working at the job most likely, and progress from there. Meanwhile, someone who shoots only for jobs that are well within their reach may receive more offers, but will then gained experience at a lower level. Unfair, but sadly true, I think.

Same poster. Sorry for all the typos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At law school, we were all advised to include our high schools for resumes for jobs in the City or town where the high school is located. This was Harvard Law school, so it wasn't as though we were grasping to find some school to gain us a privileged edge that was lacking. The reason for including the high school was to indicate in the resume, without the firm needing to read through a cover letter, that we were from the town where the job was located, which would make it seem we would be more likely to stay. Especially in transient cities like Washington, employers may be more interested in hiring people they believe will remain long-term, rather than get DC experience then move back to their home towns. It made sense to me, so I included my area high school on my resume for DC law firms, but not on resumes going to firms in other cities. All turned out fine.

If that is what Harvard is advising you, then you appear to be the only one listening.

I've been a lawyer in a top DC law firm for decades and over the years have probably interviewed a thousand law students for jobs, including many, many, many Harvard students. I can probably count on one hand the number of applicants who listed their high schools, and each time it turned me off. Any Harvard Law student who lists his or her high school runs a very high risk of being written off by the interviewer as a schmuck. Why take the chance when there is simply no need for it? If you really want to let the interviewer know where you are from, put your "permanent" address side by side with your school address on the resume. I see that on lots of resumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At law school, we were all advised to include our high schools for resumes for jobs in the City or town where the high school is located. This was Harvard Law school, so it wasn't as though we were grasping to find some school to gain us a privileged edge that was lacking. The reason for including the high school was to indicate in the resume, without the firm needing to read through a cover letter, that we were from the town where the job was located, which would make it seem we would be more likely to stay. Especially in transient cities like Washington, employers may be more interested in hiring people they believe will remain long-term, rather than get DC experience then move back to their home towns. It made sense to me, so I included my area high school on my resume for DC law firms, but not on resumes going to firms in other cities. All turned out fine.

If that is what Harvard is advising you, then you appear to be the only one listening.

I've been a lawyer in a top DC law firm for decades and over the years have probably interviewed a thousand law students for jobs, including many, many, many Harvard students. I can probably count on one hand the number of applicants who listed their high schools, and each time it turned me off. Any Harvard Law student who lists his or her high school runs a very high risk of being written off by the interviewer as a schmuck. Why take the chance when there is simply no need for it? If you really want to let the interviewer know where you are from, put your "permanent" address side by side with your school address on the resume. I see that on lots of resumes.

Well, it was in the mid-1990s, so perhaps at the same time when you were in law school. I've also interviewed law students and graduates for many years. Each year at the firm I saw DC area schools listed pretty frequently. I don't remember how many of course, but it wasn't unusual or particular notable. Different experiences, I suppose.