Part-time or not?

[Eddie_Vedder]

I've got a question.

Let's say you work part-time (15-20) hours a week - position could be sports reporter, sports photgrapher, TV or print, doesn't matter.

How do you list this on a resume?

Is it necessary to list it as "Part-time Sports Photographer" or is "Sports Photographer" OK?

If you don't preface it with "Part-time" are you being deceptive? If you just go with "Sports Photographer" should you mention in the job description part of the resume that it was only 15-20 hours, or would this be something you would mention in the interview?

I guess what I'm asking is, does the number of hours you worked per week matter (should it be specifically laid out) or is a photographer a "Photographer" no matter how many hours worked?

 

[slappy4428]

"Sports Whatever" Daily Blab, then the rest of the stats... dont lead anyone to believe you were fulltime, but dont highlight it either -- unless you're cool with mentioning it. But never lie.

 

[In Cold Blood]

I like Slappy's take...

The skills you used and developed on the job were probably the same whether you spent 25 hours or 40 doing it. I wouldn't draw attention to your part-time status - focus on your abilities. Don't conceal it either, though.

 

[slappy4428]

I like Slappy's take...

I can put THAT on my resume too...

 

[fishwrapper]

"Sports Whatever" Daily Blab, then the rest of the stats... dont lead anyone to believe you were fulltime, but dont highlight it either -- unless you're cool with mentioning it. But never lie.

George O'Leary thinks this is bad idea.

 

[slappy4428]

You don't have to embellish, you don't have to lie. You were a writer, say you were a writer; don't say fulltime if you dont want. Mention your duties, mention your beat.
In fact, I do have a part-time job of three years from 10 years ago on my resume and mention it was part time. But I also say what I did and what I covered on the resume.

 

[HejiraHenry]

I agree that "part-time" does not have to be part of the job description.

But you can't be misleading. I do think you have to reference your actual status in some fashion on the resume.

This may be the kind of case where a "skills resume" works better than a straight chrono job.

 

[spikechiquet]

Lie your ass off...if you get an interview, you can always slip that in...right? LOL

At least you get a free one-on-one with the boss.

Just kidding, you should mention that you weren't full-time, but not make a big deal out of it at the same time.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

Generally, I wouldn't mention whether I was full-time or not, with a caveat: If you're going to emphasize your work in quantifiable terms (ie, --Produced 12 section front and five A1 stories) then those numbers take on added relevance. That number is more impressive if you were working part-time, I would think, than if you were working full-time.

 

[Gold]

Absolutely no need to mention whether it was part-time or not. Don't lie about it if somebody asks you - that IS a problem.

 

[Birdscribe]

Absolutely no need to mention whether it was part-time or not. Don't lie about it if somebody asks you - that IS a problem.

Bingo.

I had a great PT gig -- my first one at a 180k paper -- on my resume. Considering I covered two local small colleges, backed up on NFL and hockey and was one of the de facto GA's (at 35 hours a week), there was no reason to say I was part-time and diminish my status when I was doing the work of a full-timer.

I wasn't lying at all. My resume states my job functions -- all of which are truthful. Not a syllable of embellishment.

HejiraHenry is on to something with the skills format. That may be the way to go for you. Given the stigma that part-timers -- even talented ones -- have with way too many SE's, there's no reason to put it down.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

I think you have to mention it. I believe most hiring editors assume any job listed is full time unless listed otherwise, and if you get an interview and have to explain that no, it was really a part-time job, it could hurt your standing with that paper, the chain and possibly other papers in the region.

Best not to risk it.

 

[spikechiquet]

I think you have to mention it. I believe most hiring editors assume any job listed is full time unless listed otherwise, and if you get an interview and have to explain that no, it was really a part-time job, it could hurt your standing with that paper, the chain and possibly other papers in the region.

Best not to risk it.

Good point MM, that would be a bad situation when they ask:"So how long where you full-time?"
Ummm, ahhhh, well...

 

[Birdscribe]

I think you have to mention it. I believe most hiring editors assume any job listed is full time unless listed otherwise, and if you get an interview and have to explain that no, it was really a part-time job, it could hurt your standing with that paper, the chain and possibly other papers in the region.

Best not to risk it.

Good point MM, that would be a bad situation when they ask:"So how long where you full-time?"
Ummm, ahhhh, well...

Worked for four papers FT and not once did this question come up in any interviews.

My point is this: the moment you volunteer you're part-time, eyebrows will raise and the majority of SEs will go into EGO mode...

Eyes Glaze Over.

At that, you probably torpedo your chances at a good many papers. Fair? Not hardly. But a great many SEs view part-timers through the lens of "If you were really worthy of consideration, you'd be full-time."

Yes, it's bull****e, but there was a thread about this a year or so ago that many SportsJournalists.comites chimed in, validating this very point.