I'm wondering about this question not for application purposes but for post-MBA recruiting. I have a pretty big promotion coming up this summer. I'll have a fancier job title and about a 25% increase in salary. Personally, those things don't mean much to me because I'll never get to enjoy the benefits in terms of responsibilities, type or work, and compensation. But is it worth sticking around for a few extra weeks to get that stuff on my resume? I would have to stay until early July rather than leaving in June. But I would get to have a post-MBA job-title on my resume (meaning this is a position that MBAs are usually hired into).

If it's only a month, I'd say STAY!

I think it's very important to obtain the new job title. I am in a similar scenerio as you and i'm staying with my company until mid-july to have a new title. I believe it's even more important if you plan on staying in the same industry. Staying an extra month is a small sacrifice to potentially help your post-mba goals.

Hmmm... I would be careful of the message you are conveying, i.e. a job held for 1 month is considered not very relevant (and hints at dangerous job-hopping). Plus: how would you state it in your resume?

June 2007 - July 2007
Position: [insert fancy job here]
Responsibilities: I should have been responsible for: x, y, z.
Accomplishments: I was trained during the first 2 weeks and then trained my succesor for the remaining 2 weeks.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Cheers. L.

Does your company know you're going to grad school?

I'm not changing jobs - just progressing with my career. I would be staying with the same company and same function. I would just get to put a better job title on my resume.

I completely agree. It would speak negatively to your character for taking a promotion knowing that you will only stay on for another month.

The reason this came up is that I just had my review with my manager (who also wrote one of my recs). He said I was on track for this promotion and that it would be a nice accomplishment before leaving for school. On my resume I only always list the most recent title and not every singe stage of my career with my company so there's no way of knowing for how long I've had that title.

Can you reasonably merge the future job into the current one?

Eg:

December 2005 - July 2007
Investment Analyst

Achievements: promoted from semi-senior to Senior Analyst based on previous year's outstanding performance.

In such case, I'd take it. Otherwise I'd hesitate a little bit more.

Cheers. L.

I think you should definitely stick around for the promotion, don't think it would reflect negatively at all. I mean the fact that your boss is giving it to you KNOWING that you're on your way out shows that he thinks highly of you.

Plus don't most resumes just show years of employment? Like it could say, "Analyst 2004-2007, Senior Analyst 2007" If anybody cares to get into the details with you in an interview you could explain, "My boss wanted to give me this promotion, unfortunately the way the timing of it worked out I ended up leaving for school soon after the promotion.

Do you guys list out every single job title you've had with the same company even if its all within the same career track? I have just been listing my most recent one and thats what I planned on doing if I got this promotion. This would be my 4th promotion with the company and I'm not going to spell out that I've gone from Jr. Analyst to Analyst to Jr. Consultant to Consultant.

I do list all jobs, but I may be biased coz my evolution is pretty much as follows:

1st job: 2 years
2nd job (abroad): 3 years
3rd (and current) job: 1.5 years.

So I'm forced to spell them out to show the international experience. And the accomplishments and responsibilities have varied a little bit along jobs.

I think merging them should be fine as long as its reasonably clear that you've made progress and how your responsibilities and achievements have evolved along time.

Hope it helps. L.

I broke out my job titles within same company/track only because there were only two levels, I agree that in some cases it would look silly to break out several different levels like you mentioned (jr. analyst, analyst, jr. consultant, consultant).

I'm sure the standard for how to do this varies by industry, my industry doesn't happen to have that many levels in the heirarchy, whereas consulting obviously has many levels.

So yeah, I think you could definitely just put your most recent title down there and then include all the years you worked there. Anybody who thinks that it's "misleading" to do that because you only held that title a short time is crazy.

I guess it all depends on the changes in responsibilities. Maybe, if I had the same track as yours, I wouldn't differentiate, or maybe I would group it by the similarity of the titles. Maybe Analyst as one title and Consultant as the recent title.

But in the interest of keeping the resume to one page, I may group them all together as the most recent title.

One of the admissions guys at Haas said that they LOVE to see all of the promotions you've had. They like to see the movement, especially when it's with one company.

Taking that to heart, I listed each title, but sometimes listed the job duties for two titles together. This was particularly necessary for me, as 3 of my promotions had me doing the same work, but reflected a change in grade and pay, due to additional responsibilities and program growth I had created.

Of course, this is for the b-school resume, not necessarily for all resumes.

I got promoted recently to a nice sounding title that starts with a D and ends with an R. But only time will tell if it will hurt me eventually or not when I'm looking to make a move into a new area.

Necro - Congratulations on your promotion to dishwasher, I think that will definitely make your resume stand out from the pack.





(Kidding, just being a smart-ass. In seriousness, congrats on the directorship, that's very impressive!)

Oh, DIRECTOR! I was thinking Dictator. I guess director is ok too. I once on the steering committee of an uber-feminsit, anti-hierarchy student organization. We each picked our own titles, and I chose First Lord of the Admiralty. I think that's an awesome title, but I didn't put it on my b-school app.

Extra points to the 'Clubber who names the former world leader who once held that title. (but not in the feminist group. Same title, but without the irony.)

Winston Churchill, that's an easy one, btw...

It's either Winston Churchill or me, but I haven't become a world leader just yet, so I'll go with Churchill.

It is a nice title. I wouldn't mind being just a Supreme Overlord though.