Here’s the sentence as my wife wrote it:
“Given my strengths in strategy design, critical thinking and policy analysis; I am confident that I have both the skills and mindset you require.”
She thinks that it’s appropriate to separate clauses that themselves contain commas by using a semicolon. I think that a simple comma should be used in its place, as there’s not enough complication to warrant a semicolon.
So, who wins the $5?
You do. There is no reason to use a semicolon there. You use a semicolon to link independent clauses, as here; one of yours is dependent on the other.
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/semicoln.html
But that is two independant clauses; isn’t it?
The first clause a dependant clause, which should be attached to an independant clause with a comma. Semicolons are used for connecting two independant clauses. The way to recognize the difference is that “Given my strengths in strategy design, critical thinking and policy analysis.” would not be a grammatical sentence. Semicolons are used in essentially the same places as periods.
Former professional copyeditor here. I wish like hell I could cite, but we’re in the middle of moving and my Chicago Manual of Style is already packed. Take this professional but unsupported opinion for what it is worth:
Because of the “and” between “thinking” and “policy,” which makes the three items an ordinary list, plus the lack of item-internal commas, a semicolon is not necessary for sense.
As the esteemed Hummingbird suggests, if your clauses were independent, it’d be a whole other ball of wax. However, even with dependent clauses, there are some instances in which a semicolon would be warranted.
If any of the items in the list (“strategy design” “critical thinking” & “policy analysis”) themselves contained commas, it could potentially be difficult to ID the difference between an item-set comma and a series comma. Your example does not exemplify this situation.
In my office, the test is always “Is it clearer with the additional punctuation?” If not, no go.
No. Do you think “Given my strengths in strategy design, critical thinking and policy analysis” qualifies as a sentence on its own? It modifies the other clause.
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/claustyp.html#dependent%20clauses
The simple test for independent clauses is whether each could stand alone as a complete sentence. “Given my strengths in strategy design, critical thinking and policy analysis” would not qualify.
Or, on preview, what Colibri said.
Christopher, you are a naughty, naughty boy.
Another seasoned copyeditor here. Not only is the semicolon unnecessary, it’s downright incorrect.
Point goes to emilyforce.
Honestly: I had read the last half as an independant clause, but I hadn’t bothered to read the first half. Clearly, no semicolon is required there.
Betting and semicolons really don’t mix. Can you picture one drinker in a bar (maybe a newspaper people’s bar?) telling another “5 bucks sez that semicolon lands on my glass foist!”?
A semicolon would work if the sentence were recast like this: “I have proven strengths in strategy design, critical thinking and policy analysis; I am confident that I have both the skills and the mindset you require.”
–I’d insert “the” before “mindset” as shewn 'cos I don’t think the definite article should have to work too hard for its living, and “skills” has already exhausted the previous one.
Thanks, everyone. I was nearly positive that the semicolon shouldn’t have been in the original sentence. It just looked so damn wrong. But here are two follow-up questions (feel free to go against me this time, as there’s no money riding on these bonus rounds 
)
(1) Were I writing the sentence, I would have inserted a comma in between the second and third items on the list (i.e., “Given my strengths in strategy design, critical thinking, and policy analysis, …”), because if I were to say it out loud, I’d insert a pause there. What’s the opinion there? Unnecessary but allowable? Necessary? Unnecessary and incorrect?
(2) Getting more in depth into what emilyforce mentioned about “item set” commas and “serial” commas, I believe the sentence would be correct if it were expanded to something like, “Given my strengths in strategy design, critical thinking, and policy analysis; my experience in local, state, and federal levels; and my background in technology, policy, and education; I feel that …” Here, the semicolon is acting as a “serial” comma, and helps to break up my “lists of lists.” I’ve also seen the semicolon used in this way referred to as a “supercomma.” Same questions as in (1) – is the semicolon in my new sentence unnecessary but allowable? Necessary? Unnecessary and incorrect?
Who knew semicolons were so much fun! [Damn, should that ! be a ? or maybe an interrobang?]
Unnecessary but allowable. It’s essentially a matter of style.
It’s “independent”; get it right!
The use of the serial comma is a matter of style, not “correctness.” Some style manuals recommend it (University of Chicago), others reject it (AP).
Personally, I prefer it because it often (although not always) improves clarity.
In that specific case, it is unnecessary but allowable. However, in other cases, as mentioned in the link, it may be necessary to remove ambiguity. E.g.:
In this case it is perhaps not absolutely necessary but allowable to improve clarity. As per the link in my first post:
I would say that this does not apply to the example in your OP because there is only one item in the “list.”
Now you’ve gone and opened a can of worms. There are few subjects more prone to start huge debates than the serial comma.
Shouldn’t the semicolon go before the last quotation mark?
Hey, if we’re talking about copyediting here . . .
No, because the writer is emphasizing the word independent. The semicolon is not part of it.
As I just indicated, it may be better to use italics in such a case.
Have any of you folks read the book Eats Shoots and Leaves ? The writer does a great job of explaining punctuation.
In US usage (at least in Chicago style), a semicolon goes outside the quotation marks; a period or comma goes inside them. (There may be exceptions.)