ranty rant

[neko_san]

I've had the opportunity to interview a number of people (I'm not a manager, but I'm part of the "people you'll be working with" crowd). It astonishes me how horrible resumes are these days. Way back when I first learned about resumes, it was one page, no exceptions. If you had a lot of experience, edit it down to what's most relevant for the

Comments

[eyelessgame]

Today, resumes are written to be read by people (or bots) searching for buzzwords. As such, a longer resume is more likely to contain the correct buzzwords.

That said, I agree with you that poor proofreading is strongly correlated with poor skills... except in cases where the candidate's native language is not English. In those cases, a resume that follows a consistent set of grammatical rules, even if they don't happen to be our grammatical rules, can speak well of the candidate.

(In fact, I've had poor experiences with people whose native language is not English and whose resume is written in perfect English; it often means the resume was written by someone else, and might not even accurately represent the candidate's actual expertise.)

[hzatz]

I never do the first layer of filtering, so if a candidate has a five page resume, I just pick a random buzzword from page 4, and spend ten minutes of the interview drilling them on it. If it's on the resume, it's fair game.

It's always sad when someone puts something on their resume that they're not really prepared to discuss at length. Or if someone includes buzzwords that they don't actually know the meaning of.