Why do people suck at writing resumes?

Writer-slash-runner wrote:

We could not find anyone... We're going to have to train someone...

oh boo hoo hoo, gonna have to train someone. White collar industries are spoiled ROTTEN.

Frustrated interviewer wrote:

1) Keep it to 1 page unless you are Bill Gates or equivalent

I know that this is the rule of thumb, but honestly, if you have worked more than 2-3 years, one page should not even be close to enough to allow you to describe what you did during that time.

yupfsdfsdfs wrote:

Frustrated interviewer wrote:

1) Keep it to 1 page unless you are Bill Gates or equivalent

I know that this is the rule of thumb, but honestly, if you have worked more than 2-3 years, one page should not even be close to enough to allow you to describe what you did during that time.

I 100% disagree. You should be able to summarize 2-3 years of work into 4-5 SHORT bullet points that would most interest an interviewer. The interview is the time to elaborate, not the resume.

Frustrated interviewer wrote:

yupfsdfsdfs wrote:

I know that this is the rule of thumb, but honestly, if you have worked more than 2-3 years, one page should not even be close to enough to allow you to describe what you did during that time.

I 100% disagree. You should be able to summarize 2-3 years of work into 4-5 SHORT bullet points that would most interest an interviewer. The interview is the time to elaborate, not the resume.

how would that make you stand out in a pile of 500 other resumes? 4-5 short bullet points wouldn't even scratch the surface on what I have done. The point of a resume is to highlight my accomplishments, not to satisfy an arbitrary need to not spill onto two pages. The two page limit is nothing but generally accepted practice pushed by HR/recruiters who don't want to read.

'Ph.Ds.'

Is this the sort of thing you are talking about

Doclove wrote:

'Ph.Ds.'

Is this the sort of thing you are talking about

What's wrong with that? I guess they should have a period after D, but is that a big deal on a message board post?

Proper procedure should be for some HR person to weed out the completely obvious losers and send the rest on to whoever will actually decide who to hire.

It does not and should not be 1 page in many cases. Of course the important stuff should be on page 1 and be easy to read.

Honestly, the point I'm getting at is that most HR people are incompetent boobs.

Frustrated interviewer wrote:

I had several principles drilled into me when I was in school, and each of these are being violated like the women in Donald Trump's life:

If your company is OK with HR personal making that kind of biased jokes within the parameters of first impression... then don't expect the quality of applicants to go up anytime soon... :-(

nope, resumes are one page. CVs can (and should) be longer.

not billy bush wrote:

Frustrated interviewer wrote:

I had several principles drilled into me when I was in school, and each of these are being violated like the women in Donald Trump's life:

1) Keep it to 1 page unless you are Bill Gates or equivalent

It was drilled into you in school because entry level positions only need one-page resumes. No one expects someone with 30 years experience at 8 different jobs to keep it to one page - although it sounds like someone like that would not be a good fit for your position. All the rest of your principles are just the most basic qualifiers for anyone.

Blah Blah. wrote:

Their resumes are designed to filter out certain management types. They don't want to work for managers who view resume wording as being more important that their technical competence.

You failed the test. Sorry.

Wow, what a coincidence. I asked this a couple of times in the last couple of days but nobody answered my question!

You say: "...more important THAT their technical competence."

Isn't it THAN? Or is THAT correct and am I missing something?

English is not my first language, I am really serious about this!

Why is nobody willing to give me a answer to this question? In the past I have asked this numerous times, also on other forums and websites, but probably it's just a too difficult question to answer!?!?!.

Thanks in advance.

Great question, Geoff. I would like to know the answer too :)

'Than' would be correct for this because he is using it to compare two things.

GeoffreyM wrote:

Blah Blah. wrote:

Their resumes are designed to filter out certain management types. They don't want to work for managers who view resume wording as being more important that their technical competence.

You failed the test. Sorry.

Wow, what a coincidence. I asked this a couple of times in the last couple of days but nobody answered my question!

You say: "...more important THAT their technical competence."

Isn't it THAN? Or is THAT correct and am I missing something?

English is not my first language, I am really serious about this!

Why is nobody willing to give me a answer to this question? In the past I have asked this numerous times, also on other forums and websites, but probably it's just a too difficult question to answer!?!?!.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks man. That's what I thought but on forums I see people using 'that' so often, 7-8/10 times, that it really made me question myself.

John Lawson wrote:

I see that you received my resume. We should totally connect since we are both runners.

On the very slim chance you are the guy I'm interviewing, the folks in my group who know you have very positive things to say about you. Don't stress that I vented frustrations about your resume here -- I place much greater importance on those recommendations than the typos.

(but I recommend cleaning up your resume for the future)

Frustrated interviewer wrote:

Why am I interviewing this guy?

You're not interviewing him. You're reading a resume. Why don't you have him come in and get a feel for the man? Look him in the eye, shake his hand, hear the confidence in his voice, and get a feel for the man.

That's how you do an interview. Reading resumes...you're just wasting your own time.

And is this a skilled position? If it is, see his skills in action, not how well he writes about his skills.

Frustrated interviewer wrote:

John Lawson wrote:

I see that you received my resume. We should totally connect since we are both runners.

On the very slim chance you are the guy I'm interviewing, the folks in my group who know you have very positive things to say about you. Don't stress that I vented frustrations about your resume here -- I place much greater importance on those recommendations than the typos.

(but I recommend cleaning up your resume for the future)

In case you are a new manager who hasn't yet figured this out...

Your minions will not provide positive feedback for the most competent candidates... they provide positive feedback to candidates who would be fun to have a beer with after work and who would not be a threat to their own position within the company.

Blah Blah. wrote:

(but I recommend cleaning up your resume for the future)

In case you are a new manager who hasn't yet figured this out...

Your minions will not provide positive feedback for the most competent candidates... they provide positive feedback to candidates who would be fun to have a beer with after work and who would not be a threat to their own position within the company.[/quote]

Thanks for your concern, but you really have no idea of the situation.

Blah Blah. wrote:

Frustrated interviewer wrote:

On the very slim chance you are the guy I'm interviewing, the folks in my group who know you have very positive things to say about you. Don't stress that I vented frustrations about your resume here -- I place much greater importance on those recommendations than the typos.

(but I recommend cleaning up your resume for the future)

In case you are a new manager who hasn't yet figured this out...

Your minions will not provide positive feedback for the most competent candidates... they provide positive feedback to candidates who would be fun to have a beer with after work and who would not be a threat to their own position within the company.

It's true :) Antonio alsways has trouble finding a job because he is a really strong, confident alpha with better genes than 99% of the general population.

I on the other hand am a out and proud Cuck that gets offers left and right.I am no threat and I dont mind paying for after work snacks and drinks. I can even hook you up with my wife - then if she and Antonio approve of you, you can have some fun with them.

Frustrated interviewer wrote: RE: Why do people suck at writing resumes?

What I'd like to know is why prospective employers suck at writing job descriptions. Is it that hard to be transparent?

1. Don't ask me to provide my salary requirements. Clearly tell me what the job pays and that it's non-negotiable. Don't play games with the applicants and you'll immediately weed out the people you can't afford.

2. Clearly state the requirements...education, experience, etc. Don't be vague, and make it clear that there is no wiggle room.

3. Clearly state the time requirements. Don't invite me for an interview, offer me the job and THEN tell me that I'm expected to abandon my personal life and devote it to your company...24/7/365.

4. Clearly state the benefits. Same concept as being up front about pay.

If employers don't want to waste their time looking at crappy resumes and suffering through unproductive interviews, then they need to do their part in communicating the TRUTH to potential applicants.