Resume Critique
-
@kelly said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Much of interviewing is determining if someone is lying or not. That's why technical questions are asked. If we assumed people were honest, we'd just look at the resume and be done with it. In theory, other than assessing personality, all interviewing is is testing honesty. If we trusted resumes we'd hire based on nothing else. Hiring would be quick, simple, cheap, and automated.
But it isn't, people go to great lengths to make their resumes look great; and employers go to great lengths to figure out what is real. If you put things on the resume that are blatantly untrue and can rule you out before you even waste their time in person, they jump on that. Because typically employers have to eliminate loads and loads of people due to automated submissions systems, recruiters, etc.
So testing for things like blatant dishonesty, or going to schools of questionable reputation (Phoenix, WGU, etc.) that allow them to eliminate people based on those things quickly is very important.
Still not disagreeing with what you're saying. He must go to whatever lengths are necessary to not lie on his resume. My point is that if he puts an entry on his resume that doesn't match the title on record at his employer then he will be lying with regards to what the market expects that entry on the resume to reflect. That is why the cover letter is so critical to avoiding being auto-binned.
I've never met anyone on the hiring side who things that that field is for titles, always for your job role. It's unique to SMB IT that I've heard people claim it is for titles rather. This is definitely not how the world in general works.
Keep in mind, though, that outside of it, role and title are normally linked. So often can be used interchangeably.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@kelly said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Much of interviewing is determining if someone is lying or not. That's why technical questions are asked. If we assumed people were honest, we'd just look at the resume and be done with it. In theory, other than assessing personality, all interviewing is is testing honesty. If we trusted resumes we'd hire based on nothing else. Hiring would be quick, simple, cheap, and automated.
But it isn't, people go to great lengths to make their resumes look great; and employers go to great lengths to figure out what is real. If you put things on the resume that are blatantly untrue and can rule you out before you even waste their time in person, they jump on that. Because typically employers have to eliminate loads and loads of people due to automated submissions systems, recruiters, etc.
So testing for things like blatant dishonesty, or going to schools of questionable reputation (Phoenix, WGU, etc.) that allow them to eliminate people based on those things quickly is very important.
Still not disagreeing with what you're saying. He must go to whatever lengths are necessary to not lie on his resume. My point is that if he puts an entry on his resume that doesn't match the title on record at his employer then he will be lying with regards to what the market expects that entry on the resume to reflect. That is why the cover letter is so critical to avoiding being auto-binned.
I've never met anyone on the hiring side who things that that field is for titles, always for your job role. It's unique to SMB IT that I've heard people claim it is for titles rather. This is definitely not how the world in general works.
Keep in mind, though, that outside of it, role and title are normally linked. So often can be used interchangeably.
Well, I have an opportunity to get a concrete answer here in 30 minutes. I'm meeting with a recruiter from a national agency. I'll ask her, and see what she says.
-
@kelly said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
@kelly said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
Much of interviewing is determining if someone is lying or not. That's why technical questions are asked. If we assumed people were honest, we'd just look at the resume and be done with it. In theory, other than assessing personality, all interviewing is is testing honesty. If we trusted resumes we'd hire based on nothing else. Hiring would be quick, simple, cheap, and automated.
But it isn't, people go to great lengths to make their resumes look great; and employers go to great lengths to figure out what is real. If you put things on the resume that are blatantly untrue and can rule you out before you even waste their time in person, they jump on that. Because typically employers have to eliminate loads and loads of people due to automated submissions systems, recruiters, etc.
So testing for things like blatant dishonesty, or going to schools of questionable reputation (Phoenix, WGU, etc.) that allow them to eliminate people based on those things quickly is very important.
Still not disagreeing with what you're saying. He must go to whatever lengths are necessary to not lie on his resume. My point is that if he puts an entry on his resume that doesn't match the title on record at his employer then he will be lying with regards to what the market expects that entry on the resume to reflect. That is why the cover letter is so critical to avoiding being auto-binned.
I've never met anyone on the hiring side who things that that field is for titles, always for your job role. It's unique to SMB IT that I've heard people claim it is for titles rather. This is definitely not how the world in general works.
Keep in mind, though, that outside of it, role and title are normally linked. So often can be used interchangeably.
Well, I have an opportunity to get a concrete answer here in 30 minutes. I'm meeting with a recruiter from a national agency. I'll ask her, and see what she says.
Recruiters will often lie
It is a national recruitment agency, though, that told me that "Requiring a BS Degree" means "or six months experience", and that has always held up as true in every case I know. So they can be a source of good info.
-
But keep in mind that recruiters don't always have your interest at heart and I have friends who are recruiters and they definitely aren't looking out for you. They are there to make money for themselves and generally they keep large numbers of employees on the line to entice employers and they will say anything to keep you around, and anything to get the highest price from the employer - even if that means placing someone other than you.
So you have to gauge what the tell you in that light. While I've had very honest recruiters who taught me a lot, I've also had recruiters run full on scams where they set up fake employer job sites to run fake interviews to keep people from taking other jobs.
-
Nothing that you want @scottalanmiller matters.
Everything you want would be great, but it is not what actually happens in the real world employment market today.
When looking for employment though the mass market channels, what matters is how the market actually works.
-
Even recruiters, though, don't necessarily get feedback on why people are binned. They only know that a small number of accepted in the end. They often lack visibility, just as the candidates do, as to why employers bin them and never ask for an interview. I've been a full time consultant (so interviewing year round, every few days, years on end) and I've been a hiring manager all over the place from SMBs to several Fortune 100s - and on the hiring side, honestly has always been a priority; and anything that gives you reason to eliminate someone before beginning the expensive hiring process was a big deal.
-
@jaredbusch said in Resume Critique:
Nothing that you want @scottalanmiller matters.
Everything you want would be great, but it is not what actually happens in the real world employment market today.
When looking for employment though the mass market channels, what matters is how the market actually works.
Right, which is why I've made such a huge point of pointing out that that is what we are discussing - how it works in the real world. What I want was brought up by @Kelly and isn't part of anything I've discussed.
-
@scottalanmiller Can we break the Title vs. Role discussion into a new thread? This one is getting cluttered.
-
We know that job verification basically does not exist, and when it does it is in the form of references nearly always, and when that happens, it is always at the final stage of the process. Employers never take the expensive step of calling jobs for verification before they are serious about a candidate. So the entire theory that you get eliminated by not lying and repeating false statements is built on a false foundation.
You can reverse it, no matter how much anyone wants to have the simple answer of "just repeat what your employer told you", it isn't reflected in the real world. My point is that in the real world, there is one thing that works, and one that does not.
-
I heard somewhere to put your title, then the role that actually applies in brackets beside it
-
@flaxking said in Resume Critique:
I heard somewhere to put your title, then the role that actually applies in brackets beside it
But thinking about that now... Is that kind of like calling your previous employer a liar in your resume?
-
@flaxking said in Resume Critique:
I heard somewhere to put your title, then the role that actually applies in brackets beside it
Doing both is fine, but I see no benefit to putting the title. Only makes for clutter and confusion.
-
@flaxking said in Resume Critique:
@flaxking said in Resume Critique:
I heard somewhere to put your title, then the role that actually applies in brackets beside it
But thinking about that now... Is that kind of like calling your previous employer a liar in your resume?
Yeah, which is likely not best to do. You want your resume to be clear and concise. It is the one thing that has to sell you out on its own without you there for explanation. It's job is to get your foot in the door, then in an interview you can talk about whatever you need.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
I'm not sure that I follow. You never put your title on a resume, you put your role. Your role is not network engineer, not even slightly. What they called you is not applicable to a resume, ever. They could call you "Bob the Tech Janitor" and you still just put your role on a resume.
So if my role is IT Manager, should I put IT Manager, ever thought my boss technically has that title?
-
@aaronstuder said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
I'm not sure that I follow. You never put your title on a resume, you put your role. Your role is not network engineer, not even slightly. What they called you is not applicable to a resume, ever. They could call you "Bob the Tech Janitor" and you still just put your role on a resume.
So if my role is IT Manager, should I put IT Manager, ever thought my boss technically has that title?
No because that is lying. You should describe your duties, without a falsified title.
-
@dustinb3403 That's what I thought, but @scottalanmiller seems to state otherwise.
-
It will be a lie if you say your title is something it's not. Your title is what your employer says it is. It doesn't have to match what you do, your duties.
You put your Employer and your title there. Then you can list your role if you want, and responsibilities.
-
@aaronstuder said in Resume Critique:
@dustinb3403 That's what I thought, but @scottalanmiller seems to state otherwise.
Yea. . . . but I wouldn't put CTO on my resume if it wasn't true, even if I was in charge of everything technology related for an org.
Put your titled as it is, and then state what you actually did.
"Systems Administrator"
- Managed a team of 5
- Updated Servers
- managed and developed BDR plan
But don't lie about it.
-
@aaronstuder said in Resume Critique:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Critique:
I'm not sure that I follow. You never put your title on a resume, you put your role. Your role is not network engineer, not even slightly. What they called you is not applicable to a resume, ever. They could call you "Bob the Tech Janitor" and you still just put your role on a resume.
So if my role is IT Manager, should I put IT Manager, ever thought my boss technically has that title?
No, your TITLE is IT Manager, not your role. You do put your role, being the thing that you do. You only put a title if it matches your role (in which case it is still the role that you are putting), or if you clarify that it is a title and not actually what you did.
Example: Title "President of hte Universe", Role: janitor
-
@aaronstuder said in Resume Critique:
@dustinb3403 That's what I thought, but @scottalanmiller seems to state otherwise.
No, I'm crystal clear. You never lie. You always put what is honest.
