Resume Critique
-
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.
-
@obsolesce said in Resume Critique:
You put your Employer and your title there. Then you can list your role if you want, and responsibilities.
No, resumes get rules, not titles. Putting a title on a resume as if it is a role is lying. There is no place on a resume for titles. That's not a thing.
-
@scottalanmiller Thanks for clarifying
-
@dustinb3403 said in Resume Critique:
@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.
You HAVE to state that it is a false title if you want to put it there. Never put a false title and list responsibilities as if that makes the false title okay. If you feel compelled to list titles in addition to your role, then clarify that it is a title.
Role: System Admin
Title: Lord of the Universe
Responsibilities: "things that had been be system admin tasks"
