Resume Update
-
@Obsolesce said in Resume Update:
@Pete-S said in Resume Update:
@Obsolesce said in Resume Update:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
Make sure technology names are correct.
PowerShell is PowerShell, not Windows PowerShell. "Windows PowerShell" isn't a thing.
No, PowerShell is PowerShell, AKA PowerShell (6+) based on .NET Core.
Windows PowerShell is exactly that, Windows PowerShell up to 5.1.
So what's the difference actually? I thought it was the same thing.
They are totally different softwares.
PowerShell starts at version 6 (currently 7.x) and is based on .NET CORE.
Windows PowerShell is up to 5.1 and is based on the standard .NET (non-core version), has all the standard Windows management frameworks (5.1) and all that. I don't know all the technical jargon.
But PowerShell and Windows PowerShell are two separate and different products and very much a thing.
Oh, my bad, it really was its name. What a horrible name, lol.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
@Obsolesce said in Resume Update:
@Pete-S said in Resume Update:
@Obsolesce said in Resume Update:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
Make sure technology names are correct.
PowerShell is PowerShell, not Windows PowerShell. "Windows PowerShell" isn't a thing.
No, PowerShell is PowerShell, AKA PowerShell (6+) based on .NET Core.
Windows PowerShell is exactly that, Windows PowerShell up to 5.1.
So what's the difference actually? I thought it was the same thing.
They are totally different softwares.
PowerShell starts at version 6 (currently 7.x) and is based on .NET CORE.
Windows PowerShell is up to 5.1 and is based on the standard .NET (non-core version), has all the standard Windows management frameworks (5.1) and all that. I don't know all the technical jargon.
But PowerShell and Windows PowerShell are two separate and different products and very much a thing.
Oh, my bad, it really was its name. What a horrible name, lol.
Haha, that made me lol.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
I feel it is weird that you list Windows versions, but not other versions.
I debate listing versions. Upon thinking about it, at least in the Windows world, versions don't really matter. Let's say I'm 100% n00b and green and only had Server 2019 in my lab. If I had a job with non-current Windows server, I could find my way around. Also, further thinking about it, it seems doubtful that hiring managers are really looking for a specialist in non-current versions of Windows server -- or if they are, the question becomes "why are you having to hang on to these legacy systems? Does your company have a plan for migrating to current?"
I am curious about the Linux side of the world, but I suppose the same idea applies. If all of my experience has been with CentOS 7 and 8, I could probably function if I was in an environment with 6.x, though there would be some learning involved.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
What is the difference between these two roles? Since IT uses "System" to mean "Server" instance, these two titles make no sense....
IT System Administrator (September 2019 – Present)
IT Server Administrator (February 2018 – September 2019)The only thing that as a hiring manager I can guess from seeing this is that you are confused as to terms and don't know what you were doing or you moved from being a bench tech doing rack and stack and literally managing server hardware (bench work, not IT) and got promoted into an IT role in systems.
Also, using "IT" in front of it makes no sense. Server/System are IT tasks. Are you saying that you only worked for servers that weren't used by the business and only by the IT department internally? So like an intern role? I don't think that that is how you want to portray that. And that's what that implies and/or it makes you sound like someone's grandparent calling it "The Facebook" or something. It just doesn't sound natural or make logical sense to refer to IT roles with "IT" in the front of them unless you truly intend to imply that IT is part of the role. It implies that finance system admin, operations systems admin, etc. are out there and are the far more senior departments because they make the money.
This gets to the issue of a functional title contrasted against a employer-given title. Both of these are the titles bestowed to me by my employer. I agree the "IT" part sounds odd. About a year ago, I earned a promotion, which included a title change. The only real change in job function was I became generalist + the primary admin for Exchange + more of a go-to person for answers about much of the rest of our environment.
Generalist for this environment = is mostly Windows systems (System Center Suite, Windows Server, Office 365), Citrix NetScaler administration, and some other applications (Cisco AMP, One Identity Active Roles)
This brings the following points / questions.
- Ought I re-write my current title as I did for my A Closer Look position?
- I suppose the date ranges listed should reflect the time at the company, rather than per title, especially since job functions were mostly the same.
- If I do list a single title that altered to fit the actual role rather branding from HR, I would have to give consideration on how to mention the promotion.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
Provided ad hoc remote hands support for NTG (ntg.co)
You can punch this up a bit. And I often drop the verbs, the can be awkward in bullet points.
Something like...
Regional Premises Technician for Global IT Outsourcer ntg.co
I agree
-
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
This is pretty good, but I'd keep iterating and tightening it up. Some thoughts...
*Designed a FreePBX VoIP system using Vultr VPS and Twilio SIP trunking
•Consolidated physical servers into a Hyper-V 2016 virtual environment
•Migrated E-mail system from on-premises MDaemon to Exchange Online
•Developed PowerShell scripts to automate Exchange mailbox management
•Implemented centralized user authentication using Active Directory
•Configured user workstations using group policy
•Deployed user support request management system using Spiceworks
•Managed software license compliance
•Created IT documentation using DokuWiki
•Trained and supported end-users
Same list but tighter...
- Implemented FreePBX telephony platform
- Consolidated & Virtualized to Hyper-V
- MDaemon On-Premises to Microsoft 365 migration
- Exchange automation via PowerShell
- Implemented Active Directory & Group Policy
- Managed software licensing and compliance
- Created documentation processes & platform
I dropped a few things, the lists are too long. Notice I didn't mention who your cloud vendor or SIP vendor are. I don't add versions of things. I take out the unnecessary stuff that no one will care about. A SIP trunk is a SIP trunk, no need to name drop. No one is going to hire you because it was Twilio. Keep it short and sweet so that it gets read.
And like AD, you don't need to explain it. This feels awkward and you want to be in a position where you are being interviewed by people who know what AD is. If you have to explain what AD is, there is a problem and you want to avoid that situation.
I dropped some things like installing spiceworks because at some point, you don't want to be listing things like "I double clicked on a exe to install it" because it implies to the reader that you feel that that's notable, and it implies that you are listing every task you did and that this is all that there was.
This part was a copy/paste job from my old resume, and it needs to be edited, and this will be my guide for said edit: "I take out the unnecessary stuff that no one will care about."
-
@IRJ said in Resume Update:
If you have done any AD upgrades or migrations those are worth noting, however, but overall I agree with @scottalanmiller
Talking about supporting end users is a waste of space and using specific platforms for documentation is a turn off, because its unlikely the new employer would use the same platform. So yeah his list is pretty good.
In retrospect, I ought not have deployed AD there.
I do agree about supporting end users. For the current position, I do think it's useful to keep (in some fashion) the bit about training colleagues. -
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
So this isn't wrong, per se, but it's weird. Legally, your personal company is a company and you can list it as a place of work. But as an LLC, it's also "just you" and counts generally as self employed unless you have many owners and you have a salary and file a W2 and even then, "it depends".
But in this context, your LLC is a personal one and it's just you. And it's clear from the bullet points that this is true. And it's not like you are hiding that. It's not dishonest or anything, it's just odd.
The work you have listed under it doesn't go together or really make sense. Some of the world is IT and for another vendor, so that should be listed under that vendor (ntg) not your LLC, because you are a payroll handling entity in that case. You always list for whom you work, not who writes the checks (same rules the IRS uses.)
Everything listed on there is side projects, but it's listed much like it is full time employment. I have overlapping dates on my resume, but this is because each entity can claim me as a full timer, because I actually work double gigs.
So for a resume, this stuff normally goes in a "side projects" or "other" area, not as a full time job in the chronological career history listing.
Also, listing your personal lab under a corporate entity is very odd. Because we assume you weren't paid on a W2 and filed income taxes against the time used for your lab, and if you did, why?
This was another piece with which I struggled, and I think I just needed to get this on paper so I can see it, think it through, and re-write into something better. I agree this ought to be listed as a "Side Project" kind of thing. In addition, I can make mention of the lab, which would seem to be less odd.
The few times I make purchases for the lab, I expense that to the LLC, since the function of the lab is to improve my skills to use in the projects I do as the LLC (and to better me as an IT Professional) -- this point though, is likely worthy of a thread all of its own.
-
@Obsolesce said in Resume Update:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
Make sure technology names are correct.
PowerShell is PowerShell, not Windows PowerShell. "Windows PowerShell" isn't a thing.
No, PowerShell is PowerShell, AKA PowerShell (6+) based on .NET Core.
Windows PowerShell is exactly that, Windows PowerShell up to 5.1.
Truth be told, I didn't realize there were fully separate products, but it does make sense.
-
@Pete-S said in Resume Update:
Nobody mentioned it afaik but I would consider removing everything music related. That could be covered elsewhere. It's not relevant to IT unless the company is involved in it somehow.
True. I've completed the career transition from music education to IT. I just feels odd to not include my degrees
On one hand, I understand degrees are more of a symbol of seeing something through, which is a good quality. On the other hand, outside of soft skills learned from being a professional educator, they are irrelevant to IT. -
I'll be working on another edit, which I'll post in a bit. I can always rely on you folks to get me thinking and considering
-
@Obsolesce said in Resume Update:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
@Obsolesce said in Resume Update:
@Pete-S said in Resume Update:
@Obsolesce said in Resume Update:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
Make sure technology names are correct.
PowerShell is PowerShell, not Windows PowerShell. "Windows PowerShell" isn't a thing.
No, PowerShell is PowerShell, AKA PowerShell (6+) based on .NET Core.
Windows PowerShell is exactly that, Windows PowerShell up to 5.1.
So what's the difference actually? I thought it was the same thing.
They are totally different softwares.
PowerShell starts at version 6 (currently 7.x) and is based on .NET CORE.
Windows PowerShell is up to 5.1 and is based on the standard .NET (non-core version), has all the standard Windows management frameworks (5.1) and all that. I don't know all the technical jargon.
But PowerShell and Windows PowerShell are two separate and different products and very much a thing.
Oh, my bad, it really was its name. What a horrible name, lol.
Haha, that made me lol.
Like what if BASH was called Linux BASH. Like... what? What does the OS have to do with it? -
@EddieJennings said in Resume Update:
@Pete-S said in Resume Update:
Nobody mentioned it afaik but I would consider removing everything music related. That could be covered elsewhere. It's not relevant to IT unless the company is involved in it somehow.
True. I've completed the career transition from music education to IT. I just feels odd to not include my degrees
On one hand, I understand degrees are more of a symbol of seeing something through, which is a good quality. On the other hand, outside of soft skills learned from being a professional educator, they are irrelevant to IT.The degrees are one thing. But the career stuff is what I think you want to remove.
-
@EddieJennings said in Resume Update:
y around. Also, further thinking about it, it seems doubtful that hiring managers are really looking for a specialist in non-
oh - what a wonderful world you and Scott live in
-
@EddieJennings said in Resume Update:
@scottalanmiller said in Resume Update:
I feel it is weird that you list Windows versions, but not other versions.
I debate listing versions. Upon thinking about it, at least in the Windows world, versions don't really matter. Let's say I'm 100% n00b and green and only had Server 2019 in my lab. If I had a job with non-current Windows server, I could find my way around. Also, further thinking about it, it seems doubtful that hiring managers are really looking for a specialist in non-current versions of Windows server -- or if they are, the question becomes "why are you having to hang on to these legacy systems? Does your company have a plan for migrating to current?"
I am curious about the Linux side of the world, but I suppose the same idea applies. If all of my experience has been with CentOS 7 and 8, I could probably function if I was in an environment with 6.x, though there would be some learning involved.
I used to list versions, and now I don't. But if you list them, list them all.
-
New draft coming tomorrow evening. Still have a few more tweaks to do before I present a second draft.
-
@Dashrender said in Resume Update:
@EddieJennings said in Resume Update:
y around. Also, further thinking about it, it seems doubtful that hiring managers are really looking for a specialist in non-
oh - what a wonderful world you and Scott live in
Ha! Unless there's some kind of position where the main project is to move off of some legacy OS, I'd be wary of a position advertising "Need Windows Server 2012 R2 specialist"
-
@Dashrender said in Resume Update:
@EddieJennings said in Resume Update:
y around. Also, further thinking about it, it seems doubtful that hiring managers are really looking for a specialist in non-
oh - what a wonderful world you and Scott live in
Do I need to remind you that employment is a choice?
@EddieJennings is making a valid argument that he doesnt want to work for someone like that.
Also, if your potential employer turns out to be bad, you can leave. This isn't India where you are bound to your employer until they release you. You can leave anytime and work for anyone else.
-
Yeah I agree with @scottalanmiller This promotion does not look much like a promotion.
I would maybe call one
IT System Administratorand the otherIT System Administrator III understand these arent your official titles, but you need to do something to show an actual promotion, because otherwise its just too confusing.
Remember, they dont call your company to verify until after you sign the offer. Put whatever title you want as long as it accurately reflects your responsibilities. Verification is done after hiring, and 99% chance they wont care since they have interviewed you and know your actual skills. If it ever comes up (it wont), you just tell them that is how you showed your promotion on your resume. The official titles made it difficult. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation that anyone would understand.
-
I think you should skip versions completely. It's just too much detail and if you have been doing it long enough it looks ridiculous.
For example, experience with Windows 2.03, 3.0, 3.1, WFW 3.11, NT3.1, 95, NT3.5, 98, NT4, Me, 2000, XP, 2003, 2008, 7, 2012, 8, 2016, 10, 2019. Probably missed a few.
