![]() It is an art to capture your essence concisely. Terseness out respect for the reader, completeness to ensure your candidacy is well represented. Crafting a resume requires balancing terseness and completeness. My big advice is not to take resume length guidelines literally. My take as someone who did hiring (as a manager) for a high profile tech company for 10+ years (not a FAANG but we competed with FAANGs for talent.) I've probably seen close to ten thousand programmer resumes over that time. Keep it short and include only the best results of your work. The only person who is likely to read all four pages is your hiring manager, and if by page 3 it's just a bunch of technologies you used in a now-defunct company back in 1996, it's not going to impress anyone.Īdditionally, the ability to summarize a highly technical and detailed topic down to a very short "executive review" is an important and sought-after job skill. That might be it! All that labor you put into that detailed technical info on page 4 might not even make it out of the printer, let alone get into your interviewer's head. His eyeballs scan the top of the page for interesting "headline" material, and then maybe look at the first two or three bullet points from your most recent employer. In the 2 minutes between his last meeting and your interview, he scrambles to print off a copy of your resume and give it a quick review. ![]() He or she is booked in back-to-back meetings all day. I religiously keep mine to 1 page, and even shorter if possible. Or a company that hires just to fill quotas might put women in positions they aren't actually qualified for. They may want to work at the kind of company that hires them because of their accomplishments, not one that says "oh, we need more women." One reason: a company that hired them because they were a woman may have done so just to fill a quota and there's no genuine interest in them succeeding and advancing.whereas another employer might see their talent and work to help them succeed. To answer "why wouldn't they play that card" - plenty of women know their looks/gender might get them in the door when it wouldn't otherwise, and feel like imposters even if they are highly qualified and a great match for the position. Part of it is that firms and clients want to see a professional image, but yeah, it also brings in all the usual gender/age/ethnic biases. I had a lawyer friend who said that photos were expected on resumes and websites, something she hated despite the fact that she felt she benefited from it. There are also countries and industries where a photo is anywhere from expected to required. Their sobering finding was that African-American applicants with no criminal record were offered jobs at a rate as low as white applicants who had criminal records. They were given identical résumés and similar interview training. In a 2009 study, Devah Pager, Bruce Western and Bart Bonikowski, all now sociologists at Harvard, sent actual people to apply for low-wage jobs. > Other studies have also examined race and employment. In any case, a version of the study with live people, instead of photos, has also been done, and, not surprisingly, shown the same result: But this charitable view of the world has been shown false time and again. Thinking that it might as well go the other way seems to imply that there's just something weird about names, and that people don't really have racial biases. While it's worth pointing out the limits of our knowledge, I wonder why you appear to think it's just as likely that the photo will eliminate the racial bias? If studies have shown that a black-sounding name means fewer jobs, I would think the default hypothesis, until proven otherwise, would be that a black photo would result in the same ends.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |