3 ms·
> It's not a good analogy the way you put it, because having more than one employer in and of itself is so very common that it's hard to be biased against it.
by croon 9y ago
> It's not a good analogy the way you put it, because having more than one employer in and of itself is so very common that it's hard to be biased against it.
Your parent compared one (1) gap year in a resume being a red flag for the explicit reason that they might leave again, to someone else having switched employers atleast once, for the exact same reason given by GP.
It's a totally apt analogy. Leaving is leaving.
Your further reasoning doesn't change this analogy. Many employment changes in a resume is no different to many gap years, in regards to the initially stated premise.
- V-2 9y agoI disagree. Taking a gap year is a bigger career disruption than simply changing employers. It's not by coincidence that one is much more common than the other. The willingness to do former indicates lesser degree of dependence (or sense of dependence) on an ongoing employment than mere willingness to trade one job for another. That's why the "leaving is leaving" line of argument doesn't speak to me.