I'm retired now, so thankfully don't have to look at CVs any more. I was a university/college instructor, so over the years I reviewed many, many CVs of applica

I'm retired now, so thankfully don't have to look at CVs any more. I was a university/college instructor, so over the years I reviewed many, many CVs of applicants for computer science teaching positions. Some comments on the blog post and the other comments here. a) If I saw a CV with a picture, I'd call up HR and ask why they let the picture through. Pictures, and even names, give information that can be (and has been) used to discriminate on racial and gender grounds, among others. I always wanted to hire the best candidate, based on track record. Pictures provide no useful information here. b) When I got the CVs, I'd look primarily at what they say the applicant has done, rather than formal qualifications. CVs then went into 3 piles: worth interviewing, worth interviewing if nobody in the previous group pans out, not worth interviewing. I would tend to give each CV about 1 minute of attention in doing this, because in my experience the interview tells you a lot more than the CV. A CV is primarily for getting one's foot in the door, and announcing interest in the position. My alltime favorite CV was one I reviewed for hiring a successor when I was leaving a university teaching position. The job posting specified “Masters or PhD in computer science required”. The applicant's CV detailed some very low-level education in a field completely distant from computer science. The cover letter said “I recognize that I may not have all the background needed for this position. If so, could you please tell me where I could get it.”