3 ms·
> because they're looking for easy But they're not easy ways. There's absolutely no correlation between resume quality and candidate performance, and they're j
by tomnipotent 5y ago
> because they're looking for easy
But they're not easy ways. There's absolutely no correlation between resume quality and candidate performance, and they're just idiosyncrasies we develop over time. We trick ourselves into believing these signals are important, when they're not.
- imiric 5y ago> There's absolutely no correlation between resume quality and candidate performance I don't think that's entirely true. The resume is a product of a potential hire, and it gives off the first impression of their organizational and writing skills. While it shouldn't be the _only_ deciding factor, that first impression is an important signal for a hiring manager who has to filter potentially hundreds of candidates.
- tomnipotent 5y ago> The resume is a product of a potential hire That's like saying a first date is in indication of a couples future. It's a bit silly. Sure, if it's absolutely chock-full of errors that could be a sign, but one or two are the kind of things you're supposed to ignore. > that first impression is an important signal for a hiring manager Only because people have been trained to judge others based on petty things, so people have responded in kind. Not because it's actually a valuable effort, but to give people one less reason to throw it in the "No" pile.