3 ms·
> you might have figured out that changing your Resume from using phrases like “I worked on a Java codebase of around 100k LoC, using Spring and React” to ones
by codesections 5y ago
> you might have figured out that changing your Resume from using phrases like “I worked on a Java codebase of around 100k LoC, using Spring and React” to ones more like “I built a widget-shipping feature that shipped 300k widgets and ultimately created $1 million in business value” is a good way of ‘creating value’ in concrete sense of a higher paying job.
Is that actually true, in other people's experience? I would have thought that most people involved in tech hiring would prefer the first version — at least it tells me what technologies you're familiar with. The second one just tells me what somebody else did with your code. Sure, they sold a lot of widgets, but I'd guess that has a lot more to with the quality of the widget than with the quality of your software
- draaglom 5y agoI can't speak for others, but as a hiring manager I prefer the latter because: * It suggests the person understands the bigger picture behind what they're doing (rather than just "punching tickets") * If your code sits in a 'financial critical path', this usually implies stricter requirements in your engineering in some respects -- you'll probably have had to think harder about reliability, cover more edge cases & co-ordinate with others more around requirements
- sokoloff 5y agoI also prefer the second. Tech specifics aren’t anywhere near as important as the ability to be part of a team that finds value. If you are a perfect fit tech skills-wise and can’t think/talk about the business side, you can make progress on our ticket backlog (and so we can still hire you), but if you’re moderately skilled at software in general but can connect that to the business problems, we can definitely use in a variety of spots.