4 ms·

Why should there be? Resumes have to be read by humans to judge if they match what is needed. Checking boxes and matching buzzwords only gets you so far.

threeseed 5y ago
Resumes go through many systems i.e. job sites, recruiters, HR, hiring managers and are often poorly parsed by many of them. It's not like people are managing dozens/hundreds of candidates with a pen/paper. There is definitely a need for a standard format.
- scollet 5y ago
  I think the most charitable and equitable function would be sorting and solving without filtering. It shouldn't take too long to parse the desirable skills from the top after that. Maybe this standard can match against desired/offered compensation brackets as well to get that sweet spot on the bell curve.
duxup 5y ago
I think because some things like work history, education, they lend themselves to pretty standardized fields. And we have to keep filling them out by hand ...
- PeterisP 5y ago
  On the other hand, when you get a bit experienced, you have to filter your resume instead of just submitting everything, and the filters are different for every company, showing the things that are most relevant. E.g. some internship or award or early ten years ago should be included if the topic is relevant for the role and left out otherwise; the six different positions you had during your tenure at a large company may be important in one application to illustrate that you have done a particular role as well, and a waste of space for another application. On the other hand, it makes all sense to have a standard "full" CV out of which to select the things to include.
yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
Because many job applications make me check boxes already; I'd rather automate filling the same details into forms over and over again.
otherme123 5y ago
We are weeding out based on superficial and incomplete data all the time. When you go to a supermarket with plenty of options to buy tomato sauce, you don't read the ingredient list of everyone of them. Maybe you do a first skim towards some "bio" tag section, or to the cheapest one. Once there you scan for known brands, and only when you get only two or three remaining options you read the fine print. Same when choosing a partner: the first thing you use to filter are looks, assuming the risk of filter out a below average looking person that will be your perfect match. We, of course, delude ourselves into thinking that our method is 100% objective and unbiased. But it never is. Even if you read each one of the 1,000 CVs, you won't read the first one with the same energy you read the 950, and it's likely that you anchor on a given CV that you read among the first 20, and everyone after that is meassured against it. CVs are by themselves only a proxy to a real person: why don't skip the CV and just interview everyone? Nobody's life fits in two pages.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
Makes it easier to spam them out when it's job-hunting time. On the HR side, they already filter on asinine keywords in the ATS. Why not join their game?

threeseed 5y ago

Resumes go through many systems i.e. job sites, recruiters, HR, hiring managers and are often poorly parsed by many of them. It's not like people are managing dozens/hundreds of candidates with a pen/paper. There is definitely a need for a standard format.

scollet 5y ago
I think the most charitable and equitable function would be sorting and solving without filtering. It shouldn't take too long to parse the desirable skills from the top after that. Maybe this standard can match against desired/offered compensation brackets as well to get that sweet spot on the bell curve.

duxup 5y ago

I think because some things like work history, education, they lend themselves to pretty standardized fields. And we have to keep filling them out by hand ...

PeterisP 5y ago
On the other hand, when you get a bit experienced, you have to filter your resume instead of just submitting everything, and the filters are different for every company, showing the things that are most relevant. E.g. some internship or award or early ten years ago should be included if the topic is relevant for the role and left out otherwise; the six different positions you had during your tenure at a large company may be important in one application to illustrate that you have done a particular role as well, and a waste of space for another application. On the other hand, it makes all sense to have a standard "full" CV out of which to select the things to include.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

Because many job applications make me check boxes already; I'd rather automate filling the same details into forms over and over again.

otherme123 5y ago

We are weeding out based on superficial and incomplete data all the time. When you go to a supermarket with plenty of options to buy tomato sauce, you don't read the ingredient list of everyone of them. Maybe you do a first skim towards some "bio" tag section, or to the cheapest one. Once there you scan for known brands, and only when you get only two or three remaining options you read the fine print. Same when choosing a partner: the first thing you use to filter are looks, assuming the risk of filter out a below average looking person that will be your perfect match. We, of course, delude ourselves into thinking that our method is 100% objective and unbiased. But it never is. Even if you read each one of the 1,000 CVs, you won't read the first one with the same energy you read the 950, and it's likely that you anchor on a given CV that you read among the first 20, and everyone after that is meassured against it. CVs are by themselves only a proxy to a real person: why don't skip the CV and just interview everyone? Nobody's life fits in two pages.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

Makes it easier to spam them out when it's job-hunting time. On the HR side, they already filter on asinine keywords in the ATS. Why not join their game?