3 ms·
I think the only really uncommon thing here is that they're spending a full 15 seconds per resume. :) When I put together a resume, I figure I have about 3 sec
by beej71 5y ago
I think the only really uncommon thing here is that they're spending a full 15 seconds per resume. :)
When I put together a resume, I figure I have about 3 seconds to get them to decide to continue reading the resume. So I do my best to put in whatever it takes to accomplish that (within the bounds of truth).
No one reads a resume straight through; they skim for the highlights they want to see.
The more skimming passes you get them to make over your resume because you've kept their interest up, the more likely the interview.
And if you're thinking that a resume is a poor format for getting this job done, you're right. :)
- Cd00d 5y agoWhy don't you have a recruiter paring down the number of resumes dramatically so that you can actually give each one that passes that review adequate reading?
- recursive 5y ago1. Recruiters are expensive. 2. It's hard to find a recruiter who doesn't increase your incoming resume volume without a corresponding increase on quality or fit. As far as I can tell recruitment has settled into a stable equilibrium of being a volume game.