5 ms·

The Red Herring of Red Flags: Why Resumes Are a Relic of the Past

19 points by abhas9 2y ago

addaon 2y ago
"Resumes are a poor proxy for talent." Resumes are not intended to be a proxy for (assessing) talent. They're intended to be a proxy for (assessing) experience. Portfolios, references, and interviews are intended to be a proxy for assessing talent.
- abhas9 2y ago
  IMO, resumes, while ideally intended as experience summaries, often function as gatekeeper proxies, filtering candidates based on arbitrary criteria rather than actual potential. Unfortunately, I too can't think of a good alternative solution that can scale well.
  - jahewson 2y ago
    Hiring on potential isn’t a great strategy though. It’s important to compare candidates on something objectively displayed during in the hiring process, rather than some “potential” that’s a figment of one’s imagination.
    - atq2119 2y ago
      It's not exactly potential. The way I've heard it phrased is: hire for slope, not y-intercept. The trouble is that slope is even harder to judge than y-intercept.
    - abhas9 2y ago
      IMO, Resumes attempt to solve a problem that precedes what some consider the actual hiring process: the need to quickly screen thousands of candidates. Unfortunately, this approach has flaws. The person doing the initial screening may not have a deep understanding of the role and is often working with secondary information. This can sometimes lead to them becoming gatekeepers, filtering based on superficial criteria (like career gaps, job switches, etc)
tlarkworthy 2y ago
In my mind resumes are the trust part of "trust but verify". The resume is evidence the candidate meets the needs of the role description. The job interview verifies the resume is not a work of fiction.
- katzinsky 2y ago
  Yup. Resumes tell you what's in the box but you should actually open the box and check to make sure the label is accurate.
duck 2y ago
> They’re often polished, curated, and tailored to tick boxes rather than showcase genuine skills. I look at a lot of resumes and would say most aren't well polished or curated. They often don't showcase skills either, but it is surprising how bad resumes still are today.
- baxtr 2y ago
  That’s exactly why I believe they are still a good indicator for assessing people. How much effort did they put it? That’s at least a first indicator how much they care about getting the job.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    Mine is written in LaTeX, and converted to PDF with pdflatex. Does that work? :D
    - deng 2y ago
      As someone who gets a ton of resumes from academia, I see these very often. The problem here is that they all look the same because everyone is using the 'moderncv' package. If you want to stand out, invest some time to create your own template (but otherwise, it's perfectly fine, at least you'll have the basic structure correct).
      - johnisgood 2y ago
        Well, I am not using "moderncv" at all. I use three packages: "geometry", "inputenc", and "graphicx". That said, it does not look as appealing as these "creative" resumes (made using HTML & CSS or Adobe Illustrator, etc)
      - 2y ago
DSingularity 2y ago
For me I understood resumes when I interviewed. It’s a pipeline. People are filtering the resume and you show up late in the process to interview. The resume is giving you material. You study it before the interview and based on what’s on it you look for opportunities to casually measure the candidate in a manner most favorable to the candidate himself. If the candidate can’t answer questions which probe the things his resume claims as expertise then it doesn’t bode well.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
spicyusername 2y ago
They're simple, easy to make, easy to read, and perfectly solve the problem of quickly communicating your background to someone in in less than a minute. I have a hard time imagining an alternative.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  Considering the amount of time and attention I put into crafting my resume, I don't consider them to be simple or easy to make.
from-nibly 2y ago
The root of the problem is that hiring doesn't scale. If you try to scale, it falls apart. It doesn't matter if you use resumes or some "objective" coding interview. Hiring is getting to know a lot of people and finding those that align greatly with what you are doing and who is doing it. You can't know that quickly. It sucks but it's the reality.

19 points by abhas9 2y ago

"Resumes are a poor proxy for talent." Resumes are not intended to be a proxy for (assessing) talent. They're intended to be a proxy for (assessing) experience. Portfolios, references, and interviews are intended to be a proxy for assessing talent.

abhas9 2y ago
IMO, resumes, while ideally intended as experience summaries, often function as gatekeeper proxies, filtering candidates based on arbitrary criteria rather than actual potential. Unfortunately, I too can't think of a good alternative solution that can scale well.
- jahewson 2y ago
  Hiring on potential isn’t a great strategy though. It’s important to compare candidates on something objectively displayed during in the hiring process, rather than some “potential” that’s a figment of one’s imagination.
  - atq2119 2y ago
    It's not exactly potential. The way I've heard it phrased is: hire for slope, not y-intercept. The trouble is that slope is even harder to judge than y-intercept.
  - abhas9 2y ago
    IMO, Resumes attempt to solve a problem that precedes what some consider the actual hiring process: the need to quickly screen thousands of candidates. Unfortunately, this approach has flaws. The person doing the initial screening may not have a deep understanding of the role and is often working with secondary information. This can sometimes lead to them becoming gatekeepers, filtering based on superficial criteria (like career gaps, job switches, etc)

tlarkworthy 2y ago

In my mind resumes are the trust part of "trust but verify". The resume is evidence the candidate meets the needs of the role description. The job interview verifies the resume is not a work of fiction.

katzinsky 2y ago
Yup. Resumes tell you what's in the box but you should actually open the box and check to make sure the label is accurate.

duck 2y ago

> They’re often polished, curated, and tailored to tick boxes rather than showcase genuine skills. I look at a lot of resumes and would say most aren't well polished or curated. They often don't showcase skills either, but it is surprising how bad resumes still are today.

baxtr 2y ago
That’s exactly why I believe they are still a good indicator for assessing people. How much effort did they put it? That’s at least a first indicator how much they care about getting the job.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Mine is written in LaTeX, and converted to PDF with pdflatex. Does that work? :D
  - deng 2y ago
    As someone who gets a ton of resumes from academia, I see these very often. The problem here is that they all look the same because everyone is using the 'moderncv' package. If you want to stand out, invest some time to create your own template (but otherwise, it's perfectly fine, at least you'll have the basic structure correct).
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      Well, I am not using "moderncv" at all. I use three packages: "geometry", "inputenc", and "graphicx". That said, it does not look as appealing as these "creative" resumes (made using HTML & CSS or Adobe Illustrator, etc)
    - 2y ago

DSingularity 2y ago

For me I understood resumes when I interviewed. It’s a pipeline. People are filtering the resume and you show up late in the process to interview. The resume is giving you material. You study it before the interview and based on what’s on it you look for opportunities to casually measure the candidate in a manner most favorable to the candidate himself. If the candidate can’t answer questions which probe the things his resume claims as expertise then it doesn’t bode well.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

spicyusername 2y ago

They're simple, easy to make, easy to read, and perfectly solve the problem of quickly communicating your background to someone in in less than a minute. I have a hard time imagining an alternative.

JohnFen 2y ago
Considering the amount of time and attention I put into crafting my resume, I don't consider them to be simple or easy to make.

from-nibly 2y ago

The root of the problem is that hiring doesn't scale. If you try to scale, it falls apart. It doesn't matter if you use resumes or some "objective" coding interview. Hiring is getting to know a lot of people and finding those that align greatly with what you are doing and who is doing it. You can't know that quickly. It sucks but it's the reality.