4 ms·

Why what's problematic in the resume?

andsoitis 1mo ago
1. Most items describe activity rather than impact. 2. The language contains too many errors for a senior candidate. “agentic devlopment”, “MFP … initative”, “the Veteran Affairs” rather than “the Department of Veterans Affairs”, “I begun my career”, “kept me going and interesting in consulting”, “problems that’s been ailing them”, “tight knit” should usually be “tight-knit”, “on-going” should be “ongoing”, “around ~3x weekly” is redundant, “Deployed changes to help reduce noise of the maintaining of…” is difficult to understand, “Extended dynamic application placements from Glitch’s internal mappings…” is nearly unintelligible. 3. Generic positioning 4. The resume lacks prioritization, which as a hiring manager I will interpret as they'll struggle with prioritization in their work too. I wish them all the best, but reaching for conspiracy (am I on a list?) when you haven't introspected and critically evaluated what you put out there, signals to me they will continue to struggle.
- welcome_dragon 1mo ago
  Yes exactly
- jackyalcine 1mo ago
  Useful feedback (sans the soft insulting, lol) and I can update my resume accordingly
  - Rastonbury 1mo ago
    Apart from those throw your CV into AI get guidance on how to make it more relevant to the roles you apply for, tailoring CVs is now table stakes when everyone does it. You don't agree blindly or copy verbatim with the AI but just as critique
- sph 1mo ago
  A hiring manager dropping a resume based on minor stylistic issues rather than actual competence of the person? Fork found in kitchen.
  - bdzr 1mo ago
    I think it's completely fair game. This is the singular document that gets put in front of employers. Ostensibly the person has put a lot of effort into it, and they haven't even run it through spell check? What are they going to do for our company once they get comfortable? It's a buyer's market - he should spend the hour with an LLM iterating on his resume.
  - locknitpicker 1mo ago
    > A hiring manager dropping a resume based on minor stylistic issues rather than actual competence of the person? Perhaps it is easier to understand once you acknowledge hiring managers don't handle a hand full of applications at a time but hundreds, and half of them are dropped right at the first round. What compels you to spend your time pulling this candidate into an interview round over anyone else? The candidate clearly didn't even bothered with a spell check.
    - finaard 1mo ago
      I've worked at places very popular with candidates before, and was involved in hiring. For the first screening a CV/cover letter would get roughly one minute of our time. If it took longer than that to get an overview of what you claim your skills are you were out. Same if anything made reading it harder, which includes lots of spelling mistakes.
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
  - elijaht 1mo ago
    This is a disingenuous comment. Half of the issues pointed out are more than stylistic (activity instead of impact, generic/no prioritization). Even without stylistic issues it's not a compelling resume. And basic spelling mistakes are more than a stylistic issue, it shows a real carelessness that it's hard to imagine wouldn't be in their work
cco 1mo ago
Biggest thing that jumps out is lack of stability. Almost none of their roles are longer than a year, several under 6 months. That can be bad luck, but taken as a whole, many recruiters and/or hiring managers are going to pass over this resume.

1. Most items describe activity rather than impact. 2. The language contains too many errors for a senior candidate. “agentic devlopment”, “MFP … initative”, “the Veteran Affairs” rather than “the Department of Veterans Affairs”, “I begun my career”, “kept me going and interesting in consulting”, “problems that’s been ailing them”, “tight knit” should usually be “tight-knit”, “on-going” should be “ongoing”, “around ~3x weekly” is redundant, “Deployed changes to help reduce noise of the maintaining of…” is difficult to understand, “Extended dynamic application placements from Glitch’s internal mappings…” is nearly unintelligible. 3. Generic positioning 4. The resume lacks prioritization, which as a hiring manager I will interpret as they'll struggle with prioritization in their work too. I wish them all the best, but reaching for conspiracy (am I on a list?) when you haven't introspected and critically evaluated what you put out there, signals to me they will continue to struggle.

welcome_dragon 1mo ago
Yes exactly
jackyalcine 1mo ago
Useful feedback (sans the soft insulting, lol) and I can update my resume accordingly
- Rastonbury 1mo ago
  Apart from those throw your CV into AI get guidance on how to make it more relevant to the roles you apply for, tailoring CVs is now table stakes when everyone does it. You don't agree blindly or copy verbatim with the AI but just as critique
sph 1mo ago
A hiring manager dropping a resume based on minor stylistic issues rather than actual competence of the person? Fork found in kitchen.
- bdzr 1mo ago
  I think it's completely fair game. This is the singular document that gets put in front of employers. Ostensibly the person has put a lot of effort into it, and they haven't even run it through spell check? What are they going to do for our company once they get comfortable? It's a buyer's market - he should spend the hour with an LLM iterating on his resume.
- locknitpicker 1mo ago
  > A hiring manager dropping a resume based on minor stylistic issues rather than actual competence of the person? Perhaps it is easier to understand once you acknowledge hiring managers don't handle a hand full of applications at a time but hundreds, and half of them are dropped right at the first round. What compels you to spend your time pulling this candidate into an interview round over anyone else? The candidate clearly didn't even bothered with a spell check.
  - finaard 1mo ago
    I've worked at places very popular with candidates before, and was involved in hiring. For the first screening a CV/cover letter would get roughly one minute of our time. If it took longer than that to get an overview of what you claim your skills are you were out. Same if anything made reading it harder, which includes lots of spelling mistakes.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
- elijaht 1mo ago
  This is a disingenuous comment. Half of the issues pointed out are more than stylistic (activity instead of impact, generic/no prioritization). Even without stylistic issues it's not a compelling resume. And basic spelling mistakes are more than a stylistic issue, it shows a real carelessness that it's hard to imagine wouldn't be in their work

cco 1mo ago

Biggest thing that jumps out is lack of stability. Almost none of their roles are longer than a year, several under 6 months. That can be bad luck, but taken as a whole, many recruiters and/or hiring managers are going to pass over this resume.