5 ms·

I would think that the other interpretation of this result is just that many engineers suck at writing resumes, which is totally plausible. In fact, one could a

I would think that the other interpretation of this result is just that many engineers suck at writing resumes, which is totally plausible. In fact, one could analyze this in the current data set by looking at the total number of correct predictions versus the different resumes in the set. A well-written resume would then be one which results in correct predictions most frequently. You'd then have two dimensions for each resume - quality as judged by the author and signaling accuracy in the resume itself. I've seen resumes in all corners of that plot, so I can't say that I'd throw out the resume straight away, but it does indicate that there is some large gap between what hirers want and what candidates think they want.

itsdrewmiller 12y ago
What is the interpretation to which you are proposing an alternative?
- klochner 12y ago
  That resumes are an objectively bad communication/evaluation tool.
  - itsdrewmiller 12y ago
    I think that's a stronger statement than is intended in the article - theoretically if people wrote resumes differently they could be good, but the way they are used now, they are bad. You're providing a theory as to why they are bad now, but not really contradicting anything in the article.
    - TTPrograms 12y ago
      "Resumes just aren’t that useful" "...at the end of the day, the resume is a low-signal document." "Longer-term, how engineers are filtered fundamentally needs to change." The conclusion seems to be that resumes are fundamentally flawed.
    - itsdrewmiller 12y ago
      Probably just arguing semantics at this point. I think "engineers need to all learn how to write resumes differently from how any of them do now" qualifies as a pretty fundamental change. Although I guess you really only need to get the good ones to do it. :-)
      - marcosdumay 12y ago
        From my conclusions, that's also a valid take-away. Looks like it goes both ways. Companies will gain better candidates if they stopped using resumes, and engineers will land better jobs if they started creating resumes that are different from what everybody else writes.
pekk 12y ago
If a large number of people suck at writing resumes enough to throw off a search, the question is raised of why you are first and foremost evaluating candidates for their ability to write resumes.
kabouseng 12y ago
Since technical writing is part of an engineers job requirements, I would argue that an engineer incapable of writing a decent resume is already at a disadvantage.
- eigenvector 12y ago
  Resumes are inherently hard to prepare because the requirements are often deliberately withheld. Granted, if a resume has basic formatting, spelling or grammar problems that's a big red flag, but other than basic linguistic elements it's not really a fair way to evaluate someone's technical communication skills. Some companies treat the job posting itself as a type of puzzle you're expected to guess at with your cover letter and resume. Also, a lot of job postings are terribly written, extremely vague or otherwise problematic, so it's not a one-sided problem. It's hard to know if you're meeting the employer's needs when their posting is asking for someone who could engineer a mission to Mars on their lunch break and will work for $50,000 and 1 week of vacation.
  - tempestn 12y ago
    In the intro of the article, it stated that the strongest signal of applicant quality found on resumes was the number of typos and grammatical errors. Perhaps that was an exaggeration or even a joke, but if not, I would agree that this should be a red flag, regardless of a person's qualifications. (I would similarly judge a potential employer on the quality of their job posting. I know when I write a job posting I go to a great deal of effort to make sure it reads well and reflects our company as well as possible.)
  - kabouseng 12y ago
    "Granted, if a resume has basic formatting, spelling or grammar problems that's a big red flag" I agree. The same could also be said about a companies job posting. If the job posting is "vague or problematic", it also indicates the company has no idea of what skill set they need. This has many parallels with a client not properly being able to specify his requirements. Usually if a client cannot properly specify his requirements, he also underestimate the amount of work / cost it will require to develop. The same with a job posting, if they cant properly specify a job posting, an employer also might think the job is easy or he can pay someone peanuts to do it.
threatofrain 12y ago
I propose an alternative or complimentary idea. That cultural inertia guides not only that employers expect the same kinds of data, but also that employees do the same. If employers wanted to, they could start the ball rolling by simply requesting for more predictive data up-front. Candidates often make specific designs to the company they are applying to. Then companies can filter these candidates out to control the load on expensive interviews. I'd also say that if a company wants an introspective hiring system, they would naturally pursue a strategy where you identify the kinds of predictors (exclusive or inclusive) you want and request them in resume or some screening test that goes with the resume.

itsdrewmiller 12y ago

What is the interpretation to which you are proposing an alternative?

klochner 12y ago
That resumes are an objectively bad communication/evaluation tool.
- itsdrewmiller 12y ago
  I think that's a stronger statement than is intended in the article - theoretically if people wrote resumes differently they could be good, but the way they are used now, they are bad. You're providing a theory as to why they are bad now, but not really contradicting anything in the article.
  - TTPrograms 12y ago
    "Resumes just aren’t that useful" "...at the end of the day, the resume is a low-signal document." "Longer-term, how engineers are filtered fundamentally needs to change." The conclusion seems to be that resumes are fundamentally flawed.
  - itsdrewmiller 12y ago
    Probably just arguing semantics at this point. I think "engineers need to all learn how to write resumes differently from how any of them do now" qualifies as a pretty fundamental change. Although I guess you really only need to get the good ones to do it. :-)
    - marcosdumay 12y ago
      From my conclusions, that's also a valid take-away. Looks like it goes both ways. Companies will gain better candidates if they stopped using resumes, and engineers will land better jobs if they started creating resumes that are different from what everybody else writes.

pekk 12y ago

If a large number of people suck at writing resumes enough to throw off a search, the question is raised of why you are first and foremost evaluating candidates for their ability to write resumes.

kabouseng 12y ago

Since technical writing is part of an engineers job requirements, I would argue that an engineer incapable of writing a decent resume is already at a disadvantage.

eigenvector 12y ago
Resumes are inherently hard to prepare because the requirements are often deliberately withheld. Granted, if a resume has basic formatting, spelling or grammar problems that's a big red flag, but other than basic linguistic elements it's not really a fair way to evaluate someone's technical communication skills. Some companies treat the job posting itself as a type of puzzle you're expected to guess at with your cover letter and resume. Also, a lot of job postings are terribly written, extremely vague or otherwise problematic, so it's not a one-sided problem. It's hard to know if you're meeting the employer's needs when their posting is asking for someone who could engineer a mission to Mars on their lunch break and will work for $50,000 and 1 week of vacation.
- tempestn 12y ago
  In the intro of the article, it stated that the strongest signal of applicant quality found on resumes was the number of typos and grammatical errors. Perhaps that was an exaggeration or even a joke, but if not, I would agree that this should be a red flag, regardless of a person's qualifications. (I would similarly judge a potential employer on the quality of their job posting. I know when I write a job posting I go to a great deal of effort to make sure it reads well and reflects our company as well as possible.)
- kabouseng 12y ago
  "Granted, if a resume has basic formatting, spelling or grammar problems that's a big red flag" I agree. The same could also be said about a companies job posting. If the job posting is "vague or problematic", it also indicates the company has no idea of what skill set they need. This has many parallels with a client not properly being able to specify his requirements. Usually if a client cannot properly specify his requirements, he also underestimate the amount of work / cost it will require to develop. The same with a job posting, if they cant properly specify a job posting, an employer also might think the job is easy or he can pay someone peanuts to do it.

threatofrain 12y ago

I propose an alternative or complimentary idea. That cultural inertia guides not only that employers expect the same kinds of data, but also that employees do the same. If employers wanted to, they could start the ball rolling by simply requesting for more predictive data up-front. Candidates often make specific designs to the company they are applying to. Then companies can filter these candidates out to control the load on expensive interviews. I'd also say that if a company wants an introspective hiring system, they would naturally pursue a strategy where you identify the kinds of predictors (exclusive or inclusive) you want and request them in resume or some screening test that goes with the resume.