151–156 of 156 posts
Not good. * Has a graphic which must be interpreted simply to find the last few projects the candidate worked on. * Uses a proportional diagram scheme that is (a) worse than pie charts (an achievement) and (b) requires a color coded legend to illustrate the simple clause: "[Project Name]: Rails, CSS, jQuery". * Straightjackets the candidate's work experience into "technology used" instead of "accomplishments earned".…
More broadly, I feel like "technology used" is a pretty weak indicator of how well they'll do. An applicant may have used C for 20 years and be a "C expert," but have poor application/system design sense.
Many hiring managers (and their technical staff) I've talked to lately have been only superficially interested in the technologies (languages, frameworks, etc.) I've used, and much more curious about how I go about solving problems and designing overall solutions. Several have flat-out said they're hiring smart, motivated, creative people, and are happy to train new hires on parts of their technology stack with which they're unfamiliar.
So I agree that an accomplishments-based approach might make more sense. I think it's useful to still indicate what technologies you've used, as it can show things like technical breadth, and a willingness and desire to learn new things. But, "I'm a C expert of 20 years, and I can fill in function bodies based on other people's designs like a pro," is much less impressive than, "I just started learning Ruby 3 months ago, but I designed and built Complex System from scratch with it." Sure, there's a lot of room in between those two extremes, but focusing on "technologies used" doesn't really give you much information.
The best resume is no resume. Don't tell me where you've worked show me what you've made. Don't tell me what certificates you have, show me what you can do no. The best way for me to know what you can do in the future is to see what you've done in the past, and are doing right now. I hope resumes die out. At least in software anyway. On a related note, I think I just might be at a point in my career where I never nee…
Well, you might have heard the story about how C creator Ken Thompson was asked to take a mandatory language test at Google before being able to check-in code :) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/ken_thompson_take_ou...
Ken: "Uh... 37 years?"
Recruiter: "Liar!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe things are different in the US, but "earned 64 college credits before graduating from high school" sounds pretty anomalous to me -- isn't that half a degree?
"isn't that half a degree?" Probably not. Most "college credit" earned in US high schools is unfocused coursework that gets you out of (some of) your general-ed requirements. Lots of universities won't even transfer the stuff, and if they do, it's not typically treated as real college credit. Aside from that, thanks to the prevalence of AP courses it's much easier (and more common) for high school kids to get college…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have an anomalous school story. Feel free to revise my recommendation if you are some kind of crazy child prodigy and you think it's going to help you to point that out.
Maybe things are different in the US, but "earned 64 college credits before graduating from high school" sounds pretty anomalous to me -- isn't that half a degree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what if she just happens to be a mediocre developer designer hybrid? This exposure is very likely going to be a stepping stone to a better job than she'd get without it. Your example is about a stunt unrelated to showing qualifications. This actually shows some. It shows some history, and shows what skills were used where. Is she a perfect ubergod? Nope. Does she smile and perfect ruby fall from the sky? Probably…
I'm not sure how you got elitism from what I wrote. I just mean that praising somebody because something they did generated some controversy is going too far in the opposite direction.