I’d consider the terms CV and resume interchangeable.
Because you seem to imply that candidates with the most to offer can’t mention how the company will help in their career.
So having a vagina is a requirement? Men need not apply?
Yes, I think we’ve established the antimale attitude of the company.
Yes, that’s right. She better be young and hot too, with big tits.
That’s such a gross sounding word. Makes 'em seem all pointy and sharp. “I just cut myself on your tit.” sounds like it could happen. Boob, not so much.
Well, THIS is her work uniform…
Yeah! Sounds like a great job, don’t it! Except you’d have to work for you-know-who, and she kinda sounds like a, umm… well, we won’t say…
You’re an idiot who can’t read.
And you are someone people wouldn’t normally voluntarily work for, if they could avoid it. I’d rather shove an ice-pick into my eye, than work for an asshole like you…But, of course, you’re the employer everyone wants to work for, so I guess that’s fine…
Listen genius, I get that you got to the first sentence and couldn’t wait to get your snark on with the ‘You think people shouldn’t make mistakes in job applications and you made one in a message board post!! HUR, HUR, HUR’ comment, but if you had actually read the friggin’ thread, you would notice that I don’t work at the company that’s hiring - my friend owns it and I’m helping him out. The successful applicant will probably never even meet me.
If this is the sort of attention to detail you bring to your job, I’m REALLY glad that you don’t work for me at my actual job, because needing to correct your errors all day would get old.
Anyhoo - I’m done. This thread has gotten to the length where people aren’t actually reading it and just repeating things other people said 2 pages ago, which is annoying.
Also, I’ve been informed that the folks at the snark pit are commenting, using my IRL name, about how much uglier I am now that I had a baby. While this is objectively true - I am much, much uglier now that I had Junior- it still hurts my feelings a bit to have it pointed out. Also, I’m not crazy about my real name being used over there - although I’m not shy about what it is, it’s still a touch creepy to have people using it there. So, with that in mind I think I’ll wander back to my ‘knitted hats for kid with cancer thread’ and hope things die down a touch.
Everyone else is welcome to carry on though - turn out the lights when you’re done. Cheers, etc.
My God. I just googled snark pit. That place is creepy. Like mental disorder, borderline insane creepy.
Borderline?
Really you should ask both. As a candidate you need to sell the benefits of hiring you to the company but you also need to understand what the company will be offering and demanding in return.
I think it is abundantly clear that alice_in_wonderland is getting a lot of unfair criticism in this thread.
Folks, it should be pretty obvious that she was not saying that resumes should be absolutely free from any error whatsoever. Most people who screen resumes would understand that one or two errors is understandable. Rather, she was complaining about people who submit resumes and applications that are chock-full of errors, which is another matter altogether.
Some people snarkily pointed out a few errors in one of her postings. Well, guess what? A message board posting is not the same as a job application, and it should not be held to the same standard of excellence. If you submit a job application or a resume, you need to be extra cautious, especially if it’s the kind of job that requires attention to detail.
Her complaint about applicants who go on and on about ways in which the company would benefit them is perfectly valid. When you’re applying for a job, it is foolish to emphasize ways in which the company would benefit YOU. After all, you are trying to sell your services, so common sense dictates that you should emphasize ways in which you would benefit THEM. If they like you, then they can come back and try to sell you on the benefits of working in their employ.
Much has been said about how she said that the ideal candidate would be a young gal with limited experience or an older woman who is winding down her career. Emphasizing the person’s gender may have been injudicious, but it hardly merits the degree of criticism that she received – especially since the vast majority of positions like these are filled by women. Moreover, no reasonable person would interpret such a remark to mean that only females would be considered, or even that gender is a critical requirement. I certainly did not, and I immediately understood that she was painting a mental picture that is, frankly, the most realistic scenario.
I’m surprised that these things even need to be explained.
This is the internet. If you can’t be contrary, don’t connect. But I agree with you, JThunder. As we’re being contrary to all the other contrary (fill in favorite derogatory term here), we can stay on the internet.
I totally agree with you, alice. I cannot understand the disconnect that some job applicants have about the current employment situation. We recently put out an application for an admin person and we had much the same experience.
Everyone needs to understand that businesses hate to hire people. It’s a huge hassle to find that person and you have a lot of worry at first if the person is going to be a huge fuckup in some unanticipated way. Anything that hints at poor attention to detail or lack of responsibility will move that person to the bottom of the list–if not totally off the list.
Maybe in the past the applicants could have gotten away with more slack. We used to have much fewer resumes to look at. There were fewer diamonds and we were forced to take the effort to find out who would do a good job. But now it’s not like that. With a 100 applications, a few people will really stand out and we’ll start with them. I don’t have the time to spend hours evaluating each and every applicant. Maybe that means I’ll pass over “THE BEST ADMIN EVAR!!!” because there were typos in the resume. Oh well. The reasonably competent admin person will do just fine.
I think I’ve just got a new title line for my resume! 
So an HR person comes in here and whines about doing her job, makes a sexist statement, voices a ton of elitism, and doesn’t expect to be chewed out for it? If I didn’t know better, I’d assume the OP was a troll.
Do you really not get why people would have a problem with this? On a message board full of un- and underemployed workers constantly talking about how horrible HR is? Do you not get why people would not have sympathy for you sorting through some applications and getting more qualified candidates than would be normal? And do you really think that getting all pissy when people treat you the way people are treated in the Pit is not going to make things worse?
It’s really not about whether most of your criteria are reasonable. It’s really not about whose company you are working for. Heck, in some ways, it’s not even about you. It’s about bitchy, self-entitled HR people that we all have to bow down to because the economy is so crappy. None of us like it, none of us want it rubbed into our face, and none of us are going to sit back in the Pit of all places and not say something about it when someone who typifies the mindset comes in here and gripes.
Deal with your fucking applicants however you want, but don’t come whining to us when you easily get to filter out the bad applicants, get a higher percentage of good applicants than would be expected, and apparently have a nice cushy job where you can afford to take time off and help a friend with his hiring situation.
Note, I still think what the people are doing in the SnackPit are shitty as all get out, and am not in anyway trying to defend them. I’m just defending the people in this thread and pointing out an angle I think is obvious that no one else seems to get.
And note that “typifies” above should be “appears to typify.”