Agreed.
For a simple document, I choose exactly one non-serif font for headings and one serif font for the body.
I guess fonts are kind of like exclamation points – you get one per page (or two, if you want headings).
If I were completely in control of choosing interviewees, these things and grammar/typos would all count. Unfortunately I am usually part of a committee and they overlook the kinds of things I would eliminate people for.
I am perfectly capable of changing fonts but I think it looks silly to mix them on a resume. Of course I am applying for admin/accounting jobs so boring is good. 
I agree that a mishmash of different fonts is a bad thing, but fonts that are good for display are rarely good for body text, and vice versa. To my eye, documents look much more professional when they use a different font for headings. I can’t see that you would ever need to use more than two different fonts (not counting bold/italic variants) in a CV though.
Interesting comments all. My OP was occasioned by a friend who’s a HR professional not liking Times New Roman.
I’d like to add another voice to the “use standard fonts” crowd. If you plan on sending it in word format this could be disastrous. I once created a resume all nice and pretty on my computer with an exotic font. One day (after having sent it to loads of people), I opened it on another machine, and the font change messed up the formatting making it a pain to read.
It sucks but just stick with a common font. There are other ways to make it stand out visually
I recently attended a job search seminar at Right Management, courtesy of my former employer, and the seminar director said to use standard serif typefaces such as Times New Roman and avoid italics or underlining, because many paper resumes are scanned in with OCR software and stored electronically. Something to keep in mind.
Thank you.
Century Gothic, indeed.
In my experience from collecting the resumes and taking them to the people making the decisions, having a readable resume without glaring errors makes it stand out these days. 
So many times, I’ve wanted to call the person sending in a resume and telling them all the errors I saw just glancing at it.
I don’t think you actually want your resume to stand out visually; it’s one of those paradoxical things where you want it to be very standardized so you don’t screen yourself out (Green paper? Garbage. Crazy fonts? Garbage!) What should stand out is that is it obvious that you have put a lot of time and thought into crafting a resume that tells the person reading it exactly what they want to see, in the easiest way possible. What job are you after? Why should we consider you for this job? I think getting too creative with basic things like fonts and paper colour interferes with the important message of your resume.
The managers I used to work with would automatically discard resumes with hard-to-read fonts, that were written in a font that was cutesy, anything other than black or that were on brightly colored paper. I don’t think there’s a “wrong” shade of off-white, but given that everything’s sent via e-mail nowadays, there’s very little point in worrying about the paper. And if you’ve adjusted your resume to the point where it does print out in a different color, it’ll probably be tossed immediately.
In most fields, if it takes any extra effort on the part of the reader to read the resume, it’ll go straight to the trash or deleted items.
I am about as far from an art snob as you can get, but I still think it looks silly. When I get an email in Comic Sans, it feels like the computer equivalent of an adult writing me a letter in crayon.
I agree - in most cases, I think any sense of visual aesthetic pleasure for the reader should come from clean layout, clear, accurate wording and relevant information.
It’s quite possible to read a non-fancy document and get a significant level of ‘wow’, just because the information contained in the document is presented in a way that it flows straight into your brain - that’s the goal in writing a CV/resume - to get the reader to significantly appreciate your personal and professional merits on the first reading.
I mark them up in red and then almost hope that the interviewee (again, called in by the committee, not me) might notice.
Wait, your friend doesn’t like Times New Roman personally, or considers it a bad thing on a resume? And if the latter, why?
She said that with blocks of text TNR was harder to read.
Quartz, you’re a computer professional, right? Consider writing your CV in LaTeX. The default LaTeX font (Computer Modern) is a trillion times better than any font a word processor can provide, both in how it looks and the way that LaTeX kerns and spaces the font.
Is that a graphics people thing? And how large is large?
I’m not a graphics person. I like Times New Roman (actually, at the moment I really like Centaur, but I wouldn’t use it for a resume). And have an irrational dislike of sans serif fonts, but I know some people like them and don’t take negative notes of helvetica or arial on a resume all the way through.
However, if someone is switching fonts back and forth (Job Title, Location, Job description) on a resume, I’ll think “Awww, look who just discovered the font button. How special.” It’s too simple a document for more than one font.
Riiiiight… like novels? And text books? Yeah, they’re so hard to read with all those serifs and tails, that’s why they’ve used it for hundreds of years.
???
I thought the problem was that TNR was designed for print, specifically newspapers. What looks good in a printed newspaper may not work as well for books or electronic documents.