Someone has suggested to me that CVs should no longer include the ‘personal profile’ bit at the top (the wordy bit where you try to say who you are and what you’re looking for) and should just go straight into the job history.
Any HR/hiring people here that could chip in? I’m based in the UK so it would be helpful if you could add where you’re posting from as I’m sure there are geographical differences.
Cheers!
Brit here, but living in America.
I would separate the “who you are” from “what you are looking for” as these are very separate matters.
I, personally, like to see a bit of personal stuff as it tells me a bit about what sort of person the applicant is. Plus it often opens the door for some easy ice-breaking conversation. However, my experience is that including personal information is much more common in the UK than US. (But my UK knowledge is 12 years old and possibly out of date.)
As for “what you are looking for”, I absolutely want to see that. It drives me nuts when this is omitted. I get a CV/resume with lots of information about experience, and I think “well, that’s very nice, but what sort of job do you want?” It is not always obvious. Someone’s most recent job may have been as a team leader, but am I expected to guess whether they want the same again, or a move into management, or go back to actually doing the work?
Not in HR, but I do interview lots of candidates.
I never look at the bs personal profile. Throw in a line at the bottom listing interests, and I have something to talk with you about at the interview. But I don’t care if you are a “self-starter seeking adynamic organization that supports personal growth.”
The American model seems to be a factual description of your education and work experience (plus awards, publications, and licenses, when needed). It is nuts-and-bolts in the sense that it should contain specific particularized assertions (as in “reduced department operating costs by at least 8% each year”), rather than “factual” assertions about the applicant’s character or aspirations (as in villa’s example).
We also use transmittal letters where that kind of information should occur. The cover letter is a little more tweakable, so to speak, than the way most people treat their resumes. Thus, this model allows you to customize your “personal profile” material to the job and the company your applying to, which has the salutary effect of making less like the hot air that villa disregards.
I don’t know about the British practice, but I think our system has a lot to recommend it. They’d be smart to start using it, if they don’t already (especially in light of the bizarre European practice where they want your picture, and your zodiac sign, and a handwriting sample to analyze).
Resumes for corporate America want your work experience, (plus skills used on that job), plus your education and that’s pretty much it.
The old “personal” section, “references” and “job objective” are now omitted by most. There are still some careers where it makes sense to include this.
Your cover letter should state where you saw the job ad and a one line statement of your job objective.
The idea is most H/R people are busy (or like to think they are) so they want to skim it quick and then pick out the candidates. When you go in for your interview, THEN you can bring up any personal or job objective things directly with the interviewer
It’s really gotten kind of way too automated as some places have everything on a form and don’t even look, they just do a key word search.
Keep resumes short and to the point and be prepared to expand on them at the interview.
I’d like some indication that the candidate has a clue about the job being sought - in other words that he/she actually visited the jobs section of our website. (Not that there is anything there these days.) The stuff you use as an example, which is all too common, is worse than useless, agreed.
I put that info in the cover letter – why I’m applying, where I learned about the opening if there is a definite one, etc. It doesn’t belong on the resume. Besides, even if I did have a “what I’m looking for” section at the top, it would still be somewhat generic and you’d still not know whether I’d seen a specific opening. Also, what if I might be suited to several jobs at the company? Putting information too specific to one would count me out of others.
I frequently interview candidates for positions and I agree with this. In my experience there are three steps in applying for a job. The initial screen where the cover letter is most important-here is where you state what job you are applying for, how you heard of the the position, and a little about yourself. Looking for a “dynamic position in a growing company” is worse than useless. The resume is what gets circulated (the cover letter as well but in my experience it tends to get separated or skipped over by the second level) once the app gets past the check in the box screen. The resume contains work history, education, achievements in previous positions. One critical piece of information: contact info! Make it easy for the person setting up an interview to contact you. Assume that all that person has is the resume. If it takes a week to contact a candidate, the position might be filled. Candidates are selected based on the interview and references.
One of the things I look for when considering candidate is “livability”, I (and others) will be spending a considerable amount of time with that person; I would like to get to know a bit about them.
But I guess it depends on the profession as well.
I’ve never included that, since I’m always open to many possibilities; if I’ve sent the resume for a specific position then it means that position is in my list of “wannas”, but I don’t want to put it into the resume in case someone finds my profile of interest for another position.
I’ve been hired twice for positions which weren’t the one I’d initially applied for. If my resume had said, respectively “I’m looking for QM consulting positions” and “I’m looking for lab tech positions,” I would never have gotten that PM consulting job or that translation.
I’ll say that is kind of irrelevant in the area I am in. I am a lawyer, and the interviewing I do is of law students (and the odd lateral). We are a litigation only firm too, so that cuts it down even further.
I can see how in other positions this information might be useful, though.
As someone who has waded through hundreds, if not thousands, of resumes, any personal information is a waste of time, either because it’s irrelevant, insipid (yes, I know you and everyone else is looking for a “challenging position to utilize my talents” – oh, and don’t say “utilize” when you mean “use”), or just stupid (“Love to party and drink beer in my spare time”).
Rarely, though, it’s been a plus, if it’s interesting enough. One candidate for a computer programmer position, for instance, had “1987 Louisiana Rubik’s Cube Champion” in his “Other skills” section. It was a good conversation starter, and seemed strangely applicable to the job he was applying for. Another applicant put that he was fluent in Esperanto, which was intriguing in a geeky sort of way.
I teach this stuff to college students. I don’t know about personal profiles; perhaps that’s a British thing. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that here. What most of the experts I consult recommend is starting your resume with a Summary of Qualifications in bulleted list form. The list should highlight the skills most relevant to the job you are applying for. If you have the job description, be sure to include those requirements in your list.
The rest of the resume should include work history and education. Any “extras” that describe you personally should be at the bottom and could go under a variety of headings: Awards and Achievements, Publications, stuff like that.
That’s what the interview is for. The resume is a screening tool to select candidates based meeting minimum skill/experience qualifications for the position in question.
I agree that putting avocational achievements at the bottom under “other accomplishments” or some such heading is fine. If you are applying for an executive position but placed 9th in the 2000 Olympic 100m freestyle (beating out Eric “The Eel”), well, that’d be a good factoid about your work ethic, etc. Not to mention pretty damn cool.