Re[2]: Resume fonts

Subject: Re[2]: Resume fonts
From: Eric Ray <ejray -at- OKWAY -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 13:13:14 CDT

I wouldn't want to consider you flame bait either, but
a functional resume isn't ALWAYS (I don't know about
usually) intended to obscure the work history.

I use a functional resume because my experience (as
measured in tasks, responsibilities, and assignments)
is far more important than my job history (OSU Computer
Center, self-employed hither and yon, and my 3 month
writing stint for a company which folded rather

I include a traditional list of worked at XXXXX from
MMYY to MMYY, job title ZZZZZ, but the meat of my
experience goes under Traditional Writing and Editing,
Computer Skills, Online Information, etc.

Do any of the rest of you screen based on resume types?
How do you react to "non-traditional" resumes, and how
unconventional is OK? I consider readable and clear, if
unusual to be unconventional. Unreadable or bizarre
resumes (purple wingDings on pink paper written in Pig
Latin) are obviously out.

ejray -at- okway -dot- okstate -dot- edu

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Resume fonts
Author: Karen Steele <karen -at- bilbo -dot- suite -dot- com> at SMTP
Date: 6/10/94 12:34 PM

> I have
> heard of other criteria for making the "first cut." When Bonnie described
> the environment she was working in at the time, you can understand why she
> dropped a resume as soon as she saw a negative. If she still came out with
> six people to interview, I guess that method's as good as any.

At the risk of becoming flame bait, I must admit that as a hiring manager I
generally cut resumes that were not ordered chronologically. The reason: I
attended a resume workshop that stressed the best way to handle "problems" in
your resume is to do a "functional" resume. My feeling was/is that the cover
letter is the place for functional highlights -- the resume is where I was
for job experience.

Of course, I also cut resumes w/ bad grammar, spelling & typos -- because I
thought that meant the writer didn't proof their own work. (I always try to get
multiple writers to proof any new version of my resume.) I didn't count off for
fonts, production values or typewritten resumes -- I just assumed these folks
were preparing their resumes at home & didn't have the equipment. (Some
people have equipment -- others have children -- or so I'm told.)

What do others look for?

Karen Steele
(no children, lots of toys...)

Previous by Author: Georgia Tech http projects
Next by Author: Posting Problems
Previous by Thread: Re: Resume fonts
Next by Thread: Sexist Language & Mike LaTorra

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads