34

I have listed Ruby as a skill on my resume becuase I've been programming in Ruby for 5 years while I work on my Ph.D. thesis. I've mostly been using it to implement natural language processing algorithms.

I'm starting to look for a job, and I posted my resume to a few sites (as an extra bonus when applying to certain on-target jobs). Now I get recruiters calling me to offer me Ruby on Rails jobs. The problem is that I've never learned Rails. It was never relevant to what I'm doing for my Ph.D.

How do you recommend handling this situation to avoid wasting my time and theirs? (And learning Rails probably isn't an option until I finish my thesis.) Can my resume be adjusted to make this clearer? Should it be adjusted? Should I just politely tell them on the phone that I don't know Rails?

By the way, the relevant part of my resume simply says:

Skills:

Programming Languages: C, C++, Java, Scala, Ruby, LaTeX

Databases: MySQL, XML, XPath

and lists a few other skill areas that couldn't possibly be confused with a Rails developer.

Improve this question
10
  • 11
    +1 for bringing up a problem that will be faced by anyone with Ruby on his or her resume. This is a very common phenomenon. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:10
  • 25
    XML counts as a database now? Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:12
  • 2
    Don't take it personally, recruiters are playing a numbers game. They get paid for successful matches, so the job market is like an intellectual meat market. If you match their search they will offer the job. That's all they can do. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:16
  • 6
    @Ken Bloom: Languages would do in a pinch, but I usually add a third category for "Technologies" that aren't really languages or databases. Frameworks and things like XML typically land in there for me. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:28
  • 4
    @Slokun, XML is a perfect example of a semistructured database. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-structured_model Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:50

8 Answers 8

Reset to default
20

This is a good question.

I would leave your resume alone. It's good to filter out languages you are not comfortable working with, but do not filter out frameworks. You don't know what version of your resume will be sitting on someone's desk when they become interested in you. By the time they see it, you might be a well-versed Rails developer.

With that, I would much rather have a dozen calls about Rails opportunities just to have one turn out to be plain Ruby. Recruiters tend to think ruby == rails so don't confuse them.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    So, then I suppose I should be asking the recruiter a couple of quick questions to verify whether the job is a web development job (presumably requiring Rails) versus some other job (where the recruiter has confused Ruby with Rails)? Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:19
  • 3
    @Ken: Yes. A lot of recruiters are calling you based on a set of vague (to us) criteria. I like it when I am able to control how opportunities are filtered instead of someone else deciding for me. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:20
  • 2
    +1 for leaving an opening for the plain Ruby opportunity Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 19:35
28

You could tell them you're very good with Ruby (assuming you ARE good with Ruby) and that you'd be willing to learn Rails as a part of a new job (assuming you ARE willing and interested to learn the Rails framework). On-the-job training is not that uncommon. I had to pick up JavaEE, Spring, Hibernate on the job. I had Java and web apps (not in Java) so they figured I could adapt.

In general, don't put negatives on a resume such as "Ruby but NOT Ruby on Rails", it just doesn't look good.

Improve this answer
12

To a recruiter ruby = rails. It's not right, and it's a very narrow view of the Ruby world, but that's how a recruiter processes buzzwords. It would be like equating Django with Python, but the majority of the demand for Ruby jobs is for Rails applications. It will take time and another killer app to make that distinction.

Improve this answer
5
  • 6
    ...or ruby == rails... Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:14
  • 15
    No, they've redefined ruby in their minds. They've fallen prey to that assignment vs. equality operator error. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:17
  • 1
    that or you're writing in Pascal. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:24
  • Nice escape...however you then go on to mention equating...not assignment in a few sentences down the road. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 19:06
  • 2
    :P Doh! You're too quick... Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 19:30
4

Nothing that you do on your resume will stop 90% of recruiters from contacting you about Rails jobs. Just develop a thick skin and cultivate patience.

Improve this answer
1
  • +1, even with no mention of Ruby they will ask you for whatever they are currently looking for. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:37
1

Ruby with no rails? -10 to being fashionable :)

Put "willing to learn rails", better than 'no rails' :)

Improve this answer
1

I would leave it as is and just list Ruby.

I would also spend 1 hour boning up and if you know Ruby well, there's not that much to know.

  • It's Model-View-Controller.

  • The models represent database tables through the rails ORM, mapping models and attributes to tables.

  • Functionality such as authentication can be done through 'gems'.

  • html is created through 'ERB' templates.

  • Low cost hosting solutions exist, e.g. Heroku.

Improve this answer
0

Recruiters who are calling are tytpically first level screeners. They make calls on a daily basis. Think of them as salesmen. Telling them no means you might be interested. In addition if they are not at a technical scale Ruby and Rails may be synonymous to them.

Tell them politely when they call that you are not familiar with Rails and would prefer to focus in a Ruby only environment; the portion of your resume you listed looks adequate and I would not suggest changing it based on the current issue.

Improve this answer
-2

Clarify

You could clarify that you don't have Rails experience by putting "not Rails" at the end. That is if you really don't want any Rails jobs. This has the downside of automatically limiting your options as it indicated you don't know, and have no interest in learning Rails.

Learn

Why not learn Rails? If you really know Ruby well, Rails should be easy. Then you can say Ruby / Rails and open yourself up to more opportunities.

Improve this answer
8
  • 5
    I would advise against putting negatives in a resume. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:08
  • Would love for someone to explain the downvote. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:08
  • @Frustrated: That was listed as one possible option. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:09
  • @Josh The OP has already stated in his question that learning Rails isn't an option right now. He also never said that he had no interest, just that it's not relevant to his thesis. Going to guess that's why the downvote. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:13
  • 1
    @Frustrated: Actually was doing a project in Grails at the same time someone else was doing on in Rails. We ended up having to call them "G" and "R" because it was getting so confusing. Commented Jan 14, 2011 at 16:45

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.