Timeline for Putting books read in resume
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2011 at 23:06 | comment | added | PSU | @nikie: I would ignore the list of hobbies, most likely. I've rarely seen them. In either case, it's the experience I care about. Presented with the two options you've mentioned (two otherwise essentially identical CVs, one with a list of books and one with a list of hobbies), I think I might opt for the book list. Both are a little odd. The hobbies thing might be a little more mainstream, but at least I could glean some information about the candidate's technical exposure from the book list. Assuming the books are relevant, of course. | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 23:03 | comment | added | nikie | @user13645: PS: I'm not arguing with your position. It's obviously the majority's opinion. I'm just trying to understand it. | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 23:00 | comment | added | nikie | @user13645: But that raises the same question: All other things being equal, would you really throw away the CV with no real world experience and a few books on it, and instead invite the CV with no real world experience and a list of hobbies like swimming and playing piano on it? (Many people have those on their CVs) | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 14:05 | comment | added | PSU | For what it's worth, my original answer assumed that the book list served in lieu of a long and detailed work/project history, or as padding to disguise a very thin history. | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 12:43 | comment | added | ShreevatsaR | @James: Who isn't? Everyone here agrees that putting a book listing on a CV is a worthless section, and very weird too. If you're writing your CV, don't include such a section, end of story. The only issue here is whether those evaluating CVs should throw away those that contain a useless section, all other things being equal. | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 10:36 | vote | accept | Mahmoud Hossam | ||
| Feb 28, 2011 at 9:35 | comment | added | James Love | I'm agreeing with Martin on this one. Unless the candidate reviews books and publishes his reviews on his blog or whereever, then I don't see much depth to a book listing on a CV (Woo, British!). | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 9:30 | comment | added | ShreevatsaR | @Martin: Again, I think everyone agrees with the advice about not including such a section, so you don't need to repeat it. @nikie's question was just about whether it's right for the person evaluating resumes to "throw away" such a resume, all other things being equal. (And mine about your statement that "the lack of understanding on how to produce a resume is enough to throw it away".) Anyway, you're repeating the same things from your end (what's right for the candidate to do) and me from my end (what's right for the resume-reader to do), so this is going in circles. I'll stop. | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 9:24 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki | ||
| Feb 28, 2011 at 7:48 | comment | added | Loki Astari | @ShreevatsaR: At the resume stage I am not trying to evaluate your ability that comes during the interview stage. But the HR department has to wino down those thousands of resumes to the one open position (you don;t want to stick out in a bad way here). | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 7:44 | comment | added | Loki Astari | @ShreevatsaR: You are correct its hard to argue about hypothetical situations and what would actually happen when presented with the situation in real life. But saying that, human nature being what it is, we tend to like the familiar and dislike (distrust the unfamiliar). Thus why put yourself at the disadvantage of making your resume unfamiliar to the trained reader of resumes. If it is not going to gain you anything and has the potential to make your resume stick out in an odd way (ie negative). | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 4:50 | comment | added | ShreevatsaR | @Martin: I think everyone agrees that a list of books read is useless and weird, but the question is whether a resume with all other things being equal and a useless additional section should be thrown away. Surely you're trying to evaluate programming ability/experience (or whatever it is the job requires), not resume-making ability/experience. (Are candidates expected to read "a lot of books on the subject" of resume-making?) | |
| Feb 28, 2011 at 2:22 | comment | added | Loki Astari | @nikie: What is the resume with the book list try to achieve? The ability to read books is a given for our profession and you are expected to stay up-to date by reading. Giving a list of books really does not give me any sense of their ability apart from an unease that they are trying to pad their resume for some reason. That in itself is not enough to throw it away. But the lack of understanding on how to produce a resume (there are a lot of books on the subject) is enough to throw it away. | |
| Feb 27, 2011 at 23:33 | comment | added | nikie | Honestly? We're assuming all other things being equal, a resume with the same qualifications, the same years of experience, the same former job responsibilities, but one listing a number of books read, you'd throw the one with the books away? You really must get too many resumes if you weed them out that quickly. | |
| Feb 27, 2011 at 22:00 | history | answered | PSU | CC BY-SA 2.5 |