Curriculum Vitae

What do you look for in a programmer's CV?

Honesty
Demonstrated ability to adapt to and to learn new technologies and skills
Conciseness. If it won't fit on two (or at most three) sides it's too big.
Evidence of an ability to write English (or the language of your documentation)

It's not just technologies. Skills, too. A current frustration is a stream of candidates whose greatest professional ambition is just to keep up with the latest technological buzzwords (ATL is a current favorite). What I want is people who want to get better at being a programmer (or designer, or test engineer or architect, or whatever). There's a lot more to being a programmer than just having a grasp of the technologies.

There. I feel better now.:-) -- PaulHudson

I also like to see some evidence that the person isn't just a geek - that they do have a life that doesn't exist on phosphor. A brief list of their interests, hobbies, voluntary work (if any). Also, some evidence that they're interested in another subject entirely - the arts, philosophy, just something different. I think it makes a person more rounded. -- RogerLipscombe

What do you not want to see in a programmer's CV?

Propaganda ("I am the greatest")
Self-judgement ("I exceed your expectations.")
Buzzwords only in the experience section ("Used VC++, ATL, Visualt Studio, COM, ActiveX" - yes, but what did you do?).
Vast detail on their previous work of no possible relevance to a future employer. I know a lot more about the design of simulators for naval gunnery than I need to, thanks to one resume.
Misspellings and bad grammar (resume grammar excepted). Even if you don't have English (or whatever) as your first language. Find someone else who has and ask/bribe them to proofread it.

I've done quite a lot of CV coaching, and the thing I always stress is that the CV should be targeted at a specific job. Sure, the same basic concepts always need to be there (name, contact details, skills, work history), but each submission should really be considered as a separate attempt to market yourself.

There seems to be a thread of "careers" teaching in British schools which is still lodged in the 1960s. It assumes that as a job seeker you have just one CV, and it is expensive or laborious to edit, retype or copy. This leads to two main corollaries:

You must try to put everything on it which would be of interest to any possible employer.
Some sort of standardized format is advantageous to both the employer and candidate, as it allows the junk to be weeded out.

Now that it is very cheap and easy to adjust your CV to precisely target a specific position, anyone who produces a CV using the above techniques is probably at a disadvantage. There never was a "standard" format anyway, just a lot of incompatible attempts to produce the truly generic CV.

I have looked at several CVs from people who have started by telling me that they know how to write a CV, because they were shown some sort of template at a school, college or job centre. Invariably it is too big, inappropriate and inarticulate. The sad thing is that these were just the tiny few who thought to get someone else to look it over. I have also seen a lot of such "waffle" CVs never make it to a short list.

It always helps to put yourself in the position of your customer, the person looking through the applications. So here are a few of my top tips.

He is busy and has a lot of applicants to get through, so keep it short. No; shorter than that. Edit and Edit again so that every word counts.
He may have a list of keywords to look for, so make relevant skills and experience stand out. Bold text can look weird in the middle of prose, so I recommend putting a punchy, concise summary of skills right near the top of page 1.
He may photocopy, distribute, drop, fold or mutilate your crafted masterpiece, so make sure your name (and phone number/email?) are on every side of every sheet.
He is looking for excuses to stop reading and move on to another application, so keep his interest up. Only go into detail in previous work where it is directly relevant. The rest of your work history is just to show that you have been in work and to do a bit of corporate and technological namedropping.
Understand the difference between permanent and contract work, and target your CV at one or the other. Contract employers really just want skill keywords (with experience), references and some namedropping. They are happy that if you are not useful after that contract, you can be dropped. Anything else is just padding to give them something to talk about if you make it to an interview. Permanent employers on the other hand want, someone who will fit in with the rest of the workforce, support their position and make them look good to their superiors. Firing a permanent employee is more trouble than it's worth. Appropriate skills and experience are good, but secondary to fitting in. Aside from obvious gaffes like emphasizing that you worked for a competitor, this is where details of hobbies and interests come into their own. That's how you show you are a rounded, non-threatening, flexible employee.
Above all, know your market. Anything you can find out about the company, its staff, products, customers or policies can potentially be useful.

-- FrankCarver

What's the difference between a CurriculumVitae and a Resume? When should I prefer one over the other?

As far as I understand, CurriculumVitae is British English, and Resum� is the American English term for the same thing. CurriculumVitae does, however have a few other advantages: (1) it can be a WikiName and (2) It doesn't form the popular word "resume" if you don't add the accent on the '�'.

What's the difference between a CurriculumVitae and a Resum�? When should I prefer one over the other? In my circles, a resum� is a short job history and datasheet. A CV, on the other hand, will tend to run longer (say 5+ pages), be more complete, and include an academic record (which is most of the reason for more length). I've always been asked for a CV, and expect that the general rule is to use a resum� unless you are asked for a CV, but that is just a guess.

What's the difference between a CurriculumVitae and a Resum�? When should I prefer one over the other?

Well, Resum� seems to be French while CurriculumVitae is Latin.

NickCorcodilos at http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/ has an unusual line on how the whole recruitment system is broken (ExtremeRecruitment?). He reckons you should tailor your application to each job in question by showing how you intend to add value to the company. Of course, this implies doing lots of research, find a person to talk to, etc, etc, but then you shouldn't be sending out mass mailings for jobs anyway. The same applies to interviews which, as we all know, can be very deceptive. An interesting site.

Surely a CV is a work of fiction. Hardly any employer will (take the trouble to) verify any of the details given.

Hmmmm. The last time I applied for a job, there were 3 or 4 interviews, depending how you count them, one of which involved 12 people (not all of them continuously), and ran for most of the day. Each of these had familiarized themselves with my CV, and someone had verified nearly everything on it. I would do the same in their shoes. I guess it really depends on the type of job you are applying for...

Why would you do the same? After all, you can verify only what they state. The candidate will have omitted any statement such as "unable to solve MathQuizOne", so you know you're getting a one-sided picture anyway. Similarly, they'll probably have used a spell-checker to correct spelling errors, so you don't even know if they can spell.

Of course, people will try to show themselves in their best light. However, there is much to be learned from a CV. If I can verify that there is fiction in the CV, that candidate is immediately scratched. Ditto for poorly or unexplained gaps in the record. References may be useless or not, but it can also be helpful to contact someone (or several people) else at previous positions, especially if you happen to know someone. The most important thing, to me, is this: What a person claims on a CV gives you a guide to areas you can really push them on in an interview. If you claim some expertise in an area, it is fair for me to insist you demonstrate it. If you can't hold up under scrutiny in areas you have 'chosen' in this way, it is not a hopeful sign. Bottom line is, interviewing is difficult, and a CV can help if used appropriately.

The bottom line, at least for those willing and able to do the job, should generally be whether the candidate is the best-suited of those who have applied. Suppose an applicant is currently a teacher. Do you demand proof they didn't undertake any paid employment in between school terms? Do you try to find a former student so that you can ask whether he found the lessons were well-planned and easy to follow? His lessons ranged over an entire subject. Why push him on some area he might have mentioned unless it's directly related to the work he would do for you? Unless it's an area you happen to have expertise in as well, you are not well-placed to test the applicant on it. If special skills are required in the job on offer, why not devise and use tests designed to measure existing relevant skills and the ability to learn such skills? If you turn down someone who can do the job, they may complain they were treated unfairly or even illegally (in some countries). For the sake of argument, the post applied for is that of assistant manager of your company's training department, and the company designs and supplies computer-based training systems. (Supply a different scenario if you wish.)

Ok, we are perhaps talking at cross purposes here. Of course I do not suggest that you grill every applicant on minutiae of their CV, especially if the details have little to do with the position you are interviewing for. My contention would be this: you must attempt to evaluate an applicant's capabilities and training as they relate to the position in question. In the real world, you will fail to do this completely, as it is impossible to determine in a realistic interviewing process. One thing we may do is try to improve our interviewing process. While this is commendable, it will not solve all problems. One common difficulty is that a measure of an applicant's ability to interview well is not generalizable to job performance, especially in the case of people who are made anxious by the process itself (yes, this does tell something about them as well, but...). Anyways, one way to look at a CV is not just a statement of 'this is what I have done', but as a statement of 'this is what I am good at, or comfortable with'. In our interviews, we often have the candidate give a one or two hour technical talk, of their choosing (within reason), to a qualified (and interested) audience. They are also expected to answer reasonable questions about the talk. This is done to provide a comfortable area for the candidate, and one that we can justifiably expect high competence in. If the candidate is unable to answer technical questions in this area reasonably, or cannot present their ideas clearly, they are not worth considering. The only other real interest I have in a CV is this: if you lie to me on your CV, you are not of sufficient calibre to hire.

That's fair enough. It would clearly be disappointing if someone claiming several years of technical experience couldn't give an address on a technical topic of their own choice. Also, certain falsehoods would not be acceptable. However, people usually want to give the impression they have always worked well, as though they had no weaknesses of any significance. I've seen very few CVs of people in senior positions, but I have come across various people who seem to have acquired seniority beyond what their capabilities justify - perhaps they were promoted internally just to avoid hiring someone new. I recall one (junior) person who, having dropped out of university, was keen to make a good start in his career. He got his new job (though a year later he returned to his previous employer when they offered him more money), and felt certain that a good reference from his university professor had helped. In fact, the professor had tried to give him a poor reference, but when it was discussed (in private), someone said something like "That remark by the professor is a rather sly attempt to knife the applicant in the back - I think we can safely ignore it!"