Terrible CVs

[PymChurchBeach]

Disclaimer: I know times are hard and shitty right now and a lot of people are desperate for work so probably chucking out CVs left right and centre at anything and everything.

BUT. I have worked in HR for nearly a decade now and it has always been the same. The general standard of CVs is bloody awful. I'm recruiting for a mid level role at the moment and I have seen the following:

• people using little hearts and stars instead of bullet points
• massive glamour model style photographs taking up the whole first page of a CV
• people's dates of birth and marital statuses written up at the top. Just no!!!
• wacky, colourful borders and fonts. Comic sans. Enough said.

Also - this last one is possibly controversial but when women have had a break to look after DC, there really is no need to list all the skills gained as a SAHM - e.g. "excellent time management skills etc". You can just say you had time out to raise children. That's all you need to say. I'm not going to think any the worse of you for it.

I am desperate to implement application forms rather than have CVs and cover letters but my CEO is old fashioned and will not have it.

Reading through my latest batch of applications, it's also incredible how many people don't seem to think they need to refer to the person specification in their CV.

If, for instance, I'm recruiting for an administrator and one of the specifications is that they must have had experience specifically of financial administration, tell me that you've got it! I don't know otherwise, I'm not a mind reader! If you don't have it, don't just ignore it and hope I won't notice. Say something along the lines of "while I don't have experience specifically of X, I have similar experience doing X and am a quick learner". That shows me you've actually read the spec.

There is a skill in applying for jobs, but it's easily learned, once you know it's needed. The first time I was involved in interviewing for a teaching post as a governor I was shocked that one application wasn't shortlisted. It was from an older teacher, extremely experienced, who could clearly have done the job standing on her head. However, the old hands on the panel pointed out that she hadn't stated explicitly in her application that she met the criteria in the person specification, and that was essential to get shortlisted under the LEA's equal opps policies. It seemed very ageist to me as that teacher would never have had to do that when younger, but that's how it was. That was 20 years ago, though. Surely most people now know that you have to say explicitly (and excruciatingly) 'I have good time management. I have experience of managing my own workload and meeting tight deadlines.' etc etc, ad nauseam.

I can't tell you how pleased I am to be at the end of my working life. I am fairly confident I will never have to apply for another job. Hurrah!

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g In the dim and distant past I too was a school governor, for my kids primary school. I remember the first time I sat down with the head to go through job applications for a new teaching post (this was in the mid 90s, and a pre-printed form was used, to be filled out by hand). We each had a pile of 25 or so to look at, I'd gone through mine in about 10 minutes whilst the head was still on his second.
He asked me how I possibly could have read them in all in that time, I told him I hadn't, I just discarded any with a spelling mistake. I reasoned that anyone who either couldn't spell, or bother to check their work wasn't fit to teach in 'our' school. He agreed.

@WitchQueenofDarkness if you used this exact working I said by email was fine. I can see why the woman delivered by hand. I would interpret that as meaning you can email the application ie: it doesn't have to be a hard copy not you must email it rather than post or hand deliver it.

@turquoise50

I’m an HR professional and I agree with you to a certain extent. My view does seem to go against the views of other HR professionals on this thread, although my view is shared by fellow HR professionals in real life. Which shows that there isn’t one prevailing view on this.

I work for a Tech company in a niche area and we always screen on skills and experience first. However, as I said above, hobbies are something to discuss at the end of the interview - it adds a personal touch to interviews, hobbies can demonstrate certain skills and personality attributes, can show a well rounded person who has a life outside of work. Hobbies aren’t of high importance but in my experience, they are a small part of a bigger picture.

It is a balance though, a huge list of generic hobbies is pointless (ie dining out, watching TV etc). As is too much detail. On the CV of someone with 5 plus years relevant experience, I would expect a line or two on hobbies, near the bottom of the CV.

This is different for grad and apprentice recruitment though. They don’t have much, if any, relevant work experience to put on a CV, so they have to use hobbies and interests to demonstrate certain attributes. This can be anything from playing in a band (teamwork, commitment to showing up at practice and gigs) to being treasurer for the debating society (comms skills and responsibility).

@JasperRising

I can't remember the exact wording but it would have been by post or by email. Simple unambiguous instructions. Easy to follow.

She didn't bother with the covering letter either as she was delivering by hand so I had no idea of whether she knew how to write a letter correctly.

( And from another applicant - if you are emailing me please don't address me in the biggest font your email client provides so that only 4 letters at a time appear on my screen and in scarlet. Yes it catches my attention but not in a good way!)

Interesting about hobbies. I've never put mine on my CV and I don't remember ever being asked about them on an application form, either, other than on my UCCA form (predecessor to UCAS) in the late 70s. I made a huge mistake there by panicking and thinking I couldn't just be truthful and say 'I enjoy reading', which was more or less all I did in my spare time back then (other than watching TV, which I assumed I shouldn't mention at all). So I added 'I play chess and backgammon'. The truth there was that my best friend could play both to a reasonable standard and had occasionally attempted to teach me, with very little success. If anybody had ever asked me about the chess and backgammon I would (deservedly) have looked like an utter fool. Fortunately I got away with it, and the memory of how anxious I was about being questioned about this ridiculous statement prevented me from ever doing similar again!

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

This thread has provided a lot of useful tips, but I think the thing that's niggling me about it is that a lot of the 'errors' which are being complained about as being bad CV etiquette which may result in applicants not getting called for interview, are committed almost exclusively by older candidates.

Including your DOB, writing at length about extra-curricular achievements, turning up in person to hand in your CV (because it shows keenness), going line by line through the person specification and referring to every item there (what? seriously? I've never done this - I just pick the 'highlights': 'Must be proficient in Excel' - fine, I'll talk about how I can use Excel; but for something less quantifiable, not so much. I'd be less likely to spell out explicitly 'I can do X' because I would assume the recruiter had a brain and could work out that if I'd had, say, multiple public-facing roles then I felt confident handling enquiries).

This is the way we were taught to apply for jobs (along with 'Chance your arm - it doesn't really matter if you don't have ALL the relevant experience, just fudge it a bit and play up your strengths!' For real.) So by instantly discarding applicants who do these things, it's indirect age discrimination.

And no, I don't believe it's enough to say 'Well, that's on them because they should have gone out and got some advice about modern job-hunting techniques' because why would they think of that? If someone hasn't applied for a job for ten, twenty, thirty years (either because they've been a SAHP or just been in the same post all that time), why would they necessarily assume that the rules around how to write a CV had changed? It wouldn't be my go-to thought. TBH it had barely occurred to me, beyond a vague notion that some (SOME) employers didn't like you to include DOB these days. It's not like these changes are made public anywhere, so unless you know someone personally who's in recruitment or has been through the same thing themselves recently, you're just unaware.

Add in all the poor souls who are getting told wildly wrong things by job centre coaches and you have a lot of applicants who are committing all these CV blunders in innocence. I really feel for that older teacher you mentioned. The poor woman. I’m sure she thought her experience spoke for itself (another phrase we heard a lot 'back in the day').

What's the answer? Idk. Maybe companies should offer mandatory CV training to all employees who've been with them for more than five years, but then they'd be paranoid that those people were about to leave and would probably try to edge them out for disloyalty or some shit. Honestly I hate the business world so much, and more than ever after this thread.

And no, I don't believe it's enough to say 'Well, that's on them because they should have gone out and got some advice about modern job-hunting techniques' because why would they think of that? If someone hasn't applied for a job for ten, twenty, thirty years (either because they've been a SAHP or just been in the same post all that time), why would they necessarily assume that the rules around how to write a CV had changed?

Surely people do realise that the world of work changes all the time. Working practices change, technology changes, fields evolve. Why would recruitment be an exception? If you've been out of the workplace or not in the employment market for a decade-plus and you don't realise that things will have changed, I don't think you're really paying attention. And if you're doing something that is high-stakes, like finding a new job, why would you not research it? Good information is freely available. If you want to prove yourself a strong candidate for most office jobs, having the wherewithal to know current practice and put together a decent up-to-date CV is not a high bar to set, because in that job you're going to have to follow current working practices and use current technology.

Including your DOB

The reason this is no longer common, is so that it avoids age discrimination. It also avoids sex discrimination (I’ve read that years ago, employers avoided hiring women of childbearing age). Same with marital status. We are trying to move towards recruiting people due to their skills and experience, so age and marital status shouldn’t even feature in the recruitment process.

turning up in person to hand in your CV

Could also show inability to follow instructions and unease with modern technology.

In the section for ‘any other information you may think relevant to your application’ a chap had written “I will be getting a mobile next Tuesday”.

This was way back in the 90s but even so it still made us all laugh. 😃

@SeagoingSexpot It makes perfect sense once you say it like that, but I just think most people wouldn't think of it unless it was explicitly pointed out to them. There IS plenty of free advice but much of it is contradictory or, as this thread has proved, wrong. And the majority of people can't afford to pay a professional to advise them.

@TazSyd And yet here we are, getting discriminated against by age because recruiters won't overlook a slightly outmoded way of formatting a CV, which nine times out of ten will have zero bearing on the person's ability to do the job, and could be fixed with an hour or two's training. It's not hard to learn new office practices or technology once you're IN a job. It's significantly harder to learn them independently without access to the necessary technology or any clear idea of what's required.

One from about twenty years ago.
‘ I have done a health and safety course, so know how to be healthy and safe’

I'm sorry but I would be seriously put off by anyone who turned up in person to deliver a CV when the advert clearly stated applications by email. It would suggest to me that the person was uncomfortable with computers, which would be a massive no to me in basically any role I recruit for.

Really don't think age is an excuse. If my 77 year old Gran who is a retired hairdresser and had never used a computer in her life until 5 years ago can learn to competently use one, so can others. Thank goodness she did learn. She's shielding and it's made this awful time so much more bearable for her.

If someone had been in a job for 30 years and never thought to seek advice on how to update their CV, I wouldn't think much of them either. Why on earth would you assume nothing had changed in 30 years?!

It's not hard to learn new office practices or technology once you're IN a job

It depends on how comfortable you are with technology. It took me less than a couple of hours training to learn to use new accounting software last year, because I'm very comfortable with tech and have used similar softwares before. It took one of my colleagues, who is complete uncomfortable with tech and hates it, weeks and weeks to learn it and even now it takes her forever to use it.

And yet here we are, getting discriminated against by age because recruiters won't overlook a slightly outmoded way of formatting a CV, which nine times out of ten will have zero bearing on the person's ability to do the job, and could be fixed with an hour or two's training.

See, here is the thing. I don't genuinely believe that I, or anyone hiring on this thread, would put a CV which has the right skills, knowledge and experience in the "no" pile because it had a DOB on. In many recruitment situations you really aren't coming down with strong CVs, and you actively want people with the right core stuff - you might raise an eyebrow slightly at the DoB but still put it in the "yes" pile. But DoBs on a CV tend to go hand in hand with lots of other things that make a CV not strong, such as lots of other irrelevant and inappropriate information, typos and poor attention to detail, not having the right skills and experience or poorly demonstrating the relevance of the skills and experience, all of which show either all-around sloppiness and lack of interest or generally being a poor fit. Similarly on the hobbies thing - some hiring managers like to see them, some would rather not, but it's very unlikely to be a tipping point for a CV. You can make your CV better by being savvy enough not to include irrelevant personal detail like a DoB but it's just one relatively small part of writing a good CV. Including it is more a marker that the whole CV is likely to be poorly written or suited than a cardinal sin in itself. And it's rather ironic to complain that hiring managers are discriminating by age when they don't like seeing a DoB when the precise reason they don't want to see it is to avoid discrimination by age.

And the thing is, harsh as it is, yes as recruiters we do use things that others might consider "petty" to sift candidates. We have to. I've had nearly 400 applications for the role I'm currently recruiting for. Not formatting your CV correctly might seem like a very minor thing but if I've got to choose between you and 5 other otherwise identical candidates who did format their CV correctly, I'm afraid that you will miss out.

@PymChurchBeach

I think these things are fairly ingrained though. I’ve seen plenty of advice to posters on mumsnet, who are struggling to find jobs, that goes along the lines of: print off your CV and take it along to every company you would like to work for, insist on speaking to the hiring manager when you are at reception and don’t let the receptionist fob you off. I’m not sure if this advice originates at the jobcentre too.

This would just leave a bad impression, I would consider that behaviour to be rude and disrespectful of my time.

I also dislike applicants who have had a polite rejection email harassing me for feedback. We send constructive feedback to everyone who has attended interview but the numerous candidates who apply having not read the job ad and have no relevant skills just get an automated rejection email. If they can’t be bothered reading the ad, then why should we bother explaining their rejection to them. This behaviour is following advice from the job centre too.

I’ve seen plenty of advice to posters on mumsnet, who are struggling to find jobs, that goes along the lines of: print off your CV and take it along to every company you would like to work for, insist on speaking to the hiring manager when you are at reception and don’t let the receptionist fob you off. I’m not sure if this advice originates at the jobcentre too.

So have I and it is fucking horrendous advice. Take the time to write a decent, relevant, correct and concise application and you will stand out.

I also dislike applicants who have had a polite rejection email harassing me for feedback. We send constructive feedback to everyone who has attended interview but the numerous candidates who apply having not read the job ad and have no relevant skills just get an automated rejection email.

Same here. If you ask for feedback and I respond saying that the advert specifically requested a cover letter which addressed the job description and person specification, and your cover letter just said "Please find my CV attached, kind regards Mary Smith", don't get shirty when I tell you that was the reason you didn't get interviewed.

I also dislike applicants who have had a polite rejection email harassing me for feedback

That's fair enough. It's also fair enough that applicants who've been asked if they want feedback do expect to receive it when they've replied in the affirmative. Somehow, judging by the experience of friends and family, it's rare that this follow-up ever happens, even with polite reminders.

I don't genuinely believe that I, or anyone hiring on this thread, would put a CV which has the right skills, knowledge and experience in the "no" pile because it had a DOB on

I'm inclined to agree - unless of course applicants had been specifically asked not to include a DoB, and then it would be a "no"

IME something so minor hardly matters anyway; a huge number of CVs are so appalling that the pile can be instantly thinned out just by a glance, leaving something much more manageable to deal with

I think the job centre has a lot to answer for.

Forcing claimants to apply for x amount of jobs per week, whether they have suitable skills or not. This Increases the amount of unsuitable applicants hiring managers get, creating more work for us and forcing us to sift CVs more quickly.

Encouraging people with no relevant work experience to apply for roles. According to the job centre an SAHP of 20 years, who has negotiated with a teenager has the right skills to negotiate a large procurement contract. I had this situation.

The job centre advising applicants to harass and stalk companies for feedback as to why they weren’t selected for a role that they had absolutely no relevant experience for.

That's fair enough. It's also fair enough that applicants who've been asked if they want feedback do expect to receive it when they've replied in the affirmative. Somehow, judging by the experience of friends and family, it's rare that this follow-up ever happens, even with polite reminders.

We only offer feedback those applicants who have been invited to interview. We simply don’t have the time to respond individually to applicants who have no suitable experience for the role.

As I said above, why should we offer feedback to people who can’t be bothered reading the ad? We’re not a jobseeker’s charity.

We only offer feedback those applicants who have been invited to interview. We simply don’t have the time to respond individually to applicants who have no suitable experience for the role.

That's not what is under discussion in this case.

I mentioned that I'm referring to instances where the applicant has been told that they can have feedback if they wish. I know applicants who have said that they would appreciate the feedback (as offered) and it hasn't materialised. In a couple of cases, the person in question took so long responding that they did reply, only to say: "It's so long ago, I don't think I could get the feedback now."

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

We only offer feedback those applicants who have been invited to interview. We simply don’t have the time to respond individually to applicants who have no suitable experience for the role.

That's not what is under discussion in this case.

I mentioned that I'm referring to instances where the applicant has been told that they can have feedback if they wish. I know applicants who have said that they would appreciate the feedback (as offered) and it hasn't materialised. In a couple of cases, the person in question took so long responding that they did reply, only to say: "It's so long ago, I don't think I could get the feedback now."

The hiring manager probably meant well but simply didn't have the time. Giving this kind of feedback is time-consuming and generally completely thankless, as nine times out of ten the person takes it as an opening to argue rather than accepting it. I think if you get actual, detailed feedback from an interview process you have to treat it as a bonus rather than an expectation, and commit to receiving it graciously. What is not OK, IMO, is simply never getting back to someone if they've had an interview - that is inexcusable. But as long as you get an answer on whether you progress or not, I think that's all that can be reasonably expected in most cases.