Re: job screening question

[Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>]

On 07/06/2012 16:16, George Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote:
> > On 06/07/2012 23:25, valdis.kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> > > The Friday afternoon cynic in me says it's because it's a move with positive
> > > paybacks.  There's 3 basic possibilities:
> > >
> > > 1) You send the puffed resume to a company with clue, it gets recognized
> > > as puffed, and you don't get the job.  Zero loss, you weren't going to get
> > > that job anyhow.
> > >
> > > 2) You send a boring unpuffed resume to a company sans clue.  They recognize it
> > > as boring because there's only 3 buzzwords on 2 pages, and you don't get the
> > > job.  Loss.
> > >
> > > 3) You send a puffed resume, and the guy doing the hiring doesn't know what
> > > the 3-packet mating call of the Internet is *either*.  Win.
> >
> > or:
> >
> > 4) you get caught out in the interview as being puffed up, but the company
> > hires you anyway despite strongly worded objections from the interviewer,
> > causing the interviewer's eyes to spin in their sockets at the inanity of
> > the decision.  You then spend your entire employment at the company proving
> > your ineptitude beyond all possible doubt.
> >
> > I think this is a win, is it?
>
> There's also
>
> 5) Didn't have enough clue about the real world to know you were
> puffing your resume up.
>
> 6) Puffed it up a little (worked with Cisco routers, but in the 7200
> era, and hasn't categorized skills as recent / older), but hasn't
> outright lied.

7) Were the beneficiary of some professional resume service/headhunter.
"You know how to spell 'aych-tee-tee-pee'? Let's list that!"


-- 
    If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough