next »

[technicallycreative]

And if female please also note if you plan to become pregnant. Not really discussed on SCs, but can create an HR headache down the road.

Are you serious? That is totally ridiculous. How many job offers do think a female would get if they *noted* that they plan to become pregnant.  (BTW just b/c you plan doesn’t mean it will happen in your desired timeframe)   Should one also note how hard or frequently that they are trying to get pregnant?

Oh yes, that too.
I believe this was an attempt at irony, oh serious one ;)

I digress and peacefully retreat. (Can I blame it on hormones?)

[case_insensitive]

And if female please also note if you plan to become pregnant. Not really discussed on SCs, but can create an HR headache down the road.

Are you serious? That is totally ridiculous. How many job offers do think a female would get if they *noted* that they plan to become pregnant.  (BTW just b/c you plan doesn’t mean it will happen in your desired timeframe)   Should one also note how hard or frequently that they are trying to get pregnant?

Oh yes, that too.
I believe this was an attempt at irony, oh serious one ;)

I digress and peacefully retreat. (Can I blame it on hormones?)

Yes, but don't put that on your CV.

[angel]

Or your bra size, for that matter.

[eddie_haskell]

I agree. I don't care how old you are but I do care if you are not being transparent.
[/quote]

I wish I could believe that but I don't.  Age discrimination exists, and you know what?  I see why.  It is pure time value of money.  If I invest X amount of dollars into Y product (X is the cost of the search and Y is the annual output of the product), ceteris paribus the product that is going to last the longest is the most valuable.

Now, I realize that a younger "product" may be more likely to jump ship.  That needs to be considered too.  But if I am X years old and my life expectancy is 85 minus X, and another candidate's life expectancy is 85 minus (X minus ?) then I have to be Z% more productive to be a better hire.  And, I have to demonstrate that I am.

Accounting is a profession that is very slowly realizing that, in fact, some older hires are better hires (because they are, in fact, Z% more productive for numerous reasons).  Academia is a profession that talks a lot of smack about the same thing, but does not walk the talk.

[vardahilwen]

My point exactly (thanks Eddie).  If I'm 45 but can pass for 30, both in looks and on paper *IF* I eliminate degree dates (other than PhD) from my CV, I don't see why it's a bad idea.  But I don't suppose the two camps are ever going to agree on this one.

Us "older job searchers" are sensitive about this issue.  Not everyone is open-minded about hiring the more mature candidate.  We're just trying to stack the deck in our favor any way we can.  The age discrimination *does* exist.  If you don't engage in it, I applaud you.  More people should think like you do.

Vardahilwen

[case_insensitive]

I agree. I don't care how old you are but I do care if you are not being transparent.

I wish I could believe that but I don't. 

Are you implying I'm lying about what I care about?  Hello?!

Personally, the youngster who thinks giving us his GMAT score and mensa membership is going to help his application, is much less attractive than someone with teaching and professional accounting experience. I have nothing against those who get PhDs young (I did), but maturity can be useful in academia, for sure.

My point exactly (thanks Eddie).  If I'm 45 but can pass for 30, both in looks and on paper *IF* I eliminate degree dates (other than PhD) from my CV, I don't see why it's a bad idea. 

In my field (don't know about others), it comes across as obfuscation. As we have learned from Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth, etc. Obfuscation is not generally good.

In other fields, some folks might not even notice, of course.  Might not care, even. That's fine.

Us "older job searchers" are sensitive about this issue.  Not everyone is open-minded about hiring the more mature candidate.  We're just trying to stack the deck in our favor any way we can.  The age discrimination *does* exist.  If you don't engage in it, I applaud you.  More people should think like you do.

I was on the market last year as an over 40, so I hear you loud and clear.  It doesn't change, however, the importance in my field of being transparent.  it's just part of the way we think.  If someone is hiding something, that's usually not a sign of something good.  If they are not hiding anything obvious, we won't be automatically going into forensic mode...

[zharkov]

If someone is hiding something, that's usually not a sign of something good. 

Let me just add that the principle of transparency means that you reveal things that may not always be 100% favorable to you.  While your CV should be a record of things that convince a prospective employer to invite you to an interview, you can't just include things that make you look good and omit any details that may not.

Such details include dates, and also things like work history. If you had nine jobs in ten years -- an example from another thread -- you need to say so.

[jammer]

I don't think it matters, in the end, whether you put the dates of your BS and MA on the cv or not.  An earlier year will be noticed and no year will also be noticed - at least I'd notice both.  Regardless, unless you really are unusually young looking, your age will be noticed at the interview and if the committee wants to discriminate, they'll have ample opportunity.  Or not.

I'd like to add another "don't" to the list:  Don't put your talks to the League of Women Voters or the Unitarian/Universalist Church on your list of "Scholarly Presentations" or especially under "Invited Presentations". 

Both of those imply an audience of your peers.  Keep all your talks to community groups under "Service" or something like that, or leave them off the version of the cv sent out, especially if they're more research oriented schools.

[beachbum]

I'm way past the "looking for my first job stage" and at a point in my career where I chair several search committees yearly.  I lean towards the view that degree dates should be included.  My main reason for that is that my university requires trascripts, as do many state institutions, from finalists so the degree dates (and a whole lot more) will be known and if you are an older candidate it may appear to some search committee members that you omitted that information in hopes that the committee would mislead itself.

[oldfullprof]

I don't really care about the degree date issue.  But, to my mind, the academic CV is a professional resume, not a working class job application.  Therefore, it's not necessary, nor desirable, to provide a seamless work history.  The CV summarizes relevant professional experience.  Other lines of work are basically a distraction and should not be on the CV.  Yes, basically this advantages the older candidate in that there is often a preference for those who go right through college and grad school, but I think it's fine to construct a professional-only CV.  The CV is a marketing document for the individual, not an application for a federal security clearance.  My prospective academic employers don't need to know that I was once (1) an Army NCO, (2) a union organizer, or (3) a marketing director.  They don't need to know that I had a small business that chapter 7'd after a few years.  Some of those issues may irritate members of search committees and I like staying fairly vanilla during a search.  I've been on about eight search committees and seen the really stupid predudices of search committee members in action over and over again.  One guy hated that one of our candidates, a good candidate who was not hired ultimately, had done typing for extra money after getting the PhD for example.   

[case_insensitive]

I don't really care about the degree date issue.  But, to my mind, the academic CV is a professional resume, not a working class job application.  Therefore, it's not necessary, nor desirable, to provide a seamless work history.  The CV summarizes relevant professional experience.  Other lines of work are basically a distraction and should not be on the CV.  Yes, basically this advantages the older candidate in that there is often a preference for those who go right through college and grad school, but I think it's fine to construct a professional-only CV.  The CV is a marketing document for the individual, not an application for a federal security clearance.  My prospective academic employers don't need to know that I was once (1) an Army NCO, (2) a union organizer, or (3) a marketing director.  They don't need to know that I had a small business that chapter 7'd after a few years.  Some of those issues may irritate members of search committees and I like staying fairly vanilla during a search.  I've been on about eight search committees and seen the really stupid predudices of search committee members in action over and over again.  One guy hated that one of our candidates, a good candidate who was not hired ultimately, had done typing for extra money after getting the PhD for example.   

But in professional fields, like accounting, we do need to know what you have done (if anything) in professional accounting (public accounting? auditing? taxation? corporate accounting? cost accounting? governmental accounting? other business experience? etc.).

In some fields, work experience is very relevant.  We aren't just hiring you to research accounting but to train future accountants, so knowing your background helps us determine what you really know and what you'll be best at teaching. No professional experience isn't a deal breaker, of course (i have none!), but knowing what you've done in the real world is relevant to your future as an accounting professor.

I do realize that some work experience is just a job and not relevant.  No problem.

I also realize this connection between professional work and academic work doesn't translate to all fields, but it does translate well to other professional fields (medicine, law, nursing, etc.).

It all probably goes back to a very simple rule: If it's relevant, include it.

If a candidate for one of our openings lists no non-academic work experience, and it turns out from interviewing him that he says he does have relevant accounting, we'll be wondering why he was so stupid as to omit it.  Transparency.

[cat_on_track]

I'd like to add another "don't" to the list:  Don't put your talks to the League of Women Voters or the Unitarian/Universalist Church on your list of "Scholarly Presentations" or especially under "Invited Presentations". 

Actually, I've done exactly that: my CV has categories for "under construction/submitted," "in print/accepted for publication," "conferences," and "invited talks and lectures." Such talks ARE by invitation and show that one is willing to and interesting enough to teach off campus. Under "service" I list all on- and off-campus committees and boards I serve on (subheaded by department, school and campus-wide, local, national).

And, yes, I am listing each and every date - with a bit of math, one can calculate my real age to within about two years and I am certainly "mature"!!! It's a real funny feeling to have start over again as an assistant prof ... usually, these folks are a good twenty years younger than I!

[kaysixteen]

Sadly, if many of us only place teaching or other directly relevant and explicitly *professional* work experience on CVs submitted for academic positions, we will have large gaps of time to account for.  Do you think trying to avoid classism or snobbery associated with my Walmart stint is superior to leaving a big year-long gap there?  Will people not be more impressed that I sucked it up and got such a job, rather than sat around doing nothing and presumably living on the charity of others?

[zharkov]

My prospective academic employers don't need to know that I was once (1) an Army NCO, (2) a union organizer, or (3) a marketing director.  They don't need to know that I had a small business ....

In a business department, they would all be plusses; I would mention them if that is your field.

I worked in industry before academia and I just summarize my industrial experience in a few lines (years, companies, positions). I say enough to show that I have "hands on" experience, but don't belabor the point.

In addition to transparency, showing your past experience also helps tell your "story."  People often think in terms of stories.  I did this, then this, then this, then segued into this.  People may not "get" the story if you leave out some "chapters."

[jerseyjay]

I believe a CV (or resume) needs to be both transparent and complete. Transparent means you give dates for degrees, dates for jobs held, your citizenship (or immigration status), and so on.  Complete means you fill in any gaps in your education or employment background. (At least briefly.)  A CV that is not transparent and complete just raises doubts in my mind.

"Complete" and "transparent" of course are completely relative, and hence meaningless, terms. In several countries where I have looked for work, a complete  CV includes immigration status, birth date, number of children, photo,  official government identification numbers, marital status, health and whether one smokes. Of course some countries I have lived in also have adverts for jobs like:

"We are looking for a secretary. Must be a girl between 18 and 22, unmarried without children, thin, light skin and good presentation, and live nearby."

Of course, such adverts were not uncommon in the U.S. either until recently.

Thankfully there are laws that prevent these kind of adverts now--and so the definition of "complete" and "transparent" have changed. But try applying to a job in another country and figuring out what these terms mean.