next »

[placid_casual]

This has been debated elsewhere (someone who can navigate the infernal search mechanisms can perhaps help out here), but if you are not a US citizen, my feeling is that you should list on the CV your employment eligibility status.

When I applied for jobs, I listed that I was a Legal Permanent Resident (Green Card holder).

This is not something that the SC itself should be directly concerned about, but when it becomes an HR issue down the road, it's helpful to have a heads-up.

In my own experiences on SCs, the issue is not debated. However, if I were a candidate again, I'd want to make sure I'd crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's.

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.

[pepper]

This has been debated elsewhere (someone who can navigate the infernal search mechanisms can perhaps help out here), but if you are not a US citizen, my feeling is that you should list on the CV your employment eligibility status.

What about if you are a US citizen but received your PhD abroad? My BA and MA institutions are US, so I assume that American SCs will presume I am American, but should I clarify?

In non-US applications, I always close my cover letter with a brief reference to my employment eligibility, generally a sentence or two to indicate that I am an American but know exactly what I need to do regarding visas, etc. I never have found a way to put this on my CV that I thought looked good, although identifying citizenship is pretty common for European CVs.

[angel]

I've said this in other threads, but I think it bears repeating.

1, This past job cycle we received a significant number (not overwhelming, but enough to be a concern) of cvs that for some reason break everything down according to year rather than by category.

For example,

     2006            conference paper
                        book review
                        course(s) taught
               
     2005             journal article
                        book review
                        conference paper

     2004             Course(s) taught
                         conference paper
                         book review

Please, don't do this, and if you are reorganize the cv now. There are just too many applications to sort through to have to reorganize cvs for applicants.

2. Use subheadings -- i.e. do not lump everything together in a big mess. For example:

Publications

Book review
Book review
Encyclopedia entry
Book review
Encyclopedia entry
Encyclopedia entry
Book review
Encyclopedia entry
Journal article
essay in collection
Encyclopedia entry
Encyclopedia entry
Book review

This just looks padded, particularly when 6 entries for the same encyclopedia are listed separately. Have a separate caegories for peer-reviewed, book reviews, and such.

3. No photos on the cv or enclosed in the application. (yes, really.)

[philonthemarket]

Is this a stupid CV trick?

Imagine a person who has several awards and fellowships that are not clear just from their titles. For example, let's say for her MA this person received the Memorial Scholarship. From the readers point of view this might just mean she got a small sum of money to help with fees. However, let's say the scholarship entailed the cost of the entire degree plus a living stipend. Should this be briefly explained underneath the scholarship title?

[vardahilwen]

Sorry, I've had good luck not listing the dates of my BA (1978) - age 33 and MA (1982) - age 37.  I DO list my PhD date (1996) - age 51.  The purpose of this is precisely to disguise my age and get me an interview, which it has a number of times. 

I'm glad it's worked for you. However, I feel that a candidate who is trying to hide things is... trying to hide things.  Makes me much less interested.  Though the PhD year is most relevant, the years of degrees along with the dates of employment give an idea of the applicant's working and intellectual development.  Big holes or unknowns are generally a red flag (applicants who know they have red flags, can, of course, combat that with more pertinent info).

Hi Case -

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be snarky: could you please explain how the dates give you an idea of the applicant's "intellectual development"?  There's a 20-year gap between my bachelor's and master's, during which I was employed in a corporate job.  How would you interpret that in terms of my intellectual development?  I don't understand the comment.

Also - here's my situation.  I'm finishing my PhD in my late 40's.  I am told I look much younger - can probably pass for early to mid 30's.  I have no family obligations and I'm very energetic.  I don't put dates on my CV because I'm concerned that I will be perceived as "old" on paper.  What is wrong with only listing the date of the PhD?  Why does the search committee need to know that I got my bachelor's in the '80's?  Again, I'm genuinely trying to understand, and appreciate your input on these matters.

Vardahilwen

[mdwlark]

I had no interviews until I rewrote my CV and dropped off the dates on my bachelors and masters degrees, and eliminated one job.  (There was a time gap between masters and Ph.D.)   These dates made me look even older than I am, because I started college when I was 17 and finished my BA in less than four years.  I left the date of my doctorate on the CV, so the SC's know when I finished my academic training.  

After I dropped that info, I started getting interviews.  I'll put the dates back on when I'm convinced SC's have quit discriminating by age. You (SC's) forced me to drop them.   The job I dropped was related to my field.  I'm proud of that job.  It got me my start in the field.  But, based upon my job search experience, I would rather look younger and slightly less experienced.  I'm also proud of my age.  I should be thought of as venerable and wise, not out-dated.  I don't want to hide either piece of information.  



  

[zharkov]

  What is wrong with only listing the date of the PhD?  Why does the search committee need to know that I got my bachelor's in the '80's?  Again, I'm genuinely trying to understand, and appreciate your input on these matters.

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.

[case_insensitive]

Sorry, I've had good luck not listing the dates of my BA (1978) - age 33 and MA (1982) - age 37.  I DO list my PhD date (1996) - age 51.  The purpose of this is precisely to disguise my age and get me an interview, which it has a number of times. 

I'm glad it's worked for you. However, I feel that a candidate who is trying to hide things is... trying to hide things.  Makes me much less interested.  Though the PhD year is most relevant, the years of degrees along with the dates of employment give an idea of the applicant's working and intellectual development.  Big holes or unknowns are generally a red flag (applicants who know they have red flags, can, of course, combat that with more pertinent info).

Hi Case -

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be snarky: could you please explain how the dates give you an idea of the applicant's "intellectual development"?  There's a 20-year gap between my bachelor's and master's, during which I was employed in a corporate job.  How would you interpret that in terms of my intellectual development?  I don't understand the comment.

Also - here's my situation.  I'm finishing my PhD in my late 40's.  I am told I look much younger - can probably pass for early to mid 30's.  I have no family obligations and I'm very energetic.  I don't put dates on my CV because I'm concerned that I will be perceived as "old" on paper.  What is wrong with only listing the date of the PhD?  Why does the search committee need to know that I got my bachelor's in the '80's?  Again, I'm genuinely trying to understand, and appreciate your input on these matters.

Vardahilwen

Actually, if it's that long ago, the date of the bachelor's isn't very relevant. What is relevant is what you have been doing lately. If the more recent activities (employment, school, etc.) are unclear or huge gaps in years appear, then the search committee is going to wonder what you have been doing with your time.  And, they may assume that what you have been doing is irrelevant, because if it is relevant, then you'd have included it (we hope).  That isn't a deal-breaker, but in those fields where SCs are looking for any reason to cull the pile of 300 applicants, I wouldn't want to stand out that way.

The example that got me thinking on these lines is an applicant whose earned his BS less than 10 years ago (so why hide the date?) but left off the date of the BS and the MS, and put dates on the employment but the dates show many short-term jobs and huge gaps.  This sets off a number of red flags. Of course, the candidate could, either through the CV or the application letter, provide info to explain these things in a positive light, but this candidate did not.

And, as someone mentioned before (zharkov?), this fellow also had an internship listed under employment but not noted as an internship.  Red flags everywhere.

Mind you, I'm in accounting, and it's a very different job search world (and a different non-academic professional world) from many fields.

If you are many years beyond your BS/BA and MS/MA, the dates aren't relevant, most likely.  Your other activities will show the more relevant info (what have you been doing lately? relevant work? professional development? publishing? etc.). If, however, your lower degrees are in the past decade and you don't put the dates... that's just ... weird. (and yes I've seen that on several lately).  Given that omission and employment data that is spotty, it's hard to tell what the applicant has been up to, which in accounting is pretty relevant.

Back to the working and intellectual development part. If I know that you earned a BS and went to work for PriceWaterhouseCoopers and then went back to school for the masters and moved on to be CFO of a small company then decided to get your PhD, that tells me a lot about what you KNOW about the profession from experience (not just reading about it) and gives me some idea of your interests as well.  In accounting, these things matter.  If you want to teach auditing and have never been an auditor (and some folks do), well, that's different from someone else who wants to teach auditing and they worked for Ernst & Young in audit for 10 years before returning for their PhD.

I realize that not all fields have this direct tie to the related profession. Law, for example, probably does. But, history, probably has a different sort of relationship between work and education, in contrast.

[case_insensitive]

I had no interviews until I rewrote my CV and dropped off the dates on my bachelors and masters degrees, and eliminated one job.  (There was a time gap between masters and Ph.D.)   These dates made me look even older than I am, because I started college when I was 17 and finished my BA in less than four years.  I left the date of my doctorate on the CV, so the SC's know when I finished my academic training.  

After I dropped that info, I started getting interviews.  I'll put the dates back on when I'm convinced SC's have quit discriminating by age. You (SC's) forced me to drop them.   The job I dropped was related to my field.  I'm proud of that job.  It got me my start in the field.  But, based upon my job search experience, I would rather look younger and slightly less experienced.  I'm also proud of my age.  I should be thought of as venerable and wise, not out-dated.  I don't want to hide either piece of information.  

That's interesting. You say removing the dates makes you look older, but you think you were discriminated against based on being old?  I don't follow the logic, though I don't discount your experience.

I remember interviewing as a 26 year old PhD candidate and getting all manner of ridiculous responses because I was too young, so I know it happens on the other end (which I am pretty much a part of now).  I just didn't follow your logic there.

[mdwlark]

Another thought...

On my CV I include experience that most people consider unrelated to my degree (actually, I think everything is related, but I won't go there) because it makes me more interesting.  I have had several SC members comment on those activities and start conversations about them over lunch.  I had one SC chair tell me that my strange mix of interests was one of the reasons they chose me for an interview, because so many people in the department shared my interests.  

Rules are made to be broken effectively.

I think my CV just hit case insensitive's circular file.  

[case_insensitive]

Is this a stupid CV trick?

Imagine a person who has several awards and fellowships that are not clear just from their titles. For example, let's say for her MA this person received the Memorial Scholarship. From the readers point of view this might just mean she got a small sum of money to help with fees. However, let's say the scholarship entailed the cost of the entire degree plus a living stipend. Should this be briefly explained underneath the scholarship title?

phil,

Explaining something that isn't clear is generally good. Using an 8 line paragraph to do it will make it look like bragging rather than explaining. So, explain, but be as brief as possible.  That's definitely not a stupid CV trick!

[case_insensitive]

Another thought...

On my CV I include experience that most people consider unrelated to my degree (actually, I think everything is related, but I won't go there) because it makes me more interesting.  I have had several SC members comment on those activities and start conversations about them over lunch.  I had one SC chair tell me that my strange mix of interests was one of the reasons they chose me for an interview, because so many people in the department shared my interests.  

Rules are made to be broken effectively.

I think my CV just hit case insensitive's circular file.  

More interesting is generally good, I would think.  I certainly fall in the "strange mix of interests" category, too.

Actually, almost none hit the circular file in my field because we have so few applicants. We have to spend time delving into their missing info to figure out if they are really worth interviewing, whereas in other fields with 300 applicants, that CV would have been filed.

And, you are right about rules.  Follow the rules until they don't make sense. Then, make your own rules.  I remember when learning how to draw data flow diagrams, my professor taught us all these rules and lettered them A, B, C... through K.  Rule K said,"If the rules get in the way of diagramming the reality of the system, then ignore the rules."  That's a pretty good general rule for CVs.  If the rules keep you from getting interviews or keep you from showing important things about your experience or education or whatever, then forget the rules that are holding you back.

However, I think that 97% of applicants should follow the rules... all the time.

[mdwlark]

I had no interviews until I rewrote my CV and dropped off the dates on my bachelors and masters degrees, and eliminated one job.  (There was a time gap between masters and Ph.D.)   These dates made me look even older than I am, because I started college when I was 17 and finished my BA in less than four years.  I left the date of my doctorate on the CV, so the SC's know when I finished my academic training.  

After I dropped that info, I started getting interviews.  I'll put the dates back on when I'm convinced SC's have quit discriminating by age. You (SC's) forced me to drop them.   The job I dropped was related to my field.  I'm proud of that job.  It got me my start in the field.  But, based upon my job search experience, I would rather look younger and slightly less experienced.  I'm also proud of my age.  I should be thought of as venerable and wise, not out-dated.  I don't want to hide either piece of information.  

That's interesting. You say removing the dates makes you look older, but you think you were discriminated against based on being old?  I don't follow the logic, though I don't discount your experience.

I remember interviewing as a 26 year old PhD candidate and getting all manner of ridiculous responses because I was too young, so I know it happens on the other end (which I am pretty much a part of now).  I just didn't follow your logic there.

No, removing the dates made me look younger on paper.   If I include the bachelor's degree date, I seem even older than I am, because I was only 21 when I got my bachelor's degree.  People guess my age and add a couple of years.  

[vardahilwen]

Thanks, Case.

The age issue is a concern for some of us, and we get conflicting advice on the "dates on the CV" issue.

Imagine this hypothetical situation: on one side of the room are 28-year old applicants, who are able to relocate, have no family obligations, and are able to stay late at the office every day if necessary.

On the other side of the room are 48-year old applicants, who may have geographical restrictions, spouses and mortgages, and may want to limit their work hours.

Age-wise, I should go and stand with the second group.  But on all the other attributes, I should stand with the first group.  On some attributes, I don't want to be perceived as being a member of the second group.

Vardahilwen

[case_insensitive]

No, removing the dates made me look younger on paper.   If I include the bachelor's degree date, I seem even older than I am, because I was only 21 when I got my bachelor's degree.  People guess my age and add a couple of years.  

Sorry, I read too fast trying to catch up! :o)