next »

[cat_on_track]

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?

When you are on the job market, it doesn't matter what you think or "place;" it matters what the committee thinks. And, no, as a committee member I don't care to know which unrelated (to the position you're applying to) work you have done - I want to know your qualifications for and experience related to MY open position (remember that I may have to read 100 CVs - just tell me why YOU are perfect for THIS job). You have to explain gaps, but that's for a sentence in the cover letter. Any CV advisor will tell you to tailor your CV to the job to which you are applying.

[case_insensitive]

When you are on the job market, it doesn't matter what you think or "place;" it matters what the committee thinks. And, no, as a committee member I don't care to know which unrelated (to the position you're applying to) work you have done - I want to know your qualifications for and experience related to MY open position (remember that I may have to read 100 CVs - just tell me why YOU are perfect for THIS job). You have to explain gaps, but that's for a sentence in the cover letter. Any CV advisor will tell you to tailor your CV to the job to which you are applying.

Unless, of course, you are in a business field, in which many SCs are going to value transparency over cooking the books.  Tailor, yes.  Obfuscate, no.

[mdwlark]

SC's, you say you want CV's that are complete and transparent, with all gaps explained, but you don't want to hear about all those work and life experiences unrelated to your particular job description.  Seems to me you can't have it both ways.  Either you get a complete, transparent, long CV, or you get one that just focuses on relevant experience and academics. 

[case_insensitive]

SC's, you say you want CV's that are complete and transparent, with all gaps explained, but you don't want to hear about all those work and life experiences unrelated to your particular job description.  You can't have it both ways.  Either you get a complete, transparent, long CV, or you get one that just focuses on relevant experience and academics. 

The responses to this thread seem dichotomous, don't they? That's partly because we have two (or more) very different markets and types of disciplines, as well as the fact that some of the folks here are posting from their experience as job applicants, not their experience as SCs.

As you know, I vote for complete and transparent, but that may be a product of my academic discipline and its market.  If I had to read 300 CVs, I don't know if I'd feel the same. I think I would, but who knows. I'll never have to read 300 CVs for one position, so it's a moot point.

[magimax]

There's no cut-and-dried CV format, so you CAN have both transparency and tailored job info.  It's simple, use two categories, one for "professional experience" and one for "other work experience."  Then list everything, including dates.  You could also have a section titled "work history" that combines ALL work in chronological order, but does not include descriptions of the work you did, just title of employing organization, title of your position and dates worked.

The way I worked my CV was to provide a list of key skills to summarize and highlight relevant skills that contribute to the job.  Don't say how you got these skills, just that you have them.  It acts as a teaser to read further in - like a cover letter, only bulleted.  That, combined with the header info (name, contact info) took half a page.  The other half was my education, including dates.  Second page was "Professional Experience" (which I am fortunate to have a page worth of), third page was "Related Experience," fourth page and on was the rest of the stuff, like classes taught and pubs/presentations, etc.

There are plenty of helpful books out there that give guidance on writing a CV and especially for writing a resume with this kind of situation. 

[athena1]

Maybe I'll add my summer position as Pool Manager/Life Guard to my CV. I did this the summer after I finished my Masters and be for I got a real job.

I hate to say this, but it is true that SCs sometimes discriminate based on age. I was on a SC this past year and a strong candidate wasn't invited to interview for an Assistant Prof position because a few SC members commented that she'd completed her BA in the 70s and would not stay long if hired. Now, I don't think you can guarentee a 30-year-old would stay either.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

Or your bra size, for that matter.

Oh, but my bra size is the only thing that gets me an interview sometimes. Damn the MLA fields.

[mdwlark]

The woman who got her BA in the 70's (hey, are you talking about my CV?) would be more likely to stay a long time than the 30 year old, unless your school is an RI.   

Maybe I need to add my bra size to my next CV revision.   I could ace the other candidates with a one liner.  I guess I should try any stupid CV trick that works...

[zharkov]

Another good reason for us middle agers to reveal our ages, I mean dates of degree, is that it is probably less likely that we would be getting into "romantic entanglements" with undergrads.  As least that is likely how we'd be perceived.  And it would give up an advantage at a school where that kind of foolishness was being dealt with.

For example, there is a poster in the classroom forum wondering what to do about a budding romance with her "just out of grad school" prof.  (I doubt if they guy watch Alan Shepard lift off, as did your own Zharkov.) 

 

[eddie_haskell]

Nah, Case, I am not implying that you are lying.  What I mean is, everybody says they don't discriminate, but they do, often without even realizing it.  Everybody does it, all the time.  They make assumptions based on the entire package of available information.  That is one reason I no longer make my résumé and biography available to my students as I once did.

And the FBI won't hire any accountants over the age of I believe it is 37.  What is up with that?

[case_insensitive]

Nah, Case, I am not implying that you are lying.  What I mean is, everybody says they don't discriminate, but they do, often without even realizing it.  Everybody does it, all the time.  They make assumptions based on the entire package of available information.  That is one reason I no longer make my résumé and biography available to my students as I once did.

And the FBI won't hire any accountants over the age of I believe it is 37.  What is up with that?

Many government jobs that have something to do with security are limited to hiring people under a certain age. I think Air Marshalls have to be 37 or under, as well, when they apply.

[helpful]

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).

Huh? I had quite a few years between degrees. That just means I worked in the 'real' world, which is a qualification for working in academia, last I noticed!

Tell me one field where experience in the world outside of academia is not useful!

[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).

Huh? I had quite a few years between degrees. That just means I worked in the 'real' world, which is a qualification for working in academia, last I noticed!

Tell me one field where experience in the world outside of academia is not useful!

You are preaching to the choir if you are addressing this question to me...  :o)

[dr_stones]

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).

Huh? I had quite a few years between degrees. That just means I worked in the 'real' world, which is a qualification for working in academia, last I noticed!

Tell me one field where experience in the world outside of academia is not useful!

You are preaching to the choir if you are addressing this question to me...  :o)

Composition.

Education.

[helpful]

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.

So, here's an interesting contradiction the above brings up.
Speaking to "peers" is service, but getting publications
"peer reviewed" is research/publications. Can you explain the contradiction?