Aside from which, the post is just very misguided. The author seems to believe that writing a resume involves “committing a significant amount of time doing unpaid labor for a company to manage the company’s risk and hiring costs.” You could say the same thing about an interview. It just makes no sense.
The post also claims that a hypothetical “golden curriculum vitae” literally created by angels would not “increase your chances of getting hired at all.” This seems completely oblivious to the actual role resumes play in the hiring process. There’s no question that a good resume can make an applicant stand out, and predispose interviewers to favor a candidate.
The reason the author gives for his strange belief is:
> The employer is very, very clear in terms of everything they do that they don’t trust your resume even a little and give it exactly zero weight - else they wouldn’t waste manager time interviewing you to get you to rehash it.
But I’ve never been in an interview, on either side, which involved a “rehash” of the resume. Resumes and interviews serve different, complementary purposes.
The post also claims that a hypothetical “golden curriculum vitae” literally created by angels would not “increase your chances of getting hired at all.” This seems completely oblivious to the actual role resumes play in the hiring process. There’s no question that a good resume can make an applicant stand out, and predispose interviewers to favor a candidate.
The reason the author gives for his strange belief is:
> The employer is very, very clear in terms of everything they do that they don’t trust your resume even a little and give it exactly zero weight - else they wouldn’t waste manager time interviewing you to get you to rehash it.
But I’ve never been in an interview, on either side, which involved a “rehash” of the resume. Resumes and interviews serve different, complementary purposes.