An Addendum

Way back in May I blogged about common problems with resumes and job descriptions.

I have hesitated to add anything to that post lest anyone think I am referring specifically to his or her resume that I recently reviewed.

So in the interest of not hurting feelings: if you're reading this blog, and know who I am, then probably I'm not talking about your application materials. Between actual applicants for jobs where I work and alumni volunteering I've looked at about 400 applications in the last month.

Again, this is mostly focused (per the theme of the blog) on the trivial.

Without further ado, some strong feelings.

• If you are applying for an entry-level job and your resume is more than 1 page long, you are either overqualified or incapable of appropriate presentation.
• I'm probably not going to read any paragraph in your cover letter that is more than 3-4 sentences.
• Really? You've never met me and the cover letter is addressed "Dear Heidi"...really?
  
• If you list "detail-oriented" as a skill, then a single typo will be enough to disqualify you. I'm not kidding.
• If you have a ridiculous email address, I will judge. So will Dixie.
  

Less / Fewer

Ann Marie's post below reminded me of a grammatical error that always bugs me. Ok, there are many of these, but here's one I've seen/heard a lot recently and it makes me angry to hear it misused. Inappropriate reaction? Yes. Ergo, Strong Judgment / Trivial Matter.

One has LESS of an item that can't be counted, but FEWER of something that can be (except in cases of continuous measurement, where less is acceptable, but we can ignore that for the moment).

For example: "There is less traffic now because of the recession" versus "there are fewer cars on the road now because of the recession."

(one can, in theory, count cars. One cannot count traffic).

Money is another exception, one can say that you have less than ten dollars. This is both because of the continuous measurement exception noted above and also because money is in itself a symbol, generally referring to a value as opposed to the actual number of bits of paper in your hand (in which case one might have fewer than ten dollar bills).

Coming soon: amount v. number in common usage.

PLEASE

It is confused ABOUT, not confused ON.
Peace.

Out.

Also, this is SAD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TXkCSIRYUE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freader%2Fview%2F&feature=player_embedded

Proofread your resume

Here are some things to keep in mind when applying for a job.
Note: while applying for a job is not a trivial matter, all the things I'm about to cover are pretty trivial. I'm going to assume the non-trivial is adequately covered elsewhere.

• Submit your application to the correct person. If, just as a random example, the job description says "email cover letter and resume to ____", follow that instruction. Don't email your cover letter and resume to (A) the current holder of the job you are applying for (B) the person listed as the agency contact on the listing or (C) all of the above. Because then you look like you can't follow a simple instruction. If you can't read a damn job description and do what it says, than probably you're not a good candidate for the job.
• Did we ask for a writing sample? No? Ok, then don't send one. Maybe we will later. Right now? Nope.
• Oh, we asked for a writing sample? Then why didn't you send one?
  
• How long is your resume? Really? You think that requires two and a half pages? REALLY? No one's looking past page 1 buddy. Seriously.
• No, I mean that. I know a lot of people say a 2 page resume is ok, but seriously? I can't be bothered. Unless you are HOT SHIT. A resume is not a CV.
• Ok, fine, if it must be two pages, at least make it fit neatly. 1 page plus a couple inches on the back just looks like bad formatting. I guarantee I could make it fit. If you're going to have the chutzpah to go two pages, then you'd damn well better have enough interesting things to say to fill both pages.
• THREE PAGES? REALLY? Man, you've had way too many jobs. Do you have a problem with authority? Are you going to quit after six months?
  
• That typo? Right there? That anyone proofreading for you could see? That just cost you an interview. Because you don't care enough to check. There's a recession, you may have heard, there are a million applicants for every job. Your typo? Matters.
• I know what a barista does. You don't need to explain it. If you need to make it sound relevant, do that--briefly--in your cover letter.
• Oh, and your cover letter? It needs to be specific to this job you're applying for. Not generic and bland. Explain your experience, tell a story, etc.
  
• Oh, and, also...do that in one short letter.
  
• If you have to email your resume, and you are using anything other than the most basic fonts, convert the thing to a PDF. Heck, even if your fonts are basic. There are a million free programs that you can download from the internet to turn documents into PDFs.
  
• Not to be harsh, but if you can't figure that last point out, or ask someone to help, then you're probably not the best candidate for an office job.
  
• If the job description emphasizes written and verbal communication skills, there really can't be any grammatical errors in the cover letter. Especially in the part where you say you are a good communicator.

Lest you think this is all related to the fact that I'm leaving my job, it's actually mostly not. I'm not on that search committee, thank goodness. No, I just do a lot of alumni volunteering and look at a lot of application materials in several volunteer capacities. It is amazing how often really smart people screw up the easiest shit.

Commenters...

...and commentators are not the same thing.

The first is a direct nominalization of "to comment". Ergo it refers to someone who comments. Like on this blog. As a form of another word, it does not get a separate dictionary definition.

A commentator is slightly different, he or she is someone who "discusses news, sports, weather or the like, as on TV or the radio" or "someone who makes commentaries".

The latter implies some analysis, the former is more reactive.

Clear?

Oh, and while we're talking word choice, I'm still waiting for someone to give me one scenario where "utilize" is a more appropriate choice than "use". Just one. It has yet to happen.