Subj : Re: CV, work-history, 91C, CompSci?, Applet? (was: Software Job Market To : comp.programming,comp.software-eng From : Duane Bozarth Date : Mon Aug 22 2005 10:25 am "Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" wrote: > .... > I had major works in 1963-66 (but that was math, not software), > 1970-71, 1975-76, 1978, 1986-91, 1991-95, and 2001-04. > I don't think it's possible to twist that to match your spec. But nothing I've seen is in a standard resume format of Author(s), Article Title, Journal_Name_Published_In, Page, Vol_No, Yr. W/O the actual citation, "published" work isn't anything and is probably more detrimental than helpful as it looks like an attempt to make some sort of credential out of thin air. > > why did you say "currently unemployed"? Hasn't anyone told you this > > is the number one trigger HR looks for when shortening their resume > > stack? > > Good point. Tell me where I wrote that and I'll delete it. > Hmm, I did a grep of my local copies of those resumes. I see: > Files/Resumes/Resume.91C:currently unemployed and available for work immediately > That was three months after I became unemployed, when I wanted to > emphasize that I had recently gotten laid off so I am immediately > available to start work today, you don't have to offer me a job then > wait a month or two or even longer for me to give notice at my present > job, so if you need somebody immediately I'm a better choice than > somebody very busy with another job who can't work for you until the > current job is finished next year some time. It's moot now, but was > that a huge mistake way back in 1991.Dec? Should I have sent my resume > in response to job ads but made like I wouldn't really be available to > start work until next year (1992) sometime?? Why did it take 13 lines plus going on for an uncounted number of paragraphs to simply say "OK, I see I do that once--I'll fix it."? I tend to be long-winded, but geez-louise, you take the cake in self-justification and argument over trivia... :( > I don't see the phrase "currently unemployed" in any more recent > resume, so that one mistake, if it was a mistake, way back in 1991, is > pretty much moot for my current unemployment, wouldn't you agree? If it's there to be found and some can see it, it isn't moot. How is someone who finds it and doesn't know it from the 20 others floating around to know it isn't your best effort? I reiterate my previous suggestion--get rid of everything for the time being and get a single, well-formatted conventional resume completed and post it and only it. .... > But thanks for being the very first person to ever tell me what > specifically was wrong with that first resume I ever wrote in my life. You've had real, palatable suggestions from many--you just continue to nitpick semantics and detail and complain rather than looking at the comments and utilizing them. We can't write your resume for you, but certainly the fact that no one here thinks your current ones are good examples should be sufficient to get you motivated to go find sources of others to try to model. > > About the hirability issue, you seem to have zillions of "computer > > science" certs, and not much visible "software engineering". > > I have no idea what you're talking about here. ... Same thing many others have pointed out--you list many areas of knowledge but no concrete work experience where any of these topics have been put to use for an end purpose... > > > Software Engineering is the process of efficiently _avoiding_ > > computer science research, while adding value to useful software. > > That's a curious definition I've never heard of, not even slightly > close to that, in all the years since I first started seeing the terms > "Software Engineer[ing]" in job ads. I like it! ... Well, I've never heard it exactly that way, either. It simply is a rephrasing of an idea that has been around a long time though--that academic research is often "bleeding edge" and takes some time and often much modification to actually be found truly useful directly in application. Much of pure science is the same way--it's a basic principle from which much approximation must be made to get a workable engineering model that is practical yet a workable design tool. .... .