Subj : Re: CV, work-history, 91C, CompSci?, Applet? (was: Software Job Ma...) To : comp.programming,comp.software-eng From : rem642b Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 10:58 pm > From: Duane Bozarth > > 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. My experience is in computer software, not literature. I'm looking for a job in commercial software, not in literature, and not a tenured faculty position where publishing is an important qualification. When I use the word "major works" I'm referring to large computer software systems, works of software, not published works of literature. Let me check what the earlier poster said, to see where you might have gotten the mistaken idea that he or I was talking about literature instead of software ... > If I want a senior, I will look for >8 years from early > projects to major works. In the context of software accomplishments over a long career, I don't see how that earlier poster could have used the phrase "major works" to mean published literature in journals instead of major software projects, nor how you could think that he meant that, especially when the passage you quoted explictly said the first major work was math and the rest of the major works were software. > 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. You're talking about something else now, not the software works (and one mathematical work) I was describing there. I've had only one joint paper published (instructable robot), one abstract published singly (differential algebra), and AFAIK at least one paper where I wasn't a party to the paper itself even though I did software work contributing to the researcher's result in the paper (NMR relaxation&NOE). I was told that since I did the major software work and wrote a description of my work which was supposed to be included in the full text of the published article, my name would be included in the list of authors, and I was promised a preprint of the NMR paper, but they never gave me one, and I was never even told where it got published. Let me check if Google has it indexed ... Hmm, Google has only one match for "jardetzky stanford maas", but it's PDF, which I can't see here over VT100 dialup, and both the HTML and TEXT versions of it are empty. I don't know the name of the abstract service, analagous to "Mathematical Reviews", for NMR. > 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? Actually every one of my resumes has gotten the same review, horrible, so they are all equal if judged by the critiques I've gotten. Not one of them is rated any better than any other. So in fact each one is equally one of my best efforts. If and when I get some kind of significant feedback as to what makes one or two resumes especially bad compared the rest, and likewise why all but one or two are worse than those one or two very best, then I might be able to prune the set, displaying just the most highly rated ones. So-far, with only one specific useful critique of my earliest resume, it's too early to hide it from view by those who might offer additional useful critique. Poll for everyone: Now that I've been unemployed more than ten years, should I include my reverse chronological list of work history in my resume or not? If I include it, should I include only paid positions, or also include any major unpaid work I've done while unemployed? Should I include it at the start of the resume, or at the end, or somewhere in the middle? > 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. OK, I'll manage the files like this: Tripod is an FTP login away, no way to edit in place, so I'll keep my old list of all resumes there, just for your reference when you're helping me construct a new better resume. I'll put the new better attempt on my shell account where I can edit in place and always have the latest version for display instead of an old version several months or years obsolete because I haven't gotten around to updating the FTP site yet. My active new resume we're working on will be linked from my uh3t URL. Here's what's there right now: http://tinyurl.com/uh3t * Looking for employment * WAP login form Contact me Services for desktop/laptop Web-browser No longer supporting WAP/CellPhone pages. and if you click on "Looking for employment" you get just a single resume, the 1998.Nov resume, which is the most recent ASCII version on the Tripod site: http://members.tripod.com/~MaasInfo/SeekJob/Resume.98B.txt You don't like that resume?? What exactly is wrong with it? It has my paid work experience in the middle, a compromise between putting it at the end where it looks like I'm hiding it, and putting it at the very top where it shoots me in the foot before the reader has seen anything else to interest him/her. Would it be better to completely omit my paid work history, as I did in these resumes, so as not to shoot myself in the foot anywhere whatsoever? http://members.tripod.com/~MaasInfo/SeekJob/Resume.91C.txt http://members.tripod.com/~MaasInfo/SeekJob/Resume.942.txt By the way, more recent than 1998 I have these two MicroSoft Word format resumes, which I can neither view nor edit here: http://members.tripod.com/~MaasInfo/SeekJob/Robert_Elton_Maas.doc http://members.tripod.com/~MaasInfo/SeekJob/REM.doc Can anybody view them and tell me if either is legible and/or good? Also, in 2000 I posted this list of my major software accomplishments: http://members.tripod.com/~MaasInfo/SeekJob/ResApp.00C-Acc.txt Which if any of those should be mentionned, even briefly, in my wonderful new resume you're all going to help me construct out of the shreds and pieces of the old resumes plus some new better language? As soon as I get the results of the earlier poll, or as soon as somebody tells me what changes he/she recommends in my 1998 resume, I'll do the edit and update my Web site to point to the new 2005 in-progress resume instead of the finished 1998-1994 resume. > 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. I've never seen any sample of a resume suitable for somebody who has been unemployed more than two years, except for the "functional resume", which I tried but everybody said it was crap, so I have no idea what specifically was wrong with it or how to fix it. > 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... Take a look at that list of accomplishments I posted: http://members.tripod.com/~MaasInfo/SeekJob/ResApp.00C-Acc.txt and tell me which of those items should be included in the new resume. I would include them all, but they won't all fit on one page. By the way, if I ever get past the resume stage, to where I get an actual interview, I'll need to supply references, people who know me personally and are familiar with my recent work. Is there anybody reading this thread who would be willing to look at my recent work and give me feedback on it? (My work at software! Not my work at writing resumes!) .