[lbo-talk] Marketing Dork

[DSR]

joanna wrote:
> The point of the resume is to demonstrate that you have the basics
> and 
> to serve as a reference sheet for the interview. Most interviewers
> do 
> not know how to interview, so you have to help them do it. You
> should 
> write your resume so that it highlights what you want highlighted.
> It is 
> time consuming but worth it to have several versions of your resume
> for 
> the different types of jobs you're going for. There are no rules
> for 
> resume formats. Do what works. Do what makes you look good. Nobody
> cares 
> about education except academic jobs.
 
I worked as a recruiter/headhunter for a few years, and Joanna's
advice is dead-on correct.  However, regarding education, I'd advise
otherwise, to a point.

Yes, non-academic employers in white collar jobs do care about
education and look for it on the resume.  The common four year degree
has become the new high school diploma, and  often, what the degree
is in is of no matter as long as you have something.   

There are enough employers out there, still, who take into account
which institution issued the degree.  Obviously, the professional
world (doctors, lawyers, etc.) still values a good school and high
class rank.  (I wish I could say that is true for public/private
school teachers, but it is not.)  But for everyone else, it's not
just about prestige, i.e. state college v. private or parochial. 

And with today's education options available to fit myriad
lifestyles, the source of graduation may tell more about a candidate
than the employer can legally ask.  Was the degree from a four-year
traditional state university?  Do the names "DeVry", "LeTourneau" ,
or "University of Phoenix" appear?  Right there, the employer may
assume, rightly or wrongly, that the candidate was just interested in
a skill ("DeVry"), is a Christian (LeTourneau has a Christian based
program) or worked for their degree online while holding down a full
time job (University of Phoenix).  

What generic employers don't care about is whether or not you made
Phi Beta Kappa or a complete CV listing of publications, awards, etc.
 Business people are suspicious of academics.  In interview
situations, the former academic attempting to move into a business
environment might want to use the argument that, while they enjoyed
their time in academia, it cannot offer a sustainable wage and there
are other things you'd like to accomplish in your life that academia
cannot provide.  *You have to know your audience.*  Employers are
wary that academics will return to academia; you should convince them
that you have a materialistic side that outweighs your love of
teaching Canterbury Tales to college seniors.

Sometimes the education topic can be an ice-breaker in interviews if
you know in advance the interviewer's educational background.  Common
alma maters or knowing that the interviewer came up through the ranks
will help you direct the conversation in ways to your advantage.

A couple of pointers about formatting:  Feedback that I received from
employers and other recruiters suggested that, unless you are a
"green grad", you should list your skills and pertinent work
experience FIRST, and list your educational background towards the
end. Otherwise, you may lose your audience.  Or, as one employer
explained, when he sees someone over 30 list their education first
and their employment history and applicable skills  afterwards, it
makes him think that their best years were in college and everything
since has been down hill.  Impressions.

And regarding the infamous "Objectives" line that people preface so
many resumes with, if you have to have one, it should be broad enough
to not eliminate you from other positions and should emphasize what
*you* can bring to the employer's table and that you are looking for
an environment in which you can utilize such and such skills and
enthusiasm.  But NO objectives line is better than a BAD objectives
line.  

Of course, there will be exceptions to anything described above!

 - Deborah