Talk:Résumé/Archive 1

Archive 1

Do we want the links to resume posting sites here? Maybe instead of the links to sites, we should do list of articles about sites that post resumes...  ? --zandperl 05:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-- I've removed the links to Houston, TX resources. We cannot list all cities in the English-speaking world, and it is absurd to just have one.Crculver 17:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

A résumé (mainly in the United States; also sometimes spelled resumé or resume) or curriculum vitae (in the rest of the world; sometimes abbreviated to CV) is a document containing a summary of relevant job experience and education, usually for the purpose of securing a new job.

Strange that we have this article at résumé when (by the article's own admission) it's a curriculum vitae everywhere except the USA. Can an admin delete the redirect at curriculum vitae and move the article please. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:33, 25 Decemeber 2004

not everywhere. the world isnt made up of english speaking countries only. i've merged the content--resume and CV have different meanings in the US--Jiang 01:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gee whiz. Thank goodness now there's somebody who hauls out this garbage. JackLumber. 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

CV/Résumé difference

It might be an idea to create a separate article for CVs, since the content and style expected from a CV is quite different from that of American résumés? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PdDemeter (talk • contribs) 2005-01-13T01:06:15

- I would agree - plus CVs and résumés both have their own unique styles and variations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.116.158 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01T14:08:34

- Definetely. I searched for the word CV and I've come across a 'resume' (sorry but I refuse to write resume with the accents on it). And the way a CV is written is completely different from how a 'resume' is written. --Bulent 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is correct - Resumes are for computer bulletin boards and CVs are for jobs, not the same thing at all. 80.195.13.74 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, CVs are completely different from resumes. Yeah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wta121 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Until just this year I've never heard of a 'CV', I've always used resumes for my whole career (lasting longer than 20 yrs). Where did this term come from, and why is it replacing the word 'resume' ? KeyStroke (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never come across a resumé in my entire life, the term has always been CV here in the UK. As far as I know they have completely different formats and I support a split.Liam Markham (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting Curriculum Vitae to Resume is nonsense, they are different documents used in different parts of the world with different meanings. A CV is no more a type of Resume than vice versa.

There should be two entries, one for CV and one for Resume and they should reference each other. Tempted to revert back to pre-merge status. What do people think? Ei2g (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be two separate entries. I do not know what the standard is in the rest of the world, but in the academic and business community in Canada, if one is asked for a CV they are expected to produce a much different type of document than a resume. Nano Dan (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Count me among the supporters for a separate CV article. Although the term is used instead of resume in the UK, there is such a thing as a CV in the US. I'm a professional writer living in the US, and my clients are looking for a complete CV, not a resume. A resume would not include such relevant entries as continuing education (workshops, conferences, etc.), awards, publications, professional memberships, etc. An "interests" section is also important for me, so that clients can get a sense of the subjects in which I'm proficient.PacificBoy 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. CVs and Resumes' are two different documents in the U.S.. I've worked both in the private sector and the education sector. CVs are mainly used by educators. Resumes are use in non-education (teacher) positions or fields. So, while I have worked in education in a non-teaching position, if I were to apply for an teaching position, then I would have to use a CV instead of my resume'.

Rayghost (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. CV is the standard word used in British, Irish and Australian English. It (or a similar word) is also the word that is used most throughout the world (especially Europe excluding France). Reading this article it also appears that American "résumés" are very different to CVs which are used by most of the world. And anyway I thought the USA despised France (because they wouldn't support an illegal war) yet here you all are clinging onto a French word.--Xania ^talk 14:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that roughly 30% of the English lexicon comes from French, it seems we'd be hard pressed today to stop "clinging onto" French words. Either way, this is not the place for that sort of discussion. Frito31382 (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have migrated material from this article, resume into the CV article. They really are two separate documents. Each article can refer to the other article in comparisons. Please help edit these articles to clarify the differences. Thanks // Mark Renier (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Objective

The Wikipedia article says that 'The use of an "objective statement"... fell out of favor by the late-1990s.'

This is news to me. Most everything I've read, and what I've heard in discussions (I work in employment security) leads me to believe that an objective statement is almost required.

What is the "fell out of favor" statement based on? --- AndyVetRep 23:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The majority of job seekers today are not aware of this change in resume strategy. It truly coincides with the beginning of birth of the professional resume writing industry. Certified professional resume writers interview hiring professionals to discover what they need when reviewing a large body of candidates and derive strategy based on this intelligence.

It's really a matter of marketing. When you purchase a product, what triggers your response? What that product wants or what that product will do for you? People often don't look at themselves as a commodity, but they certainly are when competing in the job market.

The standard practice of career search professionals is to use a "profile" in place of an objective. This is a brief introduction that conveys the candidates value as it pertains to the position they seek. This should contain concrete, verifiable performance indicators. This formula works so effectively that I have been able to take a client who has been getting zero interviews to actively interviewing 3 or more times per week.

Objectives are still used in particular circumstances; entry-level, return-to-work, career or industry change resumes often use an objective statements as the candidate simply has no relevant information to provide in a profile that puts them ahead of the competition.

TrendResumes (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree. The problem is a poorly written, general objective statement which communicates very little, which is the problem not the objective statement itself. In fact I dedicate several articles to the writing of this objective statement, and how to do so effectively and professionally.

The article I refer to can be found here. Lusher (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A Curriculum Vitae is a summary of a person's educational and academic background. Its purpose is to outline one's credentials for an academic position, fellowship, or grant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sifuerst (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Formats

• For academic CVs in the United States, the oldest entries are generally listed first.
• For non-academic employment in the U.S., the newest entries generally come first.

Where does this come from? I'm in academia and I was told to list entries by their importance. I'd like to see references, or else omit lots of this.

--zandperl 21:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Would it be useful to show examples of each of the resume formats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiln32 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-15T18:16:00

Latin grammar in etymology section

Most of the discussion of Latin grammer is out of place in the etymology section (quoted below). It is rather esoteric and of no use to a reader looking for information about what a CV is or how to prepare a CV. Perhaps someone could move it to an article on Latin grammer.

The latter would be the genitive of content. The Latin plural would have been the former, being the genitive of possession: to an ancient Roman, "curricula vitarum" would suggest that each document described more than one life. What most people would want from a plural of CV is something meaning "a number of courses, each describing a single life"; this is curricula vitæ.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.240.102 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-11T01:32:48

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Before that paragraph went "The plural is curricula vitae, not curricula vitarum." Since the article does not need arguments about what the wrong terminology is, I've removed this section per the above poster's suggestion. pfahlstrom 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

---

vitae or vitæ

Google

• about 68,700 English pages for "Curriculum Vitæ" -vitae -wikipedia
• about 16,900,000 English pages for "Curriculum Vitae" -vitæ -wikipedia

In most fields, anyone presenting a "vitæ" instead of "Vitae" would bee see as pretentious or pedantic. Using that spelling on this page does not do any favours to a teenager reading this page for guidence. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been to fora where I've been found just showing off by use the word 'aspect', it depends on the audience. People accustomed to less formality see more formality as pædantic, in my circles it is accepted to write those two words as prætentious and pædantic respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niarch (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it saves space and looks cooler.Cameron Nedland 20:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't know how to type æ, so the Google search isn't representative of what they wanted to type. 57.66.65.38 13:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"curriculum vitæ" is correct (source: OED). "curriculum vitae" is popular (but see WP:SET).

Solution: have redirects at "curriculum vitae", use "curriculum vitæ" in article, but mention also "curriculum vitae".

—DIV (128.250.247.158 (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Please note that this is the English language wikipedia and that letter does not exist in this language. While it looks cool, it is obfuscatory and pretentious. Using the redirect through resume should suffice. // Mark Renier (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Australia also share the US definition of Resume and CV... Perhaps New Zealand too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.176.134 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-27T23:59:07

New Zealand uses CV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian (talk • contribs) 2005-12-31T06:26:44

India

The term "biodata" is not used to refer to a résumé; "biodata" refers to biographical and astrological information about a person which is often used in matchmaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeefan1087 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-04T04:37:59

Link Spam

Just a note, but this category and other related such as career are prone to link spam. Sources of this tend to be from 2 types of spammer - business (resume posting, distribution, etc) and content sites (usually from SEOs).

The first is obvious to spot, the second a little more tricky so I thought I'd leave some tips:

• reference to "content sites" here is focusing on those which are leaning towards or are completely spam - made for search engine optimisation purposes usually.
• "content sites" tend to run Adsense, usually sacrificing design and usability for advert placement.
• "content sites" usually have clear keyword targeting, usually sacrificing clear, concise content for keyword density. This can be spotted easily with keyphrase duplication in the Page title, H1 heading, links to the pages and body text.
• spammers will usually use keyword links (read: generic) over descriptive links in order to boost search engine rankings for this term. Note thought that spammers may also use compliant descriptions to attempt to escape detection, so descriptive links alone should not be a signal of a site being spam free.
• "content sites" usually focus on keywords researched on tools such as Overture or Wordtracker - these can produce unusal results (search terms which don't really make sense in plain English).
• this use of keyword targeting can lead to an illogical site structure - multiple pages seemingly covering the same topic (but targeting slight variations on the same term).
• in addition to these signals, "content sites" usually tend to be poorly designed (although I don't think this should be a factor in determining quality of content).
• generally, spam sites will make repeated attempts to get a link, even if it is continuously removed.

In general, when you get a feel for SEO spam pages, you can spot them a mile off. It is a difficult thing to pick up (because there are varying degrees of subtlety involved), but worthwhile for spambusting.

Should we be listing specific "offenders" here? I've seen a few slip by in recent months. What's your thoughts? Weeboab 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Curriculum Vitae example
• European Curriculum Vitae template. Multiple languages. Microsoft Word and Open Office format

Reinsert if they seem fine, but the anon who added them only edited this and curriculum.12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, they added exactly the same links to curriculum, leading me to believe they just used keywords.12:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following link--it looked extremely spammy to me, didn't seem to provide any useful information (unless you're willing to shell out ten bucks), and has a misleading description (I wouldn't call a booklet you have to buy an "article"). Starwiz 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Understanding the Purpose of a Resume - Article explaining the purpose of sending a resume to employers.

This link was added as a reference to a change I made in the article. If we want to leave it off, that's fine, but you're jumping to conclusions by calling it spam. I'm new to this editing thing, so if there is another way we are supposed to reference changes, please let me know. Mil97036 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability?

"Because CVs are legal documents, lying on them (on the work experience or the education/training) is a serious criminal and civil offence. An employer has right to dismiss an employee or claim money from him or her in a civil court or even get the employee arrested for making false statements or fraud." This part of the article sounds a bit far-fetched to me and is not supported by any references. If it's okay with everyone, I'll remove it if it cannot be backed up. JSIN 03:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's a serious faux pas to do so and could quite possibly cost you your job... not sure if it's legal though. Have to ask on WP:RD. Alphax ^τεχ 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In the USA, a résumé is not considered a legal document. But the consequences of being found with false information in it are just as spectacular. Losing your newly-found job is just the beginning. Besides, most employers and employment agencies now check out whatever information is in it, as there is no guarantees to its truthfulness. So being found a liar usually occurs a lot earlier in the (re-)employment cycle. Akindler90 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)AKindler90Akindler90 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the UK getting caught lying on your résumé is grounds for dismissal, which you could not challenge under the wrongful dismissal laws. However, it is not illegal to lie on a résumé unless your contract contains a clause along the lines of "I agree that the information I have provided to get this job is true", then it can be considered fraud or at least breach of contract. These days most contracts will have something like this. Providing altered or faked credentials (drivers license, exam certificates, etc) falls under fraud and "using a false device". Punishment and exact laws depend on the documents in question and the level of falsification. Formal application forms provided by an employer may be legal documents, in which case lying on them is illegal. Burningmace 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Typeface limitations

I removed the following from the section on British CVs:

[It is obligatory for it to be] in Arial, Courier New or Times New Roman, or an equivalent typeface, if none of those typefaces are available.

I find it extremely doubtful that there are real requirements for CVs that specify any particular fonts, let alone Microsoft fonts. Obviously, one should avoid fonts that are showy or hard to read, but mine is in Myriad and Minion and I find it very hard to believe that anyone would reject it because it uses those fonts instead of Times New Roman and Arial. If, on the other hand, I am completely wrong, and the entire island of Britain does their CVs using only Microsoft Word for Windows with the default font settings, and there is some kind of national standard mandating this, I'd be happy to have it put back, provided an adequate citation can be proffered. Nohat 09:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out that these are the default typefaces for CVs in the UK. Both Myriad and Minion are fine, but the idea is not to put "fun" typefaces like Comic Sans on the CV, as it says I am sloppy with my work.159753 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these days it is considered good practice to use Verdana as the font for any official documents. The font is designed specifically to have very high readability, even when the text is very small in size. People with reading and learning difficulties often find Verdana much easier to read than fonts such as Times New Roman or Courier New. Burningmace 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Only on the web. Verdana looks best at small sizes on a computer screen, which has a much lower resolution than a printout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.66.65.38 (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Differentiating

As far as I'm aware, a Resume and a CV are two different things, public perception notwithstanding.

A Resume is a short concise statement of the most important skills and experience for a position and should be tailored for every job applied for.

A CV is the entire catalogue of skills, experience and job history of a person, runs to several pages, and is usually only submitted upon request.

Although most people tend to use the terms interchangably, perhaps as an encyclopedia the distinction should be made clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.234.251.211 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-09T04:35:02

I agree. I came to this article looking for guidance on specific usage in different places, and it only briefly mentioned that in the US, we use the words differently (as, in fact, they are different). What I got out of the article is that the rest of the world uses them interchangably. Is (what we call) a cv, just another type of resume in Britain?I think it would be more factual to differentiate here, and mention that common usage is synonymous.Akohler ^Talk @ 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but for an unclear reason. That the terms Resume and CV may have differing meanings is one thing, but to imply that a resume is intended by definition to be only something very short is incorrect. Specifically, the age-old myth that resumes need only be a single page in length is still prevalent, and dammaging to people actually constructing resumes. What I mean is that it is entirely "ok" for a resume to be elaborate in description and length, with no negative effects on the part of the employer. What I've discovered is that the very few employers and interviewers who *do* ascribe to the notion of a short resume only do so because they think that it's accepted as such, and not because it truly matters. IOW, CV and "resume" may often be precisely the same thing in the US.Tgm1024 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As a US worker coming from a Latin American country with deep European influence, I agree with the ideas above. A CV is almost unheard of in this land, and any list of skills of over a page or two is way too extensive to be useful, and would be looked upon with suspicion. Why so many entries? That many employers in such a short time? No relevant experience? Jack of all trades, master at none?

Also, the concept of an "objective" for a resume is rather amusing from an European perspective, because:

+ The prospective employee already selected the jobs with the closest match of skills to apply.

+ The obvious objective is to get a job! Why restate the obvious?

+ Unless you already have inside information about a specific employee, any such statement is bound to be vague and prejudiced.

If you have inside information, you can probably get the job without such statement anyway, as you are probably well networked and therefore recommended from the inside, a situation that almost inevitable leads to employment. The person that recommended you is risking its reputation if you as an employee do not turn out all right.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Akindler90 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-02T19:49:27

A Curriculum Vitae is a summary of a person's educational and academic background. Its purpose is to outline one's credentials for an academic position, fellowship, or grant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sifuerst (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Errors

I feel this article is in need of cleanup: in some places résumé is used and in others resume is used. Also, the bullet "The CV is longer than 2 sides of A4 or make it double-sided" makes absolutely no sense. --- 67.171.234.235, 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about accent marks

There is no é in the English language. If this article is in English, it should be using the English word which is spelt resume. Why two languages are being used interchangeably in this document is beyond me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.113.57 (talk • contribs)

Yes there are accents in English, when the word comes from French for instance. Fgabolde 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In support of the above, I was taught in college that English is supposed to not only use words as they were in their original language, but also use the original language's constructs for its derivatives. English as a language is rather unique in this regard. In fact, in academia, it is considered improper NOT to do so. E.g.: formula and formulae, using Latin language constructs, as they are Latin words. It is not "formula" and "formulas", from using English language constructs.

In contrast, Spanish (and probably French and other Latin languages) REQUIRE the change of foreign words to conform to its native spelling and pronunciation rules. The rationale is that a language should not be expected to incorporate rules from other languages not in its past history (unlike Latin) just because of using its foreign words (which I would agree). Some language purist take these requirements to the extreme, often with ridiculously disastrous results, like "Chéspir" for "Shakespeare" in Spanish (actual quote from a Spanish professor in Universidad Simón Bolívar, Venezuela, summer of 1978)

It should be noted that following this practice especially in the Latin plural is quite irregular in terms of informal, formal or pædantic. Consider that the proper plural of 'penis', should be 'penes' by that rule. But even urology papers will always use the plural 'penises'. Niarch (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting example... At any rate, the use with accents is a notable minor usage, but it's definitely a minor usage. 95% of a google search for "resume" will come up without the accents, and per WP:COMMONNAME this page should really not have them either. English may loot words from the pockets of other languages it waylays in dark alleys, but those words are usually "damaged" in the process. As put, the title of this article is basically a hypercorrection. I would put a move request, but I just can't be arsed. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Resume and résumé are different words with different meanings and different pronunciation. This is the main reason why we use the accents in English. While it is rare to see accents in English, accented characters are part and parcel of the English language, especially for words adopted from French, a major contributor to the English language.Enquire (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

 What about words we get from Greek, or from Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Arabic?  Should we include their special characters and lettering as well?  Clearly not, so why argue for the inclusion of accent marks from another language?  "I was taught in college" does not make it correct.  It is true that English keeps special rules for words from other languages, but not special characters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.161.63 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 

Of course the accents should be used. They are part of the word and the dictionary word is 'résumé' not 'resume' which of course has completely different meaning, origins and pronunciation. I suppose that you would also spell 'café' without the accent too?--Xania ^talk 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Loanwords do not always need original accents when they have become incorporated into the language. Many words have become incorporated into the English language and are rarely seen with accents. It would be naive to think otherwise. See the discussion in Acute accent#Use in English, which makes specific mention of résumé. Saluton (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Retention of the accent is common only in the French ending é or ée, as in these examples, where its absence would tend to suggest a different pronunciation. Thus the French word résumé is commonly seen in English as resumé, with only one accent.

Faux Pas

The point 'Giving without a cover letter or the CV is signed' appears under 'faux pas'. I'm either really stupid or that is poor English because I can't seem to make much sense of it. Does that mean a CV shouldn't be signed? or that it should be when there isn't a cover letter included? seriously, someone who knows what it's supposed to say should sort it out. 82.28.225.30 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

dollar figure claims

"Another advantage to internet resumes is the significant cost savings over traditional hiring methods. The average cost of recruiting online is $152 dollars compared to $1383 through traditional methods."

No source has been cited for these dollar figure claims. --- PacoAU 09:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Clock the dictionary link?

Please clock the dictionary link.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.15.128 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-25T19:40:34

Huh? -- Donald Albury 12:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

created a redirect from Lebenslauf

I created a redirect from Lebenslauf to this article. A search for "Lebenslauf" shows that it is used in several articles. Here is a description of the term copied from Talk:Emmy Noether#Emmy Amalie, Amalie Emmy, or just Amalie?:

A "Lebenslauf" is a CV or resume. In Germany two kinds of CV have been common in the past, one in table form, the other one in essay form (and usually handwritten). Application for employment often used to require the hand-written essay form. --Stephan Schulz 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

--Jtir 11:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

Is it pronounced like the English word resume? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.66.189 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

No, it has three syllables and is pronounced thusly: “REH-zuh-may” (the first syllable of “résumé” is pronounced like the first syllable of the word “ready”). —BrOnXbOmBr21 06:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Etymology Error

Bonjour! I am a native speaker of French. The word résumé is directly from French résumé and not résumer as it is said in the Etymology section of this article. résumer does not mean "summary". The word résumé is a noun and means "summary", while the word résumer is a verb and means "to summarize, to make a summary". You can easily verify this in any French dictionnary. References and sources: "Le dictionnaire Le Petit Larousse", page 886. Édition Larousse, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.162.170 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-14T23:57:24 - altered by Raredavid on 2007-02-15T04:21:26

OED has the derivation from French résumer. Unless you are an expert in linguistics, I'm afraid we have to follow this. —DIV (128.250.247.158 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Resume Paper

I believe there should be a discussion of Resume paper added to this subject, as it can be quite confusing... Is it really bad to use brightly colored resume paper. Does it make a difference for different careers what paper you should use and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.228.18 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-16T20:10:54

Removed ‘how to write a résumé for technical jobs’

I took this section out:

Résumés for Technical Jobs [3] When you write your resume, think about it as your marketing tool and not only your personal document. Below are some tips and suggestions on how to write an attractive resume. 1- Use Titles/Headings that match the jobs you are applying for. 2- Use an attractive design. 3- Mention your skills, knowledge, and experience. 4- Make a list of your training and education. 5- Create content that sells. 6- Describe your accomplishment. 7- Quantify and use power words. 8- Analyze the job description to Identify key words. 9- Identify and solve employer's needs. 10- Tweak and target your resumes and cover letters.

as it was written in the wrong tone for the article. Also it was giving advice—not the purpose of Wikipedia. It was also specific to technical jobs. Is it me or is was this section really random? Max Naylor 15:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not just you. This was a poorly designed list, and further does not use an encylopedic "tone".Tgm1024 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Rephrase: "It also contains the author's information in such an aspect that it is considered as your presence in your absence to the one who reads it." under first para of Styles section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.236.106 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-06T07:46:27

I agree----and very funny by the way. I had to read this a few times to understand what the originator of this statement meant.Tgm1024 18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Differences

As both a university admissions officer and an employer of skilled personnel who has read thousands of CVs and Resumes, I found this article insufficient and unclear about the difference between a CV and a resume. I had intended to refer a student to this page for this kind of information, so I have made some additions.Axewiki 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement

This is something that I'm bringing to the attention of editors in general. Those that work with (and are fluent in) copyright issues please help me to confirm that a significant part of this article is (or isn't) a duplication of the website listed....

• www.hrsolution.ca/index.php

E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article includes the text [citation required], I'd suggest that they took it from Wikipedia and not the other way round. 213.120.9.121 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

yep looks like they have lifted it from wikipedia - not the other way around. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking :) E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition of an example CV

Would it be a good idea to add an example CV to the page possibly as a link or an embedded image. Not as an aid in producing one's own CV but as an example of the layout and the tone used. Many sites offer example CVs and I belive this would be a worthwile addition to the article --Neucleon 11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine adding/expanding a textual section on layout and tone would come first, and if an image helps illustrate that, I'm all for it. --Laser813 (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting this article

Since a CV and résumé are actually completely different things (though aimed at the same outcome, i.e. getting a job) I formally propose that the article be split. It feels very schizophrenic at present. — Nicholas (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Splitting This Article

There is no need to split this article as a Resume and a Curriculum Vitae (CV) are one in the same except for some minor differences as stated in the main article (Resume is made with achievements/experience most significant at the beginning and then working down whereas a CV is a chronological method of recording the same stuff). Sorry but i feel its a waste of time. Rgp2130 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

History

I don't have any knowledge in this area, but I'd love to see a "History" section in the Résumé article. Something to address questions like: Where did resumes come from? How long have people been using them? Where did they get their name? Are they a strictly 20th- (and 21st-)century thing? If I find any of this info, I'll be sure to throw it in the article, hopefully anyone out there with this knowledge will do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyisachild (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and would love some history. that's what i came to this article for, actually. 208.41.116.66 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the resume has always been used to sell slaves by experience, health, appearance, personality, gender, ability to breed, inability to read, etc, only now we have to use resume's to sell ourselves. Like this: http://www.negroartist.com/Slave%20Sales%20and%20Auctions%20African%20Coast%20and%20the%20Americas/index.htm Stars4change (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to separate cv with resume

It would be incorrect to separate cv with resume because untill and unless they are in a single article you would not be able to compare between two and, the best practice is to have Comparison between the two for best understanding.

Thanks and Regards, Hirender singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.140.41.205 (talk • contribs) 2008-01-29T07:15:52

I have migrated material from this article into the CV article. They really are two separate documents. Each article can refer to the other article in comparisons. Please help edit these articles to clarify the differences. Thanks // Mark Renier (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A standard British CV used to have the following points

why is this "used to"? Justify or change. 87.114.11.161 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect to separate resume and CV

When I worked in the UK we called it a CV. When I moved to the USA we called it a resume, but the content was just the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.10.153 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat inaccurate to say it's a Yank-Brit distinction

It's not really correct--or at least not really complete--to say, as the article currently does, that resume versus curriculum vitae is a dialectal distinction. It may be true that what is called a resume in the States is called a CV in the UK, but there are also curricula vitae in the States. Typically you submit a CV for academic jobs, a resume for industry jobs. The main distinction is that a CV is longer; also, it tends to be more focused on achievements as opposed to skill sets. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, this is easily fixed (and I have), simply by removing the unnecessary digression about American and British English in the first sentence. The rest of the text seems to treat the nuances adequately. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong: German Lebenslauf

The article states that in Germany (or at least German speaking countries) a picture WAS needed. It in fact IS still needed, and this question doesn't even arise to any German, because this is a FACT, almost a natural law. Even today, and not likely to change even on the long run. Please change that. --92.226.197.73 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Curriculum vita

Current footnote reads:

> The term curriculum vitae means "course of life" in Latin. While it is appropriate to write either curriculum vitae or just vita, it is correct to use the phrase curriculum vita, the form vitae being the genitive of vita. The plural of curriculum vitae is curricula vitae.

This is either a very poorly formed and confusing sentence, or it is supposed to read:

> The term curriculum vitae means "course of life" in Latin. While it is appropriate to write either curriculum vitae or just vita, it is incorrect to use the phrase curriculum vita, the form vitae being the genitive of vita. The plural of curriculum vitae is curricula vitae.

Meekohi (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Employment referencing (not citation)

Employment Referencing

May I suggest a mention of employment referencing? If I have overlooked a section please tell me but I could not find a single comment?

Perhaps the following info would help start such a section/paragraph/sentance?:

(In the UK) two employment references from previous employers are standard. However for those who have recently left education, one may be substituted for a figure of authority (most commonly a lecturer or teacher). Sometimes candidates may include a third "personal" referee (cite/check). These are usually entered last in a document of acievement (CV/Resume) but if their inclusion makes the document longer that two pages, it is usually acceptable to enter "References are available upon request". References are most commonly interpreted by employers as a qualifying rather than a winning criteria. I.e. holding little value because they are known to be biased by personal opinion and social relationships. Percieved value of a reference may be increased by an increased professional stature or competancy of the referee.

I wonder if anyone can help me: I had a query regarding which is more professional or usually preferred by employers; a) written references from entities or b) contact details for prospective employers to contact the entities themselves.

Thanks, Will.

Will Buck Student-UK (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

continues: (In the UK) It is illegal for referees to give negative references owing to libel and slander laws (ref/check), the job of prospective employers therefore is to spot what is missing from what they believe to be a standard positive response. Although such analysis is highly speculative, a common response may include timekeeping, work ethic and professional competancy. Many employers prefer verbal references to written because if a referee gave a negative reference it would be near impossible to prove, hence making the referee more likely to be honest (and include negative implications).

Cheers, Will.

Will Buck Student-UK (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

CV/Resume Consolidation of views

RELATED DISCUSSION SECTIONS: objective, technical job resume, formats, vatae (spelling), Australia, India, Germany (Lebenslauf & photo-inclusion) Verifiability, complaint about accent, example cv inclusion, history of cv.

Firstly, I have tried to consolidate the views of the other respondants into one talk section, please forgive me if I miss anyone; it is quite difficult navigating a confusing talk forum under a limited time constraint! Could a moderator/admin please check what I've written and delete the old posts? Thanks. Will.

It would be incorrect to separate cv with resume

It would be incorrect to separate cv with resume because untill and unless they are in a single article you would not be able to compare between two and, the best practice is to have Comparison between the two for best understanding. Hirender singh

(Part of) Etymology Error

Strange that we have this article at résumé when (by the article's own admission) it's a curriculum vitae everywhere except the USA. Can an admin delete the redirect at curriculum vitae and move the article please. — Trilobite (Talk) Jack Lumber?

Not everywhere. the world isnt made up of english speaking countries only. i've merged the content--resume and CV have different meanings in the US Jiang 01:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CV/Résumé difference

It might be an idea to create a separate article for CVs, since the content and style expected from a CV is quite different from that of American résumés?

I would agree - plus CVs and résumés both have their own unique styles and variations.

Definetely. I searched for the word CV and I've come across a 'resume' (sorry but I refuse to write resume with the accents on it). And the way a CV is written is completely different from how a 'resume' is written. Bulent 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is correct - Resumes are for computer bulletin boards and CVs are for jobs, not the same thing at all. Wta121?, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, CVs are completely different from resumes. Yeah! Preceding unsigned comment added by Wta121 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Until just this year I've never heard of a 'CV', I've always used resumes for my whole career (lasting longer than 20 yrs). Where did this term come from, and why is it replacing the word 'resume' ? KeyStroke (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never come across a resumé in my entire life, the term has always been CV here in the UK. As far as I know they have completely different formats and I support a split. Liam Markham (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting Curriculum Vitae to Resume is nonsense, they are different documents used in different parts of the world with different meanings. A CV is no more a type of Resume than vice versa.

There should be two entries, one for CV and one for Resume and they should reference each other. Tempted to revert back to pre-merge status. What do people think? Ei2g (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be two separate entries. I do not know what the standard is in the rest of the world, but in the academic and business community in Canada, if one is asked for a CV they are expected to produce a much different type of document than a resume. Nano Dan (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Count me among the supporters for a separate CV article. Although the term is used instead of resume in the UK, there is such a thing as a CV in the US. I'm a professional writer living in the US, and my clients are looking for a complete CV, not a resume. A resume would not include such relevant entries as continuing education (workshops, conferences, etc.), awards, publications, professional memberships, etc. An "interests" section is also important for me, so that clients can get a sense of the subjects in which I'm proficient. PacificBoy 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Differentiating

As far as I'm aware, a Resume and a CV are two different things, public perception notwithstanding.

A Resume is a short concise statement of the most important skills and experience for a position and should be tailored for every job applied for.

A CV is the entire catalogue of skills, experience and job history of a person, runs to several pages, and is usually only submitted upon request.

Although most people tend to use the terms interchangably, perhaps as an encyclopedia the distinction should be made clear? (Unsigned?)

I agree. I came to this article looking for guidance on specific usage in different places, and it only briefly mentioned that in the US, we use the words differently (as, in fact, they are different). What I got out of the article is that the rest of the world uses them interchangably. Is (what we call) a cv, just another type of resume in Britain?I think it would be more factual to differentiate here, and mention that common usage is synonymous. Akohler Talk @ 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but for an unclear reason. That the terms Resume and CV may have differing meanings is one thing, but to imply that a resume is intended by definition to be only something very short is incorrect. Specifically, the age-old myth that resumes need only be a single page in length is still prevalent, and dammaging to people actually constructing resumes. What I mean is that it is entirely "ok" for a resume to be elaborate in description and length, with no negative effects on the part of the employer. What I've discovered is that the very few employers and interviewers who *do* ascribe to the notion of a short resume only do so because they think that it's accepted as such, and not because it truly matters. IOW, CV and "resume" may often be precisely the same thing in the US. Tgm1024 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As a US worker coming from a Latin American country with deep European influence, I agree with the ideas above. A CV is almost unheard of in this land, and any list of skills of over a page or two is way too extensive to be useful, and would be looked upon with suspicion. Why so many entries? That many employers in such a short time? No relevant experience? Jack of all trades, master at none?

Also, the concept of an "objective" for a resume is rather amusing from an European perspective, because:

+ The prospective employee already selected the jobs with the closest match of skills to apply. + The obvious objective is to get a job! Why restate the obvious? + Unless you already have inside information about a specific employee, any such statement is bound to be vague and prejudiced.

If you have inside information, you can probably get the job without such statement anyway, as you are probably well networked and therefore recommended from the inside, a situation that almost inevitable leads to employment. The person that recommended you is risking its reputation if you as an employee do not turn out all right.

A Curriculum Vitae is a summary of a person's educational and academic background. Its purpose is to outline one's credentials for an academic position, fellowship, or grant. Preceding unsigned comment added by Sifuerst (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Errors

I feel this article is in need of cleanup: in some places résumé is used and in others resume is used. Also, the bullet "The CV is longer than 2 sides of A4 or make it double-sided" makes absolutely no sense. 67.171.234.235, 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Differences

As both a university admissions officer and an employer of skilled personnel who has read thousands of CVs and Resumes, I found this article insufficient and unclear about the difference between a CV and a resume. I had intended to refer a student to this page for this kind of information, so I have made some additions. Axewiki 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting this article

Since a CV and résumé are actually completely different things (though aimed at the same outcome, i.e. getting a job) I formally propose that the article be split. It feels very schizophrenic at present. Nicholas (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Splitting This Article

There is no need to split this article as a Resume and a Curriculum Vitae (CV) are one in the same except for some minor differences as stated in the main article (Resume is made with achievements/experience most significant at the beginning and then working down whereas a CV is a chronological method of recording the same stuff). Sorry but i feel its a waste of time. Rgp2130 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat inaccurate to say it's a Yank-Brit distinction

It's not really correct--or at least not really complete--to say, as the article currently does, that resume versus curriculum vitae is a dialectal distinction. It may be true that what is called a resume in the States is called a CV in the UK, but there are also curricula vitae in the States. Typically you submit a CV for academic jobs, a resume for industry jobs. The main distinction is that a CV is longer; also, it tends to be more focused on achievements as opposed to skill sets. Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, this is easily fixed (and I have), simply by removing the unnecessary digression about American and British English in the first sentence. The rest of the text seems to treat the nuances adequately. Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My perspective

I believe that what I have to say may actually be relevant to the whole of wikipedias structure?

As the amount of information on wikipedia grows, there is bound to be a difficulty with managing the content of articles owing to the wealth of data. It's really the the different purspectives from which the are written, and purposes for which they are used; There are many ways to analyse things within the world, it all depends upon which particular lens you are viewing them from.

Example: Disambiguation > Nuclear Power (Perspectives: GCSE, A-Level, Higher education, Operational staff).

But as individuals perspectives are added, this will redefine and further add other lenses. For example the history of nuclear power plants, nuclear power plant policy. You may also find that the article will then split into different cultures perspectives; UK Power plant policy, Greenpeace nuclear power plant policy, whatever... The options are limitless and for me, this is the beauty of wikipedia.

Such a process may go some way to realising the potential of wikis; imagine a wiki used to discuss UK environmental policy, or teaching methods (whatever you are interested/work in). This discussion of topics at different levels of understanding is an amazingly powerful potential competancy of wikis.

What we need to do is to separate but effectively link the different themes through disabiguation pages; Within the context of CVs and resumes, each of the following may have their own pages:

(Generalisation) Document of achievement

(UK) Employer perspective: Document of achievement (first line "A document of achievement (a.k.a. Curriculem Vitae (CV)")

(UK) Candidate perspective: Document of achievement

(UK) (History of) Document of achievement

(USA) Employer perspective: Document of achievement (first line "A document of achievement (a.k.a. Resume)")

(USA) Candidate perspective: Document of achievement

(Germany) Employer perspective: Document of achievement

...

There are many possible navigational options: you can have it so that the when someone searches resume there is an inference that they are looking for the US interpretation and so they are redirected to a disambiguation page designed for the US:

(USA) Employer...

(USA) Candidate...

(USA) History of...

...

The fact is that much of the information contained on this discussion forum is relevant. But not relevant solely to the subject hence the redefinition of the term cv/resume to "document of achievement". Do not have information which is not universally applicable to the topic; there are so many abstracts within one document that it reduces the relevancy of the article for its purpose (In the UK... In the USA... in every paragraph!) The result is that it puts a glass celing on the amount of data moderators are willing to include because the "resume" article is too bulky and unweildy; think of all that lost knowledge! Disagreements result about what should be included, just look across wikipedia!!

People use intangible words such as outside the "flow" or "ethos" of the article but the reality is that they are written about a particular topic, from a particular perspective and for a particular purpose. These need to be separated or problems arise when individuals do not agree on this - I.e. one person wants to put up a history section, or another wants links for candidates, or another wants whatever... these should be separate pages based upon purpose. Should the differences in perspective be great enough to warrent a new article; then do it! Well more than that... If you have an inclusion which does not solely relate to the article but has another clause, then separate it.

I am no expert on the differences between a CV and a resume but I believe that a great deal of the problems have come from cultural interpretations of such documents. Hofstede and Hofstede, who are renound to be some of the academic "experts" on national cultures give the example that a cv in their home country of Holland is a completely different document to a US Resume. But that these differences are based upon traits common to members of their cultures. They say that in the USA you would sell yourself more than in Holland where you would only write things on a CV which are specifically provable. Someone mentioned US legislation which may reflect this (criminality of lying)?

Such a system allows more detailed information to be included in wikipedia thus increasing it's functional power. Come on guys lets sort this widespread problem and leave the discussion threads for more productive uses: disagreements over sourcing etc.

Thanks for your time, Will.

Will Buck Student-UK (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This really is a horribly confused page and - once again - assumes that the US view is the default world-view. A number of editors have stated that CV and resume are different things in the US and make an assumption that this is likely to be true elsewhere; however, in most other English-speaking countries, CV and resume are the SAME thing ... and the most commonly used term is CV. (I am speaking as someone based in the US but administering offices in 22 countries around the world). It is completely wrong that the page heading is only Resume. Either separate pages should be written (a separate CV page could mention that the word resume is used in the US and that in the US CV means something different) or the page header should be something like: curriculum vitae/resume (with accents of course). 621PWC (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why it’s correct to separate "resume" and "curriculum vitae"

While the above discussions clearly show that "CV" can take on different meanings from place to place, those comments noting the differences between a CV and a resume in the United States are correct in calling for a separate CV article.

It should be emphasized that a "standard British CV" (as someone above refers to it) is much more like a "resume" in the US than a CV. The claim that "There is no need to split this article as a Resume and a Curriculum Vitae (CV) are one in the same except for some minor differences" is simply incorrect. For one, most people in the US outside of academia have never even heard of a curriculum vitae, and no one here would ever call a resume a curriculum vitae. In any case, while they may have some overlap in terms of content, the American CV is definitely not a resume in the sense of this article, and this cannot be understated.

Perhaps the solution is to create a separate article discussing CVs specifically in this "non-resume" sense, making the clear distinction that this differs from a British "CV" or US "resume." Frito31382 (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have split the CV And Resume pages and added a new entry for CV and curriculum vitae. I have kept the entry relatively simple covering the key basics of the CV so other people can add their views on the different styles of CV ect. SharpCV (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of term "Discography".

"Some career fields include a special section listing the life-long works of the author." "For musicians and composers, the discography." Discography is a list of an author's sound recordings only. This usage seems to suggest that "Discography" includes all published works and is not using the term as just an example of one part of an author's works. Dymystyfy (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How to make accented e?

Sorry but how do you make an accented e? Stars4change (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold alt and type 0233 on the numpad. 167.154.2.90 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is the English wikipedia. While your keyboard might be capable of producing this letter, it does not exist in the English language and following the redirect to this article through resume should be sufficient. // Mark Renier (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Paper

I know that there are those who like to put their resumes on fancy paper, but should we maybe include a part about how fancy paper and the like doesn't put you at any advantage. Sure it feels sturdy, but it hardly makes you stand out, and can even hinder you in the short run. What do others think? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Number of Pages

A résumé should generally not exceed two pages (not including a cover letter, if applicable) unless the individual has had extensive schooling, considerable work experience, and a comprehensive skills sections. Employers do not want to read a life history and if presented with too much detail may not bother reading it at all. A good résumé should be both informative and concise. Additionally, avoid excessive personal comments and formatting that consumes too much space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.200.127 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 September 2010