Remove These Ten Things From Your Resume

Timothy I would also like to take out the time to thank you for your service you guys give us our freedoms. I do not know why it is so hard for someone like you to find a job especially with the experience you have. I know you may not want to hear this but if I were you I would stick to government positions. t

Is it a good idea to direct your career summary to the position - like include the keywords from the advertisement. Such as if you apply for different roles - have one for accounts, one for administration. Also is it a good idea to have a different resume for each position, I have been in the position where applying for different roles at the same company and they advise me that my CV/resume is more directly strongly to accounts. Trying not to get a bad reputation. Hard to cut back my resume / CV but trying with the advice you have given. Given that the recruiter on has limited time analysing.

@Timothy thanks for your comment. Wow - very impressive! Thank you for your service. You should be proud and you should boast as you have every right to do so. However, today, resumes have changed. The larger percentage of resumes go through applicant tracking software (ATS) that scans your resume for keywords that the hiring manager and/or HR has deemed to be the most important for the position. If your resume does not contain those words, it could be 10 pages long and it still would be discarded. Sorry - I know that stinks but, even today, companies are being inundated with thousands of resumes for one position. In addition, most companies don't want to read through all of our past accomplishments. The rule of thumb today is to only include the past 10 years and then only those accomplishments that are relevant to the position for which you are applying. In the service, sure we wore multiple hats at the same time. But, in the civilian world, not so much. Most of the positions for security, firefighting, EMT, corrections, etc. are considered as individual positions, not connected to each other. You might have to just create a resume for each position or maybe for a combo such as firefighting and EMT as one. In today's technological world, anything over ten years is probably obsolete. For instance the equipment that you used while in the AirForce is all but gone and replaced with new, modern equipment for which you have no experience. See what I mean? When you write your resume you start with the most current position and work down. The positions that you have been in since 2008 would be on top, if they are relevant and then work your way down to the Postal Service and your military career - again, if relevant. If you can't keep you resume to one page, then don't. That one page is a guideline only based upon feedback that we receive from companies and recruiters. You might want to find a recruiter who specializes in the field for which you are applying., They will certainly be able to guide you in making a resume that will get the attention it deserves and get you the job that you are really seeking. Hope that helps.

I am in my late fifties and spent twenty nine years in the US Air Force, and US Air Force Reserves., all within three different specialties. These specialties are all connected to each other in the fields of security forces, firefighting, and the emergency medical field. I have progressed to supervisor and then management level in each one. Including my post military time, I have over twenty years in either experience or training in emergency response, disaster preparedness, corrections, mortuary science, security, transportation. In half of these I was either a manager, trainer or instructor. These are only some of these areas. To top it all off, I spent twenty years working the dispatch areas of the US Postal Service, five of these as a supervisor.

I am proud of my accomplishments, and believe me, I am NOT boasting. In fact, this is my problem. I have gone from one job to another, solely for two reasons; better financial and relocation opportunities. The job that I had the most experience in everything besides the military is the US Postal Service, where I retired in 2008. On a resume, that goes way on the bottom in chronological order. So. How do I list the job that I had for over twenty years at the top of the list, and how in the world do I make all this less than three pages? I have revised it as much as I possibly can. Thank you so very much.

@Paul thanks for your comment. It is tough to keep your resume to one page - that is true. Today, resume's usually only cover the last 10 years and only cover relevant information. In the past we would like down every job - one by one with complete information about each position. Today, not so true. However, if you need two or more pages for your resume, go for it. The one page is just a general guideline. Remember, though, that your resume is more than likely going to go through the ATS prior to getting into the hands of anyone in HR so pay attention to keywords that seem to pop up in every job posting. If the keywords aren't there, the system will discard your resume. Hope that helps. We wish you all the best.

No one with 20+ years experience and 5+ jobs can have a one page resume. That is a fallacy saying it has to be one page. That only gets listed by lazy HR people from time to time. I have had dozens of recruiters tell me that multiple page resumes are expected and fine.

@Jean thanks for your question. It's up to you what font size you use. I would never go lower than a 10 and never higher than a 12. Personally, I use a 10 because I have so much information to try to get my resume to one page that I need all the space I can get. If I had less info to fill the page, I would use a 12. So you judge for yourself. The most important thing is that you include the most pertinent information on your resume regardless of font size.

When listing your job, what font is the standard to use? 12 or 11. And the info you share what font size is the best... 10?

Remove the unecessary waffle; works wonders.

@Melissa thanks for your comment. Short, sweet and to the point is how I look at a resume. Yes, list the position and then quantifiable tasks. If you worked two jobs wherein you did the same tasks, you don't have to list them twice. You could combine positions under one heading such as: Project Manager, ABC Company, Jan 2000 - Dec 2003; Project Lead, XYZ Company, Jan 2004 - present and then list your tasks under that. Absolutely use spell check as well as reading it aloud. Have someone else read it so that you can hear it from them. Many times, when we read something that we wrote, our mind will sort of know what we "meant" to say and we don't catch any errors. That's why it's always great to have someone else proof it. Hope that helps.

So basically try and summarise your skills. Perhaps bullet point them under your name. Put your position and duties as much as possible. I gather that in this day and age you are up against many, people. Also it down with the advertisement and note the key words - include them mostly on your CV or resume - it will most probably be scanned by a computer. Also use spell check - but then ensure that it reads correctly - I usually do this by speaking it through.

@Sanjay thanks for your comment. It certainly is frustrating. However, ATS is here to stay. Several years ago it was only the larger companies who were using ATS. Today, most companies use it. They have to in order to get through the mounds of resumes they receive each day - for one position. It is frustrating when we, as job seekers, take the time to write up a great resume and cover letter for a position that is perfect for us, only to never hear anything back because - well maybe we didn't use the requisite number of keywords. Maybe we need better recruiters but I think that the recruiters are doing the best that they can. I can't imagine having to sift through hundreds of resumes that made the ATS cut and still have to be gone through with human eyes. If you have ever worked as a recruiter you would understand it a bit better. I did a short stint as one and let me tell you - it's no fun. Yes it is true that the recruiter doesn't know everything about the position and may not be able to answer all of the questions but they know enough to know if you are lying or faking it when they talk to you. They know enough to get your resume in front of a hiring manager. Now, having said that, not all companies will use recruiters or agencies since they have to pay so much for them. Companies rely on ATS to whittle down the stack of resumes to a reasonable amount so that HR or the hiring manager can go through them and reach out to the best of the best.

Eppsie thanks for your comment. Sure it would be better if your resume was one page but, if you can't get all of the pertinent information on one page, keep it at two. Current wisdom has us keeping our resumes short - to one page. But, in spite of that, I truly believe that it's better to include all of the pertinent information that will get you in front of a hiring manager than to cut out important and pertinent information just to keep up with today's ideal of a resume. @Marianne I agree with you that I prefer the career summary rather than an objective. After all, the company already knows that you are seeking a certain position because you are responding to their posting. Remember, we always use to say something like "actively seeking a position as a business analyst in mortgage or banking"? Such a waste of valuable real estate. It's better to offer up a career summary - a very short story so to speak.

I like the idea of career summary and not objective

OMG! I began using a two page resume instead of my one page resume because I was told I had too much on the one page. I have pharmaceutical experience like you would not believe (administrative capacity) I have worked for Hoffman La Roche, Johnson & Johnson and Zeus Scientific. This experience is listed on the second page. I was told by a temp agency that it was too much info. Apparently the info I received from them has hurt me in the working world instead of helping me. Thanks for the insight now I will change my resume back to it's original one pager.

@Nancy, one last point. Applicant tracking software is not the manna that everyone pretends it is. I have worked for a number of firms that write them. All of them STILL only rely on keyword-weighted algorithms to match a job to a candidate. I can do an SEO white-on-white list of keywords in my resume and be found for 99% of jobs out there, yet, will anyone hire me to be a NASA specialist operations payload engineer if I have the qualifications for a construction worker simply because I was smart about optimizing my resume with SEO keywords? Applicant tracking software just excused lazy recruiters even more from doing a halfway passable job. We need to expect more of recruiters. Or, at least companies do. Without competent recruiters who ARE conversant with the roles and responsibilities for which they are hiring, we won't get better candidates coming through the process. How many candidates have given up on a position after dealing with a particularly inept and uninformed recruiter? How many companies complain that for every job they post they have to sift through hundreds of resumes? Instead of excusing the lack of knowledge the unqualified recruiters bring to the game, how about we get better recruiters?

Companies that use keyword searching gatekeepers are doing themselves and their candidates a disservice. Cowtowing to the idea that WE as job seekers should dumb down our resumes or make them "one page" is ludicrous. Hire better recruiters who know ANYTHING about the job and stop getting those that, as one of my exchanges went, "Do you know something called, D-O-S?" "Yes, I even know the advanced language T-R-E-S." The recruiter was SO impressed. The hiring manager said he didn't stop laughing for 10 minutes when I finally did get to talk to him. The number of recruiters when pressed about the specifics of a job who respond, "Oh, i don't know anything about the job, I'm just doing an initial screen." Well, how about we get a monkey to throw darts at a board then? Would you go to a plumber to do heart surgery? Yet, that is what "generalists" or recruiters who have no clue about the specifics of a job are. They're ill-suited for the task and yet, WE, as job seekers are required to talk THEIR language. When do they learn ours?

@nancy, I cannot begin to disagree more with 99% of what you write here. Look at any company. Notice that almost ALL of them have "technical recruiter" listed. Do you know why? Because a recruiter who isn't a "generalist" is highly valued. Someone who CAN talk the talk and walk the walk is someone who WILL find the appropriate people for the job because they can do a meaningful screen.

@Alan thanks for your comment. Companies do use applicant tracking software to screen through resumes. That is true. But someone has to determine if there is a valid position, write up a job posting, post it and then make sure that the software program is set up, based upon keywords and other criteria. They also will be needed to do background checks as well as check references. That's just a small portion of what HR does. As for Recruiters, they pretty much do the same thing. They know what positions are available and what is needed in those positions. They may not be 100% versed in the position but then - who is - unless you have worked in that position. It does get frustrating sometimes when the recruiter is asking questions that we don't feel are relevant or when we answer the question but the recruiter is not sure is the answer is correct. But, for the most part, recruiters do a great job in weeding out the unqualified applicants and getting the best possible applicants in front of the hiring manager of the company. Please note that no one is hired "by a computer". Computers are just used to quickly screen through resumes and only keep the ones that need to be reviewed by HR. You have to remember that, years ago, a company would only get a handful of resumes for a given opening. Today, they get thousands of resumes for just one open position. If HR had to go through the resumes by hand, it would take months to get a position filled.

great tips

I agree with Sanjay, if there is a computer scanning for keywords, why do we need HR people and recruiters anyway? If they don't know the hob, cant talk intelligently except to read a script and don't lose their job if they hire the wrong people over and over again (they never do!) than what good are they and how do companies expect to "find" the right people to help them make a difference? I went ahead and removed some older dates from schooling, etc, but I have a lot of relevant job experience and its what's separates me, so I put it done. What might be tough is when you have more experience than the person that might be your immediate supervisor, who was hired by a computer!

@Carol thanks for the comment. No you should not remove anything that is relevant to the position you are seeking. When they do a background check on you, they are going to find that you worked at the company anyhow. It will only make you look like you are hiding something. Better to be totally transparent.

Should I remove a company that is relevant to the job I'm seeking but indicate a certain ethnicity in the title of the company?

@Karin thanks for the question. I have done exactly that - just listed the company, the position and the dates and then showed my tasks since they were relatively the same for each company. It does cut the resume down to a reasonable length. @Sanjay thanks for your comment. I know it can be frustrating but companies only seem to want one page resumes anymore. VERY FEW companies use a human to scan resumes. Most of them use ATS and have it set up based upon keywords that they are looking for. If the keywords aren't there, the resume never sees the light of day whether it's one page or twenty pages long. Ridiculous or not, it's the way of the world today for job seekers. I, too, have encountered recruiters who can not think on their feet - who use a script and don't know how to respond if you should ask a question that is not covered in their script. That is unfortunate but doesn't have to be the end of it for that particular position or for that recruiter. If you are interested in the position, maybe you could try going directly through the company instead of through a recruiter. Or find another recruiter who is handling the same position.

This is more bad advice "keep resumes to one page". Such crap. The only reason this advice even came into existence is because of lazy recruiters who can't do the basics of their job to be "bothered" to read a resume. All of this advice is about getting past the morons who scan resumes for keywords and don't know anything about the job in the first place. How many of us have encountered the recruiter reading from a script but can't answer a single meaningful question about the job?