What's better for a research summary? A long one or a short one? What's better for a resume for an industrial position? A long one or a short one?
I have always held that short is better than long when dealing with resumes -- that the document needs to be "impactful", whatever that means. I think chemists know when there's "more than meets the eye" and when there is not.
As for research summaries, are these supposed to be short as well? What's a good length? Are you supposed to write down everything you've done? What's a good order (chronological or reverse-chronological?)
Readers, what say you? If you have experience on the other side of the table (i.e. as a hiring manager), please speak up and make note of your experiences and preferences.
 |
| Do you need this level of detail? Photo credit: Flickr user zeusnhera |
I have always held that short is better than long when dealing with resumes -- that the document needs to be "impactful", whatever that means. I think chemists know when there's "more than meets the eye" and when there is not.
As for research summaries, are these supposed to be short as well? What's a good length? Are you supposed to write down everything you've done? What's a good order (chronological or reverse-chronological?)
Readers, what say you? If you have experience on the other side of the table (i.e. as a hiring manager), please speak up and make note of your experiences and preferences.
At what point does one begin to wax all cargo cult and behave like Skinner's pigeons?
ReplyDeleteI go for a short (2 pages max) resume with high impact, and supplement that with a Research Summary. If they like the first bit enough, then they'll find the second bit useful. Personally I'd suggest reading Jon Moon's book (http://www.amazon.com/How-make-IMPACT-Influence-presentations/dp/0273713329/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302701215&sr=8-1). It should really get six stars out of five.
ReplyDeleteAs the Research Summary only changes very slowly, its no great burden.
From the "other" side:
ReplyDeleteEverybody is extremely busy, so a long summary will not be read in detail unless it reads like a Stephan King novel. To which I now say, "so what!"
Length can be quite impactful too, but not if it is inane details. (I can think of some prof's CV's that have 2 or 3 pages of all the committees that they served on. Does that impress me? No. That should be considered the equivalent of "supplemental material" that is available online for those interested.)
In summary, I would say make it long, but don't expect it to be read.
Mine is a no-filler, nine-page, 128k pdf of my non-proprietary work: page 1 table of contents, then schemes & publication references.
ReplyDeleteShort short SHORT! Your CV/resume is a snapshot of you as a person. It needs to make the reader want to SPEAK to you to find out more, not wade through utterly boring pointless details about your irrelavent work experience placement 15 years ago. 2 pages max.
ReplyDeleteI sure hope Anon 9.50 is kidding. But judging by some of the CVs I have reviewed over the years I fear not.
I don't know. I find the resume is a great place to bury the ole' crystallographic data.
ReplyDeleteHaving done much on hiring side Echo previous comments the CV itself should contain only very shorthand concise high level statements. Using additional pages (<3) that include Research summaries can be good where treat almost like an abstract for a presentation (which they well may be in fact). If coming from Industry be careful to have authorizations (signed letters) of any unpublished work or simply avoid specific details on anything that might be perceived as Confidential(as immediate rejection fodder). Realize its a hard line to balance. Personally I hate seeing many "buzzwords" as often come from MBA/quality initiatives that ring hollow.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:50 was referring to a research summary. His CV is short.
ReplyDeleteResearch summaries should be one page double column. Really makes you choose what's truly important to employers.
ReplyDelete