The Resume Is Dead
chicagosean.com
chicagosean.com
sigh This works for high flying traders, it works for rockstar coders, or people applying at "indie" companies (i.e. ones with renegade hiring styles). And so on.
And, typically, someone in that high flying arena misconstrues what he is seeing around him as the future.
It could well be.
But it ignores the fact that the vast majority of people still submit a CV, then wait and hope for an interview. CV's are far from dead (should they be? who knows).
If you want to work at the top, you can't do what the rest of us do. If you don't want to work there, well, it's a waste of time.
We can't all be famous superhero rockstar coders.
That said, this is a viable strategy for getting a job- it just isn't grounds to declare resumes gone and buried, because it's impossible for everyone to secure their job this way.
The CV? The CV will always be around, just as many cultural artifacts remain, despite their obsolete functionality.
Apparently, in 2011, HR departments make fun of bad resumes and toss them in the trash, rather than interviewing people with good resumes?
If you put this kind of effort in, opportunities will come to you. People will recognize you and your work. Your well earned reputation will precede you before you even walk in the door.
So the advice boils down to "be famous"? That's great, if you can manage it, but there's a finite amount of fame out there: it's a zero sum game.
Perhaps this is atypical, but I just have a bog-standard resume, no twitter account, and a blog that probably averages 2 hits per week. Despite that, I haven't had a problem getting interviews by submitting my resume through company job websites. As this guy would say, there's nothing that makes my resume stand out from all the others they have on file: I got a BS from a state school, an MS from another state school, and have a job at a small startup no one's ever heard of. And when I interview, just knowing algorithms 101 seems to be sufficient to get a job offer (and not even necessary unless I'm interviewing at a place like MS or Google).
This guy makes landing a job sound a lot harder than it actually is.
I don't think that's fair. Why is "be famous" a better decoding than "be awesome?" Are you seriously telling me that you know of no one who, while they don't have celebrity status, isn't known in your community or subfield as someone awesome?
there's a finite amount of fame out there: it's a zero sum game.
I'm calling bullsh#t on this one. How in the world can you justify there's a finite amount of fame? Fame is basically the garnering of attention. Are you implying there's a finite amount of attention? How is this so in the face of increasing population and wealth? Not only are there more people, more of the people have more free time and access to information resources. There's more and more people able to pay more and more attention. Even if this were not true, fame still wouldn't be a zero sum game unless you've shown that everyone's attention is saturated. I posit that there's still room for growth.
How's about a game of poker with grains of sand as chips?
Second, you already admitted that the amount of attention can grow. There's only a finite amount of wealth represented in the balance sheets of everyone alive on the planet right this second, but no one claims wealth is a Zero Sum Game because there's no clear upper bound.
Oh, and BTW, hahaha...
Actually, this says nothing. Context matters greatly. Who cares if the issue is getting hired for a geology job in Houston, but the population of Bollywood stars is exploding?
Oh, and arguably the amount of fame there is to be had is nowhere near unfathomable. I can list off the top of my head probably hundreds of "famous people", and I don't give a shit about celebrity. The only limit there is my memory, not a lack of famous people to think about. Our culture is absolutely packed with famous people, it's pretty clearly saturated.
"no one claims wealth is a Zero Sum Game"
Objectively wrong.
You apparently misunderstood the point I made in the gp post. That has almost nothing to do with my argument. So, you are saying that any game where the scores at any moment are finite numbers is a zero-sum game.
Various economic activities are subject to many iterations across time.
"no one claims wealth is a Zero Sum Game"
Objectively wrong.
Okay, not enough words for the slightly uninformed to understand. There are people historically who have put forth theories based on the idea that globally wealth is zero-sum. I don't think anyone in economics takes them seriously any more.
Our culture is absolutely packed with famous people, it's pretty clearly saturated.
The >culture< -- meaning I presume, the general culture -- are you so soft-headed that you think this directly relates to the context of getting hired in a particular field or this discussion?
Exercise for the less than completely clued -- where in the previous discussion did I frame the relevant context of notoriety. Locate that, and reframe your arguent in that context. Then I might consider this intellectually worthwhile. As it is, I keep on having to explain things to someone who half-understands arguments.
In addition he did not say that fame is infinite so as to make your laughter justifiable. He just pointed and I agree with him that fame is not by default a zero sum thing
> I'm calling bullsh#t on this one. How in the world can you justify there's a finite amount of fame?
Fame and status are not like wealth; they are zero sum.
Yet no one who is still taken seriously says wealth is zero sum.
If your point is holds true, and we are at saturation for attention, then if radio contact was made with an alien probe tomorrow, the amount of attention people are paying to the news would not change, but merely more of it would be devoted to your discovery.
That's crap -- the overall amount of attention people are paying to news would actually increase. Other stories would indeed be overshadowed (hence your confusion in thinking attention is zero-sum) but the total amount of attention would not be constant. Instead, it would crest like flood-level waters moving downriver.
The total amount of attention being paid to news is not constant.
This is an interesting rhetorical trick: present a slice of the pie as the entire pie, so that when the size of that slice grows, you can claim that the pie was actually infinite to begin with! Nice.
The difference between wealth and attention (as your carefully selected example shows that you actually already know...) is that you can create wealth without taking decreasing anyone else's wealth. Three people on a desert island can become wealthier all at once. However, there are only a certain number of things anyone can "pay attention to" at once, because paying attention to something necessarily means decreasing attention to something else.
the total amount of attention would not be constant.
If you limit yourself only to the slice of total attention you have called "news", then you'd be right. But most of the time I'm paying attention to things other than news. Some of those other things include celebrities, even.
hence your confusion
I believe you misspelled "conclusion", here. :) Confusion only arises if you start from the assumption that attention paid to online games, programming, blogs, texting someone, getting a drink, or going for a drive, isn't attention at all, because it's not narrowly focused on news.
People responsible for hiring (esp. in today's market) are inundated with TONS of resumes. It's completely logical that a great (and efficient) way of vetting them is by (A) looking for any errors because, if such errors exist, it's an immediate dismissal and (B) automatically taking notice of the non-boring ones.
I think the "standard" resume -- the ones that have language akin to "I am seeking a position at an established organization..." are dead. And they should be. Because they're such a snore. (I mean, I almost fell asleep while typing that sentence up there.)
But a running record of achievement that tells a story of how awesome you are, how you think/approach challenges, and what you've accomplished (from business-level results through granular, specific technical learning) is very much alive and well.
But if the job requires intangible skills that cannot be demonstrated in a 20 minute interview, and the candidate does not have a proven track record, employers have to use some method to filter and find. Resumes are far from perfect, but they are one way to do this, and I expect any rumors of their death are greatly exaggerated.
It's the cover letter that has the most impact. During the dot com implosion I was having little success with a cover letter targeting technical hiring managers. This was after all San Francisco and I was competing with laid off dotcomers and programmers for all the infrastructure companies.
I changed it to target HR and technical directors. I rewrote it to show a little wit and to soften the jargon. I even quoted a Johnny Cash song, "been everywhere". Immediately the interviews tripled, which is good when you are middle aged and expensive (putting three of your cohorts through college).
Resumes are not dead. It's just a summary of your accomplishments. If your accomplishments are outstanding, you'll get noticed. Otherwise, you don't.
I'm hard on myself and while I take pride in my work and what I've accomplished I always focus on the things I'm not great at. That sounds negative, and it probably is, but I think it has its plus side, and I'm not sure I can be, or want to be, any other way. But apparently I've done enough good things, and handled myself in a way that really good people want to recommend me.
Gratifying, but also a little scary. I'm comfortable with the pressure I put on myself, but the prospect of letting other people down, people I think a lot of, is unsettling.
A recommendation is, and the more vocal it is (and the more of them there are) the more it becomes -- a very generous gift, and with it comes a lot of responsibility of a different kind.
The resume route might be harder, but it has its positives. Easier to exceed expectations.
"It's not what you know, but who you know."
Many have thought that the best way to get somebody to know you is through a resume. Really, the best way is through contacts. In my long career, I have had three "starting points" where I got a job without using my contacts network. And that was without really being conscious about it.
If you are in the programming profession (don't know about trading) then today's best way is to put up a web site with a project that you are building. Show your stuff.
(I can't believe how far off the rails this whole discussion has gone. And we aren't even to the "cover letters are more important that resumes" discussion.)
Of all the traders I know not a single one of them has a public web presence. Far from it. They are all extremely private and what they think and know they are not broadcasting on twitter.
It was instrumental to help get me a job early in my career. I had no contacts and I do not interview well at all.
However, such portfolios need to be kept current with newer and better code. I've discovered that in my most recent job search, it did not help so much because most of the code is stagnant.
Being awesome or having a solid reputation won't help you get through HR. The author is advocating skipping HR entirely, which is a fine proposition. But it's not about the resume. The resume is just part of the established process.
Go, be awesome. But keep your resume updated so that you can keep track of your accomplishments and successes.
Every job I've gotten is from networking. Submitting my CV has just been an after-the-fact formality.