The biggest thing that I got from these readings is that resumes are a huge waste of everyone's time. A person can spend an outrageous amount of time constructing the 'perfect' resume and simply have it discarded by potential readers because those readers happen to not like the bullet style you have chosen to outline your skills. This likely has something to do with society's general theme that, in the business world, no one wants to really get to know anyone else before they do business with them-decisions are made hastily, often irrationally, and based too much on aesthetics.
This is somewhat exemplified in the Douglas Richardson article-which, by the way seems rather pretentious. It just seemed to me like this article was outlining how and why this guy doesn't do his job thoroughly because everyone that writes resumes is, apparently, stupid and/or naive. I really like this one: “It isn't my job to make sense out of your life.” In a way, I think it is his job to do this. Job descriptions that are posted on the internet or wherever are often vague-only the employer knows precisely what they want in an employee. The resume will have, essentially, a laundry list of information about the person that may be directed towards a type of position-I think it's up to the person that is reading the resume to draw conclusions on that information to determine if they have the specific qualities they are looking for. Example, say a person is looking for a job as a CFO and they have listed on their resume that they once did work specifically related to renewable energy. The person could either read that and say, 'great, one more job experience, plus 1 point', or they could be even a little bit insightful and suggest that this person is interested in big picture issues associated with renewable energy and consider them for their ethics (in this case-environmental). Is it really that hard for these people to care?
As far as my resume goes, I plan on loosly following the owl website's advice. Alas, there are so many differing opinions on what the ideal resume is (one of the readings suggested not listing your GPA if it is below 3.5, another said 3.0...), I'll likely go slightly maverick with it.
Too busy or too lazy?
I agree with a lot of what you have to say and disagree at the same time. I do agree that some business decisions (such as who to interview from a stack of resumes) are made hastily and without proper consideration. It hardly seems fair that a good candidate with a resume that doesn’t “pop” will likely be passed over for a mediocre candidate who “follows the resume-rules.” It’s a shame that’s how it is, but in competitive job markets, hiring managers (according to the readings) are probably most attracted to applicants who make them do the least amount of work in discerning the type of person they are/employee they will be. They’re either too busy or too lazy to spend time to dig through a resume that’s less aesthetic than the other guy’s. I guess it’s just the American way.
Life's Tough
I'm not entirely sure if employers are too busy or too lazy to read through resumes, but I do know that the situation sounds completely unfair. I'm sure the human resources departments vary from company to company, and there's nothing we can do about it. As Scott says, writing a resume that appeals to everybody sounds like a complete waste of time, but that's the name of the game. You just have to write the best damn resume you can, and hope that it falls into the right hands. Maybe it won't though. Maybe it'll get trashed by the new HR intern at your dream company. There's nothing you can do though. Life is unfair and so is the job recruiting process. I think we've just got to follow the guidelines we've been presented with, and construct our job applications based on the best advice that we're given. The worst part is that there's no such thing as a perfect resume, and it's hard for some people to submit something that's less than perfect.
and volume, volume, volume
I agree with the responses above. The readings seems harsh, but we have to understand that hiring personnel are under exactly the same crappy conditions that the rest of us are, so they have to manage it the best that can. One thing that helps us as applicants in all this is applying in volume. It's true that it's impossible to write the perfect resume, so it makes sense to try and write the best darn resume that you can for as many jobs as possible. I mentioned in another thread that I recently applied for 64 different jobs, and I crafted my materials individually for each one (this took about three months, I should point out).
I actually disagree with you about Richardson's line: “It isn't my job to make sense out of your life.” I really like this. Job ads are certainly often ambiguous (the way these usually get written by committee blew my mind), but for me it makes clear what I should do: have a strong, specific, concrete narrative about what I bring to the position. I should give them an easy answer to the question "what can this guy do for us?" It just makes sense to me that what people are going to want to read is a clear story about what I can do. If nothing else, I think a clear, confident portrayal of who I am and I what I am enthusiastic about doing goes a long way. If I just dump everything about myself down on the page and expect them to connect the dots for me, I can understand why they would get peeved. I mean, think about what that may say about you as an employee—that it's someone else's job to finish up my work. It's true that Richardson is putting on an aggressive ethos here, but I really like that reading for its unvarnished clarity.
Quality
Wow, 64 jobs. That’s incredible, and certainly a valid way to approach a job search. But something I have tried is instead of quantity is quality, not necessarily just in your resume. If there are a few companies that I am really interested in, I will email them just before the career fairs. I intentionally don’t attach my resume, but just express interest in the company and look forward to talking to them at the career fairs. This works to my advantage, mostly with smaller companies, and we can start off on a more familiar note. I think this also shows that you really put some thought into their company and reached out before hand, rather than just showing up and working every table there.
Quantity and Quality
To speak to our experiences some more, Jeremy and I were in the interesting spot of needing both approaches. We both sent out around 60 applications. This meant we did at least preliminary research on all of the locations we applied for, and more in-depth research for the jobs we really wanted.
I do like the advice that you give, however. Jeremy and I were applying for academic jobs, and that is very distinct from entry-level positions in business and industry. I think doing what you can to, as you say, "start off on a more familiar note" is a great idea. This is, as we point out, a way to approach the job application letter. Use the letter to make your familiar to the reader.