Any resume that has been compiled to a PDF from LaTeX would score major points in my books. It's not that it requires an incredible amount of skill to do so (not to mention that there are quite a few templates available), but it does show that the applicant cares a bit more about presentation than the average programmer that submits his resume in .doc format.
What typestting do you need for a resume that Word doesn't provide? I've written thousands of pages in LaTex, and at one point I probably would have written my resume in LaTex. But now that I know Word, I see very little advantage to writing my resume with LaTex (I'm probably a little odd, learning LaTex before Word).
It's not like your resume is likely to have equations or need a lot of cross references in it.
Even if it is gamed, it still proves the original point: that "the applicant cares a bit more about presentation than the average programmer that submits his resume in .doc format."
LaTeX's default look is very tired, especially if you spent some time in academia. Every CV/paper/thesis looks the same.
LaTeX is a good crutch if you are complete design antitalent, but the same thing that prevents you from shooting yourself in the foot also prevents you from making something nicer.
My CV progression was:
HTML -> LaTeX (PDF) -> InDesign (PDF) -> OpenOffice (PDF) / ASCII text
I use the "approved" EU format for my cv. In LaTeX, of course. Wastes a ton of space, but doesn't look anything like a "default" TeX document. But still looks fab.
What about extra points for my resume.tex file that includes the company's logo on the cover page and emits different versions based on whether it's intended for executives (summarized version) or engineers (detailed version) based on how xelatex is invoked? Do I get the job? :-)
A lot of companies and agencies ask for word docs, unfortunately. At least some of them want to edit the files, I don't know the reasons of the others. It seems to have gotten better lately, though (these days I mostly just send PDFs).
I wouldn't, unless the candidate pointed in that direction. I certainly wouldn't invade on their private space.
In any case, I notice quite a few folk keep a work and a personal fb a/c these days -- particularly the youngsters. I have no problem in being shifted to the work version, as appropriate.
I assume people are going to Google me, and it seems to be a reasonable thing to do. The top result for my name alternates between my personal site and Facebook. It's kind of silly to think people won't look at it.
Especially since I have luke.schlather as the URL, and flinchbaughschlather.com/luke is a little less obvious, even if my name's all over the page.
Kudos to you both for being optimistic about it :)
I was referring more to the thing where they look through your pictures, see pictures of you at a party holding a plastic cup and make silent, little judgements about it.
It only crosses my mind because I've actualy watched people get DQ'd from the call-back list with my own eyes because of photos where they weren't doing anything more than leaning in with a few close friends, clothed, acting sensible holding a bottle of Bud Light in their hand. It was actually...depressing.
This is funny and all, but any HR department worth its salt would know what it takes to get a job at its respective company. At the very very least, most HR departments these days will take a glance at Facebook.
How about 'Thinks Java is the same as Javascript' - never hire.
I helped with interviews when I used to work for a huge bank, and they'd interview any idiot who threw them a resume. I can't tell you how many times we would ask about Java experience and the person would start talking about Javascript and their cute Information Systems class project where they had to make a basic website...
I was hinting at the opposite experience - people who know only java and think that javascript is just java lite (so obviously if you know java, you know javascript).
Ph.D sounds good on paper but can suggest "too much time spent in academia", "not enough practical experience", "thinks awfully highly of himself, but can he make us money or do anything real?", and "is his focus even related to the job?". Or that is the general attitude I have heard.
Personally, I have a small measure of respect for the Ph.D title, but it does not sway me unless the focus matches what I need. "It's great that you solved P != NP, but can you write a financial app for this customer?"
In my experience, PhDs are generally smart people and pleasant to work with. They work hard, and the ones from engineering and the sciences are relatively immune to bullshit.
> Personally, I have a small measure of respect for the Ph.D title, but it does not sway me unless the focus matches what I need. "It's great that you solved P != NP, but can you write a financial app for this customer?"
I do see that. But... well, quality PhDs aren't going to be applying for jobs that require you to do code monkey work, they'll be the ones writing new financial models, and a quick PoC in haskell.
I really like seeing people with PhDs in completely random non-technical fields. "Ah, I see you have a PhD in Chinese Architectural History...umm, neat."
MDs are even better, because they bring all that crazy doctor-talk with them. I still go around saying stuff like,"This bug is sequella to the change we made for the last release."
There is a general assumption in most non-engineering industries that Ph.D means ivory tower philosophizing without any connection to or experience with the "real world".
writing compilers is a fairly involved computer science topic, and while it does happen that some people without formal education in CS have written compilers, I'd suggest that most compiler nerds are educated to at least undergrad level, more likely masters level in CS. So sure, neither of those are PhD's, but it seems odd to praise one aspect of formal CS - writing compilers, and not another - gaining a PhD.
As a PHP programmer in my day job… I would not consider PHP experience as a negative, but I would be quite reluctant to hire a PHP programmer who, when prompted, could not criticize PHP. Its failings as a language are numerous: http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-crawling-horrors-of-PHP
I wouldn't deduct points for PHP - it's a perfectly fine language that has its fine uses.
I would, however, deduct major points if the person is only capable on a completely-MS stack (i.e., little to no 'nix experience, purely IIS, ASP.NET, MSSQL, etc).
I would, however, deduct major points if the person is only capable on a completely-MS stack
I would deduce points if the person is only capable on a completely-anything stack. Being lost once you leave the LAMP world is just as bad as being lost once you leave the MS world.
I concur. Despite the PHP-bashing that goes on, it's a very powerful platform, but massively abused in too many cases by non-programmers who often think that they can program.
MS-stack-only experience makes any candidate a non-starter for me, unless they are very inexperience, but they must show enthusiasm for getting the hell out of the hole.
yeah... 500 days ago. So what? If you're pointing out that there's insightful discussion on that thread then fine, but just saying "Dupe" seems like you're implying this posting is bad somehow. (personally I don't really think it fits with the hackernews vibe but that's a different issue)
