Joohyun Kim- response

"Both the article talks about what employers, the resume viewers would like to see on resumes. The viewers' likes and dislikes are well illustrated as a guide for the candidates to follow. Reading the articles, I felt that the viewers are not very interested in the personalities of the candidates. None of the viewers mentions the importance of candidates' personalities on the resumes. Instead, they say what they would not hope to see is the resumes appealing themselves how hard workers they are by writing philosophical comments. For example, on the first article, it says "proven success in leading technical problem solving situation" does not mean anything and the viewer knows that this person means to convince he or she is strategic. What the employers want to see on the resumes is only facts. On the second article, Nardo says "you have to quantify and qualify". What I learnt from Nardo is that rather than explaining how you have come to accomplish certain goals, it is better with resumes simply saying that how much your accomplishment is worth and how complete the work is. What I generally realized is that the resumes shall be interesting when it is simple enough but surely with the appropriate information contained. All the three recruiters on the second article agrees that the resumes are to "be free of glaring gramatical and spelling errors". Resumes are not used to judge candidates' education level or their "smartness", they are the brief introductions of telling historical backgrounds for the recruiters to consider second thought of meeting the candidates for further questions. On the first article, he says that he takes between 15 sec and 30 secs to finish reading a resume. This suggests how simple resumes should be and all the irrelevant materials such as mentionting personalities (these are to be judged during intervies, NOT from resumes) should be avoided . This seems to be a hard work, but I should be prepared to blow minds within less than a minute.