Resume rate thread?

this. some quantities are good. I.E. supported network of X computers across X states. Save company XX,XXX$ by automating slackers out of a job. etc.

>C++
>Java
>HTML5
>CSS3
>JavaScript
>jQuery
>PowerShell
>Exchange
>AD
>O365
>Airwatch
>Service-Now
>MobiControl
>RDP
>VNC
>Apache Directory
>PuTTY
>Control-M
>InterMapper
>EMC Networker
>Nagios
>LDAP
>DNS

This is what I call a "skill stew". It usually happens for people who are relatively inexperienced. You've thrown in everything that you believe you can do, but a person reading this, looking for a specific skill, is going to wonder about how well you really do any of the things listed. Think about this situation: I'm looking for somebody with some web dev experience to run an internal tool my company maintains for our support people. When I see your web development languages skills, I want that, and when I see your service desk skills, I want that too. But now I see C++ and Java, but I don't see any jobs you've had where you've used these skills. Are all your skills at the base, education-level of skill? How good are you really at any of these skills if you're willing to put that in?

You should cut this down to relevant skills for exactly the job you're applying for. Nobody is going to want you for C++, CSS, Office 365 and Service-Now, all at the same time. Pick the skills that are relevant to the job you're applying for, and use the rest of that space to elaborate on your level of skill.

>web development languages
>html
>css
>jquery

Attached: D6uAMbvWkAspq6x.jpg (326x294, 19K)

OP, your resume looks eerily similar in formatting to mine when I was starting out. Your experience is close to what mine was then, just in slightly different areas. Although I did have a clearance by that point. You shouldn't have too much trouble finding work though, because mine landed me a $75k position with one of the biggest defense companies in the country. That was after turning down several other offers from other companies offering only slightly less salary.

What font do you guys use (no latex please). Right now I'm using a Serif font, Georgia, for titles and San Serif, Helvetica, for the body.

>ect
Would not hire based on that.

11/10 would hire on the spot

>(no latex please)
LaTeX isn't a font, its standard font can be used in any modern document processor and you can use any modern font in a LaTeX document.

Currently I am using IBM Plex Sans for headings and it's Serif version for the rest of the Text (using LaTeX), but depending on the overall look of the document many other choices are possible, eg. a Garamond version for a more "classical" look, see also practicaltypography.com/system-fonts.html or practicaltypography.com/resumes.html which is a cool site.

I'm more of a Computer Modern man, myself.

Attached: 0eb.jpg (768x1024, 90K)

The personal projects have descriptions under them in the non-redacted version, and in a newer version I updated the spacing of the jobs to not be so tight

Attached: Snapchat-1255020181.jpg (1080x1920, 564K)

dear sirs would you please do the needful and rate my resume?

Attached: Resume-1.png (1653x1398, 56K)

See the advice in the links in .

Garamond appears to small. How about Helvetica or Cambria?

>recommends Garamond and links Butterick at the same time
Butterick literally tells you to stop using Garamond because it's so everywhere, it's got no distinctive value anymore.
Incidentally, I stick to Source {Sans,Serif} Pro, personally. The Source Sans Pro Light in all caps does wonders for headings.

1. Point sizes aren't actually universal. 12 pt Garamond looks equal to 10 pt of something else.
2. Did you not read the shit he linked? Stop it with the system fonts. And if you do go down the Helvetica route, make sure you actually have Helvetica (but you'd really want to go Helvetica-ish, like Neue Haas Grotesk). You go STRAIGHT into the trash if you show up with Arial.

ffs is that microsoft word

peasant

use latex

you will make a ton of money when you are 30

I would say:
-It's too much for one page, the margins are far too small to even print it, much less read it comfortably
-I do not like the color choice whatsoever
-You use color to highlight certain things, but apparently your job description is less important then the nearly self evident heading that your contact details follow
-Lists are formated badly the text for a list point should always start vertically at the same point, your newlines in your list look like they are separate from the list point.
-Why does eg. SQL look so different from Client interaction?

>Butterick literally tells you to stop using Garamond because it's so everywhere, it's got no distinctive value anymore.
It's still in his "A list".

I am telling you, read the links I posted, it even includes list of alternatives for eg. Cambria which are less shit, most importantly don't use system Fonts.

>working for a company that cares about font
Into the trash THEY go. I rock up with my Calibri resume and they can take it or leave it. Their loss if they choose the latter.

>I can type my username and password to login into a system

Why would a company hire someone who doesn't put the slightest effort into his resume?

I have two solid internships and a great degree.

And?
Do you think the HR Stacy will even read what your degree is if you didn't put in the amount of effort to present yourself according to your qualifications?

If you show up to the interview dressed as a homeless person, do you think you will get the job more or less likely?

clown world

No, it's normal behavior.
Filtering applicants with no interest in presenting themselves appropriately is sensible.

This is a fucking great resume

I'm not sure I can fully agree with this. Adding putty, virtualbox, exchange, ad etc is kind of a package deal for "doesn't need to be taught general tools that he's obviously going to need to use". I'd throw in WSL, SSMS and stuff like that too. Basically, if you've used them a couple of times, it's good enough. It's going to save the company a couple of days of training costs for each tool.

Office is of course a ridiculous thing to have on your resume. Unless you're some kind of expert on VB macros all you're really saying is that you're capable of using the most basic functionality of a click and play program. This skill is something the potential employer is going to assume you're capable of if you don't write it, and something they will doubt if you do write it.

It really is not.
Typographically it is a major disaster.

First thing I'd do is learn the difference between a language and a framework.

Brilliant you're hired for the head of the HR department

Attached: Screenshot 2019-09-22 at 13.10.04.png (1448x2038, 688K)

>Imagine thinking I can't dox you by censoring the last 3 of the doi

ACADEMICS

Attached: 1558542002391.jpg (923x713, 106K)

based kvm contributor user

Yeah, i'ts only quasi-censored. It's pretty easy to find me.

Thanks

>can remember a username and password
that's way above HR's room-level temperature IQ

Alright gentleman, I have found the perfect font setup. IBM Plex Sans for titles and Open Sans for the body. Looks so neat.

In fact... I might even Open Sans the whole damn document. It's such a comfy, aesthetically pleasing font.

Attached: look at this shit.png (362x252, 13K)

>ect
1/10

>needing an actual resume to get an interview and not just bringing a basic one as a formality
L
lmao

I wrote my resume in HTML.
files.catbox.moe/xxzrfl.html

The dates under the first paragraph are formated wrongly and I would repeat the advice from:
practicaltypography.com/resumes.html
Meaning
-There really is a lot of Text on your resume
-Is it really less important that you used to be an external PhD student then that you used to be a Help-Desk Operator? Because one is bold and the other is no different from the body font. Also in General the section title is less important then the actual contents.
-I don't like the font choice and are you really not setting the body font in black or us that just a result of the output?

But I have to say this looks pretty good.

Thanks, regarding the bold job title, it used to be the job title in bold and then the company below (similar to the part time jobs section), but I didn't know how to structure multiple positions at the same company in a way that made sense that way.

The other criticisms are good feedback, thanks user.

The bots that analyze resumes are gonna crash with that garbage.

You should prune your skills section and tailor it to jobs you want to apply to. For example, java + web technologies if you want to be a fullstack dev, bunch of products if you want to be IT (and in that case either the M$ or the unix ones depending on where you apply), etc.
Otherwise it's very solid. Consider adding a paragraph about intent e.g. "looking to sharpen my skills with new opportunities in XXX". Hit the keywords the company expects.

Remove your GPA unless it's 3.9 and higher. GPA is only relevant if you're applying at finntechs in which case they'll refuse anyone with less than 4.0 + honors anyway.
Very solid stuff.

Choose if you're a software engineer or a researcher. The latter uses a CV and not a resume, which is significantly longer and should include everything. The former uses a resume. Similarly, what you write on your document will change based on what you're presenting. If you're a researcher, you discuss what you did on the jobs in terms of how this is relevant to research, so you would skip things like "Programmed in java" but include things like "Developed applications for highly distributed systems in java" (assuming you're a PhD student in hpc).
Also note that a PhD is about research, not
software development. Your resume is currently really tailored for development, which is fine, but raises eyebrows: "currently developing a framework" vs "investigating new high-performance paradigms". It's mostly about wording (then again how did you even make it through your predoc if you presented to them a development-oriented goal?)

He's probably targeting research roles within tech companies or industrial research labs. In which case, it is even beneficial to have a multiple page resume with details of your publications.

That's fine with me.

In industry, you submit a CV and not a resume for research positions. That's probably what you're referring to as a multiple page resume.
In that case it is more important to highlight research-oriented experience and not development experience. Development experience is relevant for engineer-tier roles, not research. The research and engineer tracks are separate and it's not possible to move from one to the other (you have to reinterview even after being hired).
t. ex-MSR

In all fairness, that's complete bullshit. Plenty of companies have R&D departments and hire both engineers and researchers.
t. Google staff engineer

Of fucking course they hire both engineers and researchers. It was the same as MSR. But you don't get to change from being an engineer hired at MSR to being a scientist hired at MSR at will or at promotion times. That means that your upgrade path as an engineer is jr eng -> sr eng -> eng manager (if you choose the managerial track) or distinguished engineer (iirc it was called that) (if you choose the engineer track) and your roles are software development the whole way through until you become a manager. In that role you are expected to provide almost immediate results to the company and are absolutely not allowed to do research during work hours (during your off-time is fine).
Moreover, if you start as an engineer, you're pretty much doomed because one of the requirements when interviewing to change to scientist, is that you need recent publications. See above how you're not allowed to do research. You need to piggyback on researchers' work at best and even then it's limited because not first author = bad.
The only advantage to already being in the org is that you get access to new positions and can apply to them before externals and if the interviewer likes you it might be a much easier interview than when you first got in.

>But you don't get to change from being an engineer hired at MSR to being a scientist hired at MSR at will or at promotion times.
I don't know what MSR is, but yeah you do. There are no set "tracks" in a company, unless you've landed in corporate hell.

It's microsoft research. And yes that's how it works there and that's also how it works at both google and facebook. Now I know you are not in fact a google staff engineer.

Why did it take you 4 years to do a master's?

Good point, this is a long time and will always be asked about in interviews.

His master's overlap with when he started working, so I guess he did his master's part time?

I don't know about Microsoft, but there are plenty of Google engineers (not """researchers""") that have coauthored papers at USENIX proceedings the last years, myself included. So you're very wrong.

That's a poor excuse, since you're supposed to either do internships 1/3 of the time at still get your master's in 2 years, part-time work, or do no work (or exploit shit like TA/RA roles). Connected to that is the lack of grants during his master's and his PhD. Speaking of which, PhD started in 2015 and still not over. This matters BECAUSE the master's was so long (usually the aim is 7 years total in academia, more than that is a red flag and he's already almost at 9). Worse, he doesn't seem to be doing work during his PhD.

>graduate degree
>internships
lol wtf, no

Co-authoring a paper is not doing research, did you even read what I said? I explicitly covered the case of engineers co-authoring papers. Moreover, engineers are allowed to author paper at engineering conferences or journals (be it USENIX, pycon, ACM, IEEE, IJCV or IJDM). Still doesn't make you a researcher and still a farcry from allowing you to interview for a track change to science.
Furthermore and going back on topic, still doesn't change anything to the fact the resume is aiming at both, which is another way to say it's aiming at neither, track.
As for google and facebook, I am very familiar with google brain and FAIR's structures so I know they work exactly the same way in that regard.

>Co-authoring a paper is not doing research
Publishing papers is literally what research is.

>I explicitly covered the case of engineers co-authoring papers
Your literal words was that it is impossible to get a research position because you're required to have published papers recently.

>publishing papers at USENIX, ACM, IEEE does not make you a researcher
>publishing papers at the flag ship publishers for systems-, networking and HPC conferences and journals does not make you a researcher
Okay user

>muh AI/ML
I guess this explains your narrow view of research vs. engineering.

lol wtf yes. It's called a research internship and you do it in an industrial lab. For example,
dumitru.ca/files/resume.pdf
(completely random CV (not resume) I found by googling).
For people who need money, this is the most common paradigm. You get your entire shit funded by a single summer internship or through 1-day-a-week part-time research.
If you don't need money, you're expected not to do that unless you're trying to enter this company as a researcher after you're done with your studies.

You really have no clue what you're talking about at all, it's embarrassing. You don't even make points to be refuted, you just repeat words you don't understand to try to convince someone else that there are 3 lights.

You sure have a lot of hot potatoes there, buddy. For anyone else, if you're working on system level stuff, USENIX, ACM, IEEE etc all have A and A+ ranked conferences/journals so this guy is full of shit.

Name a single top-ranked computer science research conference or journal that isn't ACM or IEEE (or both)

>good engineering venues exist
>therefore engineering is not engineering
>writing a library with no innovation be it in terms of theory or practicals leads to literally free papers
>this is totally research guys
>s-stop telling me I'm not a hotshot researcher g-guys I'm gonna cry ;_;

Hey guys I have recently come across this job. Since there are a lot of researchers ITT, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you what kind of resume I should submit for this role.

Attached: Screenshot_20190922-213150_Kiwi Browser.jpg (1439x1625, 759K)

You're delusional if you think you can publish in either without a significant contribution. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

NIPS, ICML, ICLR, IJCAI, Nature methods (it's actually fucking awful, 99% of the research published in nature methods is bullshit or trivial. Still very highly rated), SOCG, CRYPTO, CCC, COLT (it's a joke, all they publish is garbage).
Ask someone else for other topics though.

>he thinks publishing requires any contribution at all
OK junior. Keep up with class now, your teacher will be angry if he sees you on your phone again.

This isn't an actual research job. You can tell because the requirement is "a degree", not "a PhD degree [...] strong master's will be considered". This is most likely a data science position.
>experience in finance is not required
So this is a fintech job. Then the only thing they care about is as follows
- Are you from a top school (harvard, stanford, UCL, oxford, MIT, etc.)? If not, give up now.
- Do you have a perfect GPA? If not, give up now.
After that it's whether or not they like you during the interview.
This also confirms it's not a real research job.

Why is fintech like that?

With a

I don't know. Also this is merely my personal experience with fintech corroborated with a fintech recruiter, maybe my experience does not apply outside NY and the bay area.

High salary = Too many applicants = More automatic filters. Plus, a lot of these companies are engaged in literally trading billions of dollars. They want the best of the best.

A lot of conferences started out as a workshop or similar association from another conference. For example, MLCB is now independent of NIPS when it was a workshop before.

There are three aspects you seem to be mixing up.
1- author contribution
2- paper contribution
3- topic of the conference

1- You don't need any personal contribution to be named author on a paper. This is played through politics very often (put everyone in your team on the paper regardless of contribution, this way you get your name on 5 papers this year despite only participating in 1), and when not, it is considered very bad not to put e.g. an intern who wrote a web scraper to a paper about social network topology (despite the fact the web scraper is completely irrelevant to the actual paper's contents).
2- Paper contribution is often misleading. In math-light domains, it is simple enough to put blatantly incorrect(!) math in a paper to get it automatically accepted because math = automatically serious and good. Paper contribution is intimately linked to conference interests (see 3) and may further be split in different tracks (this is used to have the correct reviewers assigned to papers they are best apt at reviewing and to not be too overwhelmed with a topic-of-the-year effect). Even then, popular new topics are hotter and more likely to be accepted without proper review than old-and-busted topics, regardless of paper quality.
All in all, though, PAPER contribution DOES matter.
3- Venue interests vary by conference/journal, obviously. pycon is interested in anything python-related, regardless if the concept, outside python, is any new. CSE accepted "The NumPy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation" despite the fact there's nothing innovative about numpy arrays. Theano is absolutely not research either, yet it was accepted at both nips and scipy conferences.
That's why you can publish at competitive venues without actual scientific (or even engineering!) contrib.

Did you go to Drexel?

You’re fucking retarded for placing pycon in the same category as SOSP. Pycon isn’t even ranked in most conference rankings because it isn’t an academic /scientific conference. Is it even peer reviewed? Try not cherry picking industry conferences and presenting them as academic in any way.

Secondly, while you’re right that authorship does not say anything about individual contribution, papers is literally the only measure in academia/research. There is a reason why it is called “publish or perish”. Publications as first or second author in highly ranked conferences and journals, and a high citation count is the only way to be a “good researcher”. What is meant by contribution is the contribution of individual papers. If you want to work at Google’s networking group, obviously a paper in transactions on networking is going to give you an advantage.

Also it’s fucking hilarious that you shit on fields outside AI considering that there are literal AI workshops that accept fucking dataset papers.

Stop cherrypicking that hard. Either present an argument or shut up. How can there be any discussion if you're going to ignore 99% of what is said to select and misrepresent the single and only word you didn't like in the post?
Papers are not the only measure in academia or research, it's only the major one. Grants and awards are a thing. Best paper awards are worth significantly more than papers. Other than papers, talks (especially invited), tutorials, chairs, conference or workshop organization, etc. all count a ton. Once you get past a post-doc, you don't really participate on papers anymore, you just help researchers with going in the right direction and getting funding, yet your name is still attached to every paper your lab ever produces even if you were an absentee professor.
Citation count is also a crap metric even though it's used a lot. h-score is much more powerful.
Yet another thing you fail to understand is that the act of publishing is not what research is about, it's only the RESULT of research. The point of research is to discover or invent something new. The point of publishing is to communicate your discovery or invention. A lot of research (especially in things like military applications) is never published publicly yet researchers in the field have their reputation. That's yet another example of paper count not being the only metric.
And no, contribution of the paper itself has very little impact unless it was a >1k (at the very least) citation paper. What matters is if you're first author on said paper. If not, you can fuck off. That is,
1st author on massive paper > 2nd or 3rd author on massive paper > 1st author on pointless paper > non-1,2,3rd author on massive paper > non-1st author on pointless paper. Other positions are literally irrelevant, goto h or i10.

I never shat on any field. I more often shit on AI conferences and journals than anything else because unlike for other domains, I know the crap they produce.

The fact is, dataset papers is exactly yet another example of why you don't need to contribute anything scientific or engineery to get published. The same if you do review papers (at least in that case you do some "kind" of research I guess). The equivalent exists in every field.
Hell, I don't even shit on engineering vs science because both are important and nothing is going to happen if one of the two gets deleted. You're the only one creating a fuss about that, as if you're angry to be told you're "merely an engineer" even though nobody made scientists to be "more" than engineers except yourself. Engineering and science are just two different disciplines that do not operate the same way.

Dude, you literally dismissed the two premier computer science organisations as “worthless engineering venues” and you’re saying that I’m cherry picking? Get bent faggot.

You're doing it again. You're reading what you want to read even though it's not there because you have your own bias, which others do not, and you're assigning this bias to them because you are overly concerned about your status for some reason.

just use europass and linkedin lole

>to potentially leverage nuance questions
Cringe. I don't think I want to work for you or your boss.

pls r8 out of 10

Attached: my resume.jpg (1229x1589, 932K)

So if the reader is a woman it's bad. Got it.

>So if the reader is a woman it's bad.
It is offensive to me, as a male, too.

is that you on the picture?

Attached: potężny 2.jpg (1242x1394, 156K)

>ignore formatting error
the state of wordcucks

too cluttered my man