Re: a different resume red flag

["Lisa A. Roth" <roth -dot- lisa -at- jimmy -dot- harvard -dot- edu>]

I understand both points of view. For what it's worth, I think 
inspecting someone's handiwork with one or more tools is most useful 
when it's used to validate the pervasive "expert-level" knowledge 
claimed on nearly all incoming resumes. Unfortunately, we all know that 
many applicants label themselves "experts" because they are afraid to 
display even a hint of weakness. (This does not apply exclusively to 
tool knowledge, either. Anyone out there who has ever reviewed an 
incoming resume has seen the cover letters that spew the job ad's 
keywords back--sometimes horribly out of context--but these people are 
"experts" in the area.)

In such cases, reverse-engineering applicants' documents provides the 
ability to evaluate their claims of production expertise. At the same 
time, reading the content can help prove or disprove their claims 
regarding their writing expertise. Since there seems to be an awful lot 
of "experts" out there, it's a useful way to perform a first-pass 
separation of the truly skilled applicants from the yes-men (and women).

Let it be said, though, that things such as document set-up, coding, 
etc. shouldn't be considered nearly so seriously if an applicant isn't 
actually claiming to be a pro in that area of publishing.

Happy Friday, folks


Stephen Arrants wrote: