S/O stalker candidate: job search advice columns

[Elle]

I think it shows in the demeanor of the person doing the job hunting. Someone who wants a better job but isn't desperate because they have one and aren't worried about not paying bills, feeding kids, etc. is probably more likely to come off as calm and composed. Someone who is out of work and starting to feel the pinch is more likely to give off the signals of being desperate.

I don't think it's a conscious thing on any party involved nor do I think my theory is absolute law, that someone who is employed will loook confident and the unemployed person will look frazzled, exceptions abound aplenty.

Just my idea on the matter.

[jaxsue]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

Never really understood that one.  When I was contracting I was more likely to get a contract if I wasn't working because I could start immediately.

The idea is similar to the one that says "people are attracted to people who are already taken" because it is a signal of their attractiveness. Silly, yes, but I think there might be some empirical data backing up the "having a job makes it easier to get a job" claim. I can't remember where I've seen it though.

That makes sense.

[C0mputerGeek]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

If I remember correctly, the thinking is that someone that is not employed may take the job because they are desperate. Someone who is working and does not need a job can wait until they find something that really interests them and are less likely to leave. It's a perceived loyalty issue.

[hobish]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

If I remember correctly, the thinking is that someone that is not employed may take the job because they are desperate. Someone who is working and does not need a job can wait until they find something that really interests them and are less likely to leave. It's a perceived loyalty issue.

I think you are right. I remember how surprised and impressed the interviewer for my present job was when i told them i left my previous job because i had saved up enough money to be able to take time off and look for a job i really wanted instead of doing something i hated every day. It worked (and truthfully my present employer was my top choice of companies to work for, it wasn't a fabrication).

[Elfqueen13]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

If I remember correctly, the thinking is that someone that is not employed may take the job because they are desperate. Someone who is working and does not need a job can wait until they find something that really interests them and are less likely to leave. It's a perceived loyalty issue.

I get it, I really do but my dedication to working has way more to do with paying the bills than any deep-seated love of cell phone bills...

[Jocelyn]

I am in theory ok with a two page resume if i see it i as merited, what makes me want to beat the applicant is when they hand in a two page resume that could with a 3rd grade level knowledge of editing formatting and computers be put on one pages.  To me that is saying " I don't know how a word processor works"

I have yet to see a resume that i do not think could have been reduced to 1 page.  that is my issue. 

That very much depends upon your field. I'm in higher ed, and it's considered standard to have a resume of at LEAST 2 pages. I've seen them run to 10. A one page resume from a professor shouts, 'I don't do much, and I don't remember what I did.'

[Rockie]

On the language aspect, I have "working knowledge in Mandarin" on my resume, as I studied it for four years and spent a summer in China. Though I'm actually better with writing than speaking, but then I tend to communicate better in writing than speaking in general.

[blarg314]

I am in theory ok with a two page resume if i see it i as merited, what makes me want to beat the applicant is when they hand in a two page resume that could with a 3rd grade level knowledge of editing formatting and computers be put on one pages.  To me that is saying " I don't know how a word processor works"

I have yet to see a resume that i do not think could have been reduced to 1 page.  that is my issue. 

That very much depends upon your field. I'm in higher ed, and it's considered standard to have a resume of at LEAST 2 pages. I've seen them run to 10. A one page resume from a professor shouts, 'I don't do much, and I don't remember what I did.'

In academics, resumes include a list of publications, sometimes just refereed and sometimes not. That can run to a page or more by itself.   I would guess that a one page resume would be pitched out as coming from someone who wasn't qualified for the job, probably without reading.

So it really comes down to knowing what is expected and acceptable for a given field.

[audrey1962]

So it really comes down to knowing what is expected and acceptable for a given field.

And that is why I dislike the advice columnists! All of their advice is general; most fail to take into account the nuances of individual fields.

[ginlyn32]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

If I remember correctly, the thinking is that someone that is not employed may take the job because they are desperate. Someone who is working and does not need a job can wait until they find something that really interests them and are less likely to leave. It's a perceived loyalty issue.

I get it, I really do but my dedication to working has way more to do with paying the bills than any deep-seated love of cell phone bills...

Exactly! This is why I hate the question "Why do you want to work here?"  "Ummm...because I need a job and have bills to pay and kids to feed!"

How do "they" expect people to react after getting laid off and not being able to find something in a down economy? With joy and delight?

ginlyn

[Miss Unleaded]

I get it, I really do but my dedication to working has way more to do with paying the bills than any deep-seated love of cell phone bills...

Exactly! This is why I hate the question "Why do you want to work here?"  "Ummm...because I need a job and have bills to pay and kids to feed!"

One of my job interviews after Uni was for a lab management position.  When they asked why I wanted to work there, I tried to ease the tension with ...

"Because I'm sick of being on the dole!"

Yeah, I didn't get the job.  You'd think people would appreciate honesty but it didn't work for me that day.   

[Mediancat]

The attitude of the interviewer, probably, is that they don't want someone who's there just for the money, as they're likely to leave if they find something better.

Rob aka Mediancat

[Elfqueen13]

The attitude of the interviewer, probably, is that they don't want someone who's there just for the money, as they're likely to leave if they find something better.

Rob aka Mediancat

And that's a distinct possibility.  Unfortunately, the current corporate culture in the US (as experienced by me while working for several very large companies, 2 meduim companies and a couple of small businesses) does not encourage or reward employee loyalty.  Employers feel no loyalty to their workers, especially on the bottom tiers.  Think about it, when a company is in dire financial straits they don't start letting go the executives and their 6-figure salaries.  They thin out the bottom ranks - the factory workers, the sales people, the lower management - leaving those people to start over in a culture that sees the unemployed as being unemployable.  Add in a major recession and record-breaking unemployment rates and we get, well, exactly what we have.  People using seemingly insane tactics to get a job, any job.

[Sirius]

AARP has a lot of job hunting tips right now, because there are a lot of people over 50 who are unemployed.  (If I'm stating the obvious, I apologize.)  However, one column that I found sort of questionable was the one about trying to seem younger than you really are.  I'm 51 - I can't hide that I'm 51, and in fact wouldn't want to.  I probably look every minute of those 51 years.  I also consider it less than honest to try to pretend that I'm younger than I am.  Updating  one's wardrobe or getting a different hairstyle - okay.  But leaving things off the resume that show a greater age?  I think that's false.  I leave some things off mine, but they're early jobs that have nothing to do with my present field (waitressing and working in a school cafeteria as a teenager), and my first job in my present field started in 1990, and I can't hide that.

[C0mputerGeek]

AARP has a lot of job hunting tips right now, because there are a lot of people over 50 who are unemployed.  (If I'm stating the obvious, I apologize.)  However, one column that I found sort of questionable was the one about trying to seem younger than you really are.  I'm 51 - I can't hide that I'm 51, and in fact wouldn't want to.  I probably look every minute of those 51 years.  I also consider it less than honest to try to pretend that I'm younger than I am.  Updating  one's wardrobe or getting a different hairstyle - okay.  But leaving things off the resume that show a greater age?  I think that's false.  I leave some things off mine, but they're early jobs that have nothing to do with my present field (waitressing and working in a school cafeteria as a teenager), and my first job in my present field started in 1990, and I can't hide that.

Having just had my high school reunion this past summer, I can say that appearance has very little to do with chronological age. Several people looked like they were well into their forties and one person looked better than she did in high school. Looking 50 has very little to do with being 50.

Having worked as an IT Project Manager in HR, I got to hear all sorts of wonderful studies. This includes reseaerch that shows companies are, indeed, reluctant to hire people over a certain age. Ageism is alive and well, and I don't see any problem with people avoiding this issue by dropping jobs off the end of their resume or removing the year they got their undergraduate/bachelor degree.

Many recruiters will advise you to drop the older jobs off a resume. Even now, I background check will turn my my summer jobs in high school and college, which were removed from my resume long ago. You can also collapse jobs at the beginning of your career and remove the years from them as well as removing the date you received your degree.