Resume inflation (was Re: [SAGE] Tests for Systems Administratorinterviews.)

[Trey Harris <trey@eecs.harvard.edu>]

I have a gripe from the other side of the interviewing table--resume
inflation.  The quality of resumes that have come across my desk over the
years have been getting progressively more and more useless.  I'm aware
that search engines have spawned keyword resumes and that folks are
petrified of leaving something off their resume that they know and hence
not getting hit by a relevant search, but even making allowances for this,
resumes are really getting ridiculous.

When I see the word "expert" on a resume, I expect the interviewee to be
able to carry on an intelligent conversation about not just the whats, but
the hows and whys too.  If the candidate only knows the knobs and buttons,
but otherwise the technology is a black box, then the candidate cannot
claim expertise.

Further, I think that even a very experienced sysadmin can only be truly
"expert" in a handful of things simultaneously--four or five tops.  (And
it's very common for people to pass in and out of expertise in various
technologies as their career progresses.)

But lately I've been seeing resumes where people say they're expert in a
dozen or more things, and then when I interview them, I find my own
knowledge trumps theirs when I would never think of calling myself an
expert on the subject.  Put on the defensive, I now doubt everything I
read on a resume.  This goes far beyond the usual resume padding, which is
understandable and can be accounted for.

I really, really hate this.  Having to ferret out whether the candidate is
a liar is not a good way to start a working relationship.  And being on
the receiving end of that "technical skills verification" is humiliating.

The problem isn't generally incompetent people trying to get good jobs.
It's competent people getting slotted for the *wrong* jobs.  It wastes the
candidate's time, it wastes the interviewer's time, and it wastes the
prospective employer's money.

I've been wondering about whether this wouldn't be a useful project--some
sort of guidelines for sysadmin resumes, perhaps keyed to job description
levels and with definitions of these vague words.  For instance:

1.  Simply listing a technology means nothing except that you'd like to
     be considered for jobs using that technology.

2.  "Some experience" with a technology means you've touched it
     significantly enough to be familiar with it and know the roadmap of
     its general workings.

3.  "Conversant"  means you can work with it without constantly
     experimenting or referring back to documentation and do some
     rudimentary troubleshooting.

4.  "Competent" means you can work with it to do just about any normal
     task and have some understanding of its internals, and are prepared
     to do many kinds of troubleshooting (I think this is what many folks
     mean when they say "expert").

5.  "Expert" means you can push it to do things nobody's done before, can
     teach it to others with aplomb, would be ready to tackle any
     troubleshooting problem, and have a solid understanding of its
     internals.

Is anyone else feeling the pain of these awful resumes?  Does anyone else
want to help take a stab at trying to do something about it?

Trey