I'm wondering if the phrasing could be different here.

I don't know that I personally thing we need to express the minimum qualifications on a resume. The reality is that us applying don't actually know what those are. I wonder if phrasing it more like "The goal of a resume is to show the recruiter/hiring manager that we have familiarity with some of the technologies for the role you are applying for." Doesn't have to be exactly that.

I'm raising this since I don't think anyone will know exactly what the requirements to be considered are. Someone applying for a role might be applying while not knowing 50% of the technologies and they might be a stronger candidate than someone who does know all the technologies.

Well I think the phrasing of this is more so like, "hey do you meet the minimum qualifications such as, can you code", are you familiar with working with a database, things of that nature. For example you can never code in Python but get an interview for a Python position as long as you show the minimum qualifications which in most circumstances would likely be, have you done programming in any previous languages, worked with databases, built some projects, etc.

Can you share more about what you mean by "skill sections"? My assumption is that you mean the things people post were it's like:

JS - 4 stars out of 5
CSS - 5 stars out of 5

Or were you referring to something else?

Sorry @bycdiaz on such a late response. I completely forgot I had made this PR.

To answer this question yes, skill sections such as JS 4 out of 5 or something similar, there's usually a huge issue with skill sections like these. The most obvious one is, "what are you using to determine that you're 4 out of 5 in JavaScript?" Are you extremely well versed in the language in its entirety? If so you should be able to express that by either the projects you've build or previous work done as well.

Skill sections tend to not help as much as they think they do, and from the recruiters information they tend to get glossed over or skipped entirely by recruiters because they don't accurately tell the recruiter that you say you know what you know in a more meaningful way like a project or previous work experience.

I think this statement reminds me of the comment I made about about the issue of meeting qualifications. I think an adjustment to something like "tell the recruiter you are familiar with some of the technologies..."

I also don't know how I feel about the issue of proving we can hit the ground running, especially for people pursuing entry level roles. I think anyone will need onboarding time and any reasonable employer won't expect people to hit the ground running. I wonder if we could change the phrasing to be more like: "...and to hopefully give them the confidence that you have the experience, habit, and skill of learning new things quickly."

We can definitely work on the re-phrasing. The main point that should be conveyed is that you want to instill as much confidence in the hiring manager/recruiter or even employer themselves that you will be able to perform, whether that be 6 weeks or 3-4 months. Whatever the process is for the company, in most circumstances searching for new hire can be expensive so the company wants to make sure there time and resource investment was worth it.

I know this is very subjective but for entry level roles, I think my assumption would be to expect a lot of fluff if an entry level candidate has a multi-page resume.

I'd love to hear more opinions on this but I don't know that we want to tell learners multi-page resumes are fine. But, again, just my opinion. 😅

So the reason this is put here is that I think people in general try so hard to refine and condense everything down into one page resumes. While that is fine and all, this is to just reassure the individual that if your resume goes a bit past a page it's not the end of the world. Maybe you have a few projects you're extremely proud of on top of either schooling, internships, etc. Because most recruiters stick to a 15-20 second rule anyway, it's best to have the most important and relevant stuff near the beginning. This way the skills and experience that the job is looking for is near the top, which ensures the recruiter won't have to hunt all over your resume for it.

Wonder if we want to phrase the opening differently like "The hiring manager will determine of they want to invite you into their interview process within the first 20 seconds of examining your resume."

The phrase "Remember to keep looking at those keywords and see where you are lacking and then go out and learn and build projects using those technologies." feels like it can send learners down rabbit holes. I don't think learners should go learn all the technologies they see on resumes. It's not practical to go learn everything they see on a job posting. It's also common for people to get hired despite not knowing all the technologies listed on job postings.

I do think it's good for people to give themselves space to go learn something new. But I also feel like it's worth calling out that they shouldn't be seeking to learn everything and that people regularly get hired despite not checking off every technology on a job posting.

We can rework this for sure. I think the premise is more so that if you're seeing certain skills and technologies repeatedly in your job searching, there's a good chance that you may want to at least have some general knowledge to be able to talk about it if you get a call back.

I'm pretty casual but I don't know if we should have the word shit in the lesson. 😅 Perhaps there is another way to express the sentiment?

😂 honestly I forgot I put this in here. Good catch this needs to be removed.

Wonder if we could change this to "was created by a recruiter" and leave out "active"? They may not be active forever and feels like this will save us from a future edit.

Good call

I wonder if we could just invite people to google for resume builders? Especially since the first link is about finding a few different resume builders.

Perhaps we could invite them to research for a few and try them and decide which fits their preferences?

Sounds good to me!