ENG 333 Communication for Science and Research

Jamie Larsen, Instructor

Professional Evaluation of Resumes

Professional Evaluation of Résumé Content

Résumé readers make choices quickly, so they would not consciously assign point values to evidence provided under each criterion of the warrant. Most of these readers have wide experience making judgments about which candidates to interview, and they likely base these judgments on whether or not they are persuaded that the résumé evidence meets the STAR criteria. Therefore, to simulate this process, each résumé was evaluated and assigned a ranking (1-3; 1 is best) for each criterion. The reasoning for each ranking is also given. The candidate whose résumé has the lowest total would be the one selected for an interview.

Sufficient:

1	Kelly: very thorough listing of pertinent jobs and duties
2	Jan: missing job titles and company locations; lots of requested experience, but not presented clearly
3	Chris: not enough related job experience; the one web position is listed last; it could be listed first if two Experience headings were used (Relevant and Other)

Typical:

1	Kelly: very analogous/typical; all key words given
3	Jan: Java not listed; a key word, so a serious omission
2	Chris: computer experience, but not as typical as other two who have lots of web development experience

Accurate:

1	Kelly: no grammar errors or ambiguities
2	Jan: missing "Expected Graduation Date"; actual date is 1998; employer might feel misled since student has been in school since 1992
3	Chris: several grammar errors (This alone may be serious enough to eliminate resume from consideration altogether); semesters on Dean's List not specified

Relevant:

1	Kelly: impressive honors section
2	Jan: with such a high GPA, why no honors (at least Dean's List)?
3	Chris: not all courses listed are "relevant"; take up valuable space

Professional Evaluator's Totals: The lowest score is the best.

	Chris:		11
	Jan:		9
	Kelly:		4

Kelly Jones (Résumé 1) would be asked to interview.