Being in my final year at University, I wanted to look at the way students were hired (and more broadly how the hiring process is going)

I started asking a few things here and there, including a survey for students, and such. The conversation soon moved to what a CV is worth.

What do you think?

In my opinion CVs are for judging whether it's worth talking to an applicant. If they have an interesting CV that shows they can make stuff happen, then it probably is. As a business you don't want to waste time speaking to everyone who applies. CVs hence allow you to quickly make a judgment on each applicant. The problems come when employers use CVs for more than this.

I agree with your point. I'm with you on the "use a CV to sort out potential applicants from the rest" —but then what is your view on LinkedIn?
And what's your view on alternative carreer-oriented platforms (Zerply for creatives, Behance/Dribbble for designers, etc...)?
The way I've seen it use is just as a paperless alternative to the CV (well: it also gives you MORE space to write about yourself of your experiences)

I'm currently working on creating my own company (startup and such) and I feel that the CV is an outdated way of going about hiring people. I feel that there is a disconnect based on the keywords that most people are typically forced to put on to a resume and what skills they actually have.

In a content-based atmosphere, seeing examples of work is a good way of being able to tell a little bit more about a person.

I understand the argument, however, that you have to find a way to narrow down the results, as it is practically impossible to be able to interview everyone who applies for a position and I respect that. But looking solely on a piece of paper, one which most companies barely read anymore, I feel, is poor for hiring people.

Thanks for joining the Branch, Nick!

Here's my experience:
- I'm a student and had 3 'work experiences' (two of them were job-like internships, and I'm currently working part-time as a social media consultant while finishing up my University degree)
- To get these previous positions, I first found about the offer, or contacted the employer directly on Twitter.
- Then I sent them my Linkedin and had Interviews in person (or on skype)

Now, while this is very symbolic of the Tech/Web industry more than any other, and while it's obvious that other industries simply CAN'T evolve the same way (my usual examples are Law/Health/Corporate) I do agree with you that
- there needs a way to sort things!
- but a piece is indeed poor, yes!

Thanks for having me, Thibault!

I'm glad to hear that some tech/web companies know to look for people who are using the tech/web that we rely on! I think LinkedIn is another decent way, but in my opinion the way that LinkedIn is currently set up is not conducive to the best experience when looking for a job. Naturally, that is a personal opinion and I have heard a lot of positive stories of people using LinkedIn to successfully land jobs.

In my previous jobs, I unfortunately had to be put into a large collective of resumes. Another problem may be that employers are looking for a very specific set of skills and if they don't see them, they look over them, even though they may be qualified with minimal training. It's hard to tell, though.

I've never used Linkedin to try and find a job. I looked at it, thought it was crap and never used lt again. I have a LinkedIn profile mainly for when clients google you and they want to find out more about you. Plus it's quite handy for finding contact details of people you've met before but subsiquently lost. It has the same floors as CVs in my opinion except you don't have to print it. However in the cooperate world it's just a social norm.

Zerply from what I've seen is LinkedIn with a different interface. Dribbble I can see having value for people who work in design, being able to show off work, gauge other people reactions is probably pretty valuable to employers. If you do anything other than visual design however it's worthless

I think there is still some value in the CV itself - it shows an ability to write, be concise and pointed about experience and goals, and in certain ways, follow direction. Not that writing one is rocket science, but I have seen some incredibly poorly put together ones - and if someone can't be bothered to write a decent resume, they're probably not going to be a good hire. So yes perhaps as a first-round vetting tool - spelling mistakes? irrelevant information? pass. Not because the job itself requires perfect spelling, but because of a lack of attention to detail. I think most employers, if they're interested in an applicant, then go to LinkedIn, portfolio, twitter, etc to get a better handle on where that person's at.

Jennifer, if I may, I would like to throw out a question for you related to your thoughts.

Would you say that, if your previous work experience is not directly related to the position you are applying for, that you should "stretch the truth" about your skills, or should you put what you do have knowledge in and, if it is not exactly to what the position requirements are posted as, be excluded from the position?

I feel that finding someone with the exact requirements of a job is sometimes asking a lot. Also, if someone is trying to break into an industry, how are they able to if no one will hire them because they don't have and can't get experience since no one will hire them?

I am not arguing your points, just curious for discussion. (:

A good question! It's ever very wise to lie on a resume, though we all do pick and choose what goes on it and how it comes across. I'm in the same position, just starting out after school and finding it frustrating the amount of experience some employers are asking for for a junior position - not to mention that just having the skills does not mean you are reliable, harworking, good at communicating, etc. (and don't get me started on things like "looking for a Rockstar Designer").
Maybe the best approach then is multi-pronged - if you want the job, and know the exact qualifications aren't there, find several other routes - a more creative CV, a phone call, engaging on twitter, etc.

Some of the expectations us grads are having to live up to are ridiculous - employers want Swiss Army knives, not specialists any more. And most people who say they can do everything can't be doing all of it well. You're right - it probably does lead to many people flat out lying about what they can and can't do just to get a job.

Really interesting discussion. I've come from a slightly different line than the three of you in that I opted not to go to university. After starting out with my current employer 2 and a half years ago and a summer job in my gap year before education I was offered a promotion and took it. The interesting thing about that initial job success and the future promotions I have received is that because of my age (21) a CV is not required. However if I was 25 it would be. Instead every time I apply for a new role within the same organisation I send my 'work history' and talk on Skype. This also means that for graduates they submit a CV merely to confirm qualifications and the rest is discarded favouring Skype calls as a personality test.

I find what you guys are saying very interesting but i have a different point of view when it comes to the judgement of people from CV's. I took a semester long course on CV's this fall, and felt that a lot of things are wrong with this world because of the way we deal with CV's. If Mark Zuckerberg would have applied to any job with his CV before inventing Facebook he probably wouldnt have gotten any "proper" jobs or anything comparable to his now. His CV however wouldnt have reflected his talent, or mind, or passion or anything that leads to great success. Same example goes with other figures that you guys must know about.

I think we're all on the same page here - no one really believes that a CV is the best summation of a person's skills, passions, and capabilities. Alternately, some people who have solid CV's in a field, but are difficult to work with as a person. How can a recruiter assess efficiently and holistically whether someone is suited to a job? In my experience, companies seem to look for that magic combo of experience, and "fit" - ie, is this someone we'd want on our team? CVs don't account for interpersonal skills.

What about something like a combo written/video CV - where the traditional CV could be supplemented with a video cover letter?

I fear that having to watch a video along with reading a CV would become tiresome for most HR representatives, depending on the amount of people who have submitted an application for the position.

I would say that a CV should be a starting point, though in a non-traditional type of way. Follow that up with either an in-person meeting or, rather, more conveniently, something such as a Skype meeting would be a good idea. That way you get to speak to the person behind the CV and, maybe even require video along with that so that you can see their facial expressions, as with a face-to-face interview.

The problem is that it all takes time. We would need to change the perspective of how the hiring process is conducted to allow for these changes.