When/how to go about updating your CV in Grad School?

[splitends]

I'm about to start a PhD program in the fall. I put together a pretty convincing CV when I was applying to schools, but now that I'm actually in and about to start, I'm not sure how long I should keep my undergrad experience listed on my CV.

I was involved with about three independent projects throughout my undergrad career and presented them at conferences and etc. Needless to say, though, the work I was producing as a 2nd year undergrad is a far cry from what I want to do now. Really, only the most recent project (my senior thesis) is something I'd like to be associated with going forward. But including all the other things just makes me look so much more prolific. It's weird to have worked this hard for the last four years to accumulate all this experience, only to wipe the record clean now.

What do you think-- do you keep your undergrad experience on your CV indefinitely, gradually purge it as you get involved with more serious work, or just start with a more or less clean slate in grad school?

Thanks!

[fuzzylogician]

For now I still have all of my (relevant) undergraduate experience on my CV. Like it or not, it's work I did that is associated with my name. I stand behind it and I'm proud of it. At this point I only have very few items on my CV from outside my field - ones which I am particularly proud of - but mostly I've dropped those items. It seems to me that it's worth keeping all of my linguistics work and seeming prolific when applying for my first job; in any event, nowadays it's easy to google one's name and find all their work without much trouble so I've decided to keep it all on my CV (as well as my website).

*A good lesson to take from this question is that anything you publish under your name is there forever to be found, so don't put your name on work you're not proud of!

[splitends]

How far are you into the PhD program, just out of curiosity?

And I do get the point that you should stand by your work, but realistically the work I was proud of (and should have been proud of) at 18, 19, 20 years old isn't really work that I think I should have to be associated with by the time I've written a dissertation. It's not that I'm especially ashamed of it, but's it's still total beginner stuff and I don't think it makes sense to have it on my CV by the time I've got a PhD, or even a Master's really. When I look at CVs from people in my department, it's very rare that anyone mentions undergraduate work, beyond maybe mentioning an undergrad thesis title. It's possible that this is the only undergrad experience they have, but I highly doubt it considering it's a pretty competitive program to get into. I assume there's some sort of weeding process that goes on, but I'm totally clueless about the timing of it. I could be totally wrong of course.

[fuzzylogician]

Are we talking about a short CV or a document that lists all your work? And are we talking about published work, or some other kind of CV entry? Published work is published work, you don't get to take it back because you were young when you wrote it (rather you get to write a new article showing how the other one was wrong ). If you're aiming for a short, strong CV, you may choose to omit older entries - that is definitely done. For example, many people start out by listing inner-departmental presentations just to show that they are active and have diverse interests, and take those out later when they have presented the work in a peer-reviewed conference or have published it in a journal. You also see CVs with "selected publications", for those who have enough so they can choose. I think these people still have a full CV which lists everything they've done - I think such a document is required for various applications (tenure, grants and such like) but I could be wrong here. As for semi-relevant RA positions and the like, I also think it's fine to start weeding them out as you have more relevant positions in order to keep your CV manageable. I would still advise you to keep a document that lists everything - you never know when you might need it. Since you're not actually applying for a position or grant, you can have a short CV on your website. Whatever you think represents you the best. When it's time to apply for jobs, you should consult your advisor to learn what is common in your field and do that. It may or may not be a full CV.

I've finished three years in a PhD program and I have a Masters, in case that helps.

Edited July 1, 2012 by fuzzylogician

[honkycat1]

I'd keep my awards, poster presentations at major conferences or pubs. Just because the work isn't as good doesn't mean its not a presentation or publication. But things like "research assistant" at some UG lab, that can probably go.

[natsteel]

I'm entering my 2nd year and I have kept my awards, a paper published in a "national" UG journal, and my experience as a paid research assistant for two well-known historians. As I get one or two more awards during grad school, I will drop the UG ones. Similarly, as soon as I get a publication, I will drop the one in the UG journal. When I get some kind of research/dissertation fellowship, I will likely pull the RA jobs. I think the process of dropping significant UG stuff from your CV should be a gradual one and I wouldn't drop anything unless you have something more current with which to replace it. But, of course, that's just my own opinion.