CV question

[VulpesZerda]

I'm an undergraduate polishing my CV to potentially send out to POIs, and then this fall, to programs. My CV has always included a short description of my research experiences instead of just listing the university and PI. (ex: "coded data for three studies on x y and z, assisted with data collection in the field, conducted literature reviews" etc.) Maybe this varies by field, but should I include these descriptions or cut them out? I never really see anyone else doing this, which is why I am wondering. Additionally, if there is anyone (particularly in the social sciences) who would be willing to PM me and briefly look over my CV, that would be beyond appreciated!

[fuzzylogician]

I do that for my CV, and so do others I know. Not everyone does it, but it's definitely not unheard of. You might also see similar descriptions for people's teaching experiences (e.g. 'led weekly discussion group, graded assignments, designed exam' etc).

[Dedi]

I put my descriptors in the SOP, but I don't think it's unheard of to put it in the CV.

 

You can PM me your CV and I'll look at it (even though I'm more in the life sciences than the social sciences, haha).

[TakeruK]

Not in the social sciences. I think what you are describing is the norm for grad students in the physical sciences. When people become postdocs, I see their descriptors shorten greatly, so it's a one line summary of their project rather than a list of everything they did.

 

Right now, I personally have 2-4 bullet points under each research experience describing what I did and I don't anticipate changing this until I'm ready to graduate and apply for post-PhD jobs. I used this "extended" format for grad school applications, fellowship applications and any conference travel grants etc. 

 

My thought is that until we have our PhDs, our research projects really are the extent of our research experience so this is the best way to showcase them. Eventually, we will have a thesis and probably a bunch of publications so those can speak for themselves instead of having to rely on our descriptions in our CV. So, unless your CV is too long, I would leave them in and don't really see a reason to cut them out. I think a normal CV length for graduate students is between 2 to 4 pages. My "max length CV" containing absolutely everything is 3.5 pages and when I tailor the CV for a specific purpose, it usually fits within 3 pages. I would say something that is 5 or more pages would be "too long".

 

Note: the page lengths above is using the convention/idea that one is not using "CV" as a synonym for "resume". I think the normal convention is that a CV is a long document listing almost all relevant experiences in detail (suitable for something like a job application, fellowship application or grad school application) while a resume is a short document (1 page, sometimes 2) that just summarizes your relevant experiences. If it's a resume, I would just list one line per research experience stating the date, the location and the PI/project title.

[VulpesZerda]

Okay cool, I think it makes sense to leave the descriptors until I'm further in my career. A "research experience" at this stage is so broad, so I will keep it the way it is to be clear.

 

Thanks, everyone, and +1 for TakeruK! (I ran out of up-votes) 

[Munashi]

I put little descriptors on my CV, but saved the details/how the experience is relevant for the SOP.  I think go with whatever works best for you.  It may also depend on the depth of your experience and what you were responsible for.  Perhaps if you were project lead for something or managing your own research project, you'd want to highlight that.  More general experience may not need explaining (as TakeruK notes).  Either way will be fine.

[victorydance]

I don't put any descriptions in my CV. My personal feeling is it looks amateur. Secondly, CVs are supposed to be precise and quick to read. Any explanations of what I did/what I learnt from my research experiences that are relevant are put into my SOP. 

 

Besides, I think admission committees have a pretty general idea of what a "research assistant" position as an undergrad looks like (read: virtually nothing substantial). I really don't have to mention that I did literature reviews or collected data for professors on my CV, it's pretty much assumed and not that noteworthy in the first place.

[VulpesZerda]

I don't put any descriptions in my CV. My personal feeling is it looks amateur. Secondly, CVs are supposed to be precise and quick to read. Any explanations of what I did/what I learnt from my research experiences that are relevant are put into my SOP. 

 

Besides, I think admission committees have a pretty general idea of what a "research assistant" position as an undergrad looks like (read: virtually nothing substantial). I really don't have to mention that I did literature reviews or collected data for professors on my CV, it's pretty much assumed and not that noteworthy in the first place.

 

Yeah, that's kind of what crossed my mind when I started to notice a lack of descriptors in most CVs I came across.

 

But I do get confused about the perception of research experience. I learned from day one that it's one of the most important things you need to be considered for grad school, yet most people's experiences are like you described, including mine. I know how the work I did fits into the projects, but I also know that a lot of the time, anyone really could have done the coding or data entry stuff. So why is the experience considered so important?

Edited July 22, 2014 by VulpesZerda

[victorydance]

Yeah, that's kind of what crossed my mind when I started to notice a lack of descriptors in most CVs I came across.

 

But I do get confused about the perception of research experience. I learned from day one that it's one of the most important things you need to be considered for grad school, yet most people's experiences are like you described, including mine. I know how the work I did fits into the projects, but I also know that a lot of the time, anyone really could have done the coding or data entry stuff. So why is the experience considered so important?

 

I think for a few reasons:

 

1) Too many people apply to academic/doctoral programs without even knowing what research is really about. People with research experience have a much better understanding of what research is, and if they want to do it.

 

2) Many RA positions are competitive, particularly for undergrads (and especially in the social sciences). Therefore, if you have passed that barrier that means that you were a good student and a professor hired you because of that reason.

 

3) While many entry-level RA tasks are pretty mundane and simple-minded, you need to build these skills early so that you learn them before you are a grad student. If there are grad students that come into grad school not knowing basic literature review skills and data collecting skills, then they are way behind the curve. 

 

4) Simply put, it is experience. Any job or applicant for something always has a leg up on others if they have experience.

 

And to be fair, while the majority of my almost year of RA work has been mostly simple tasks that many people could have done, a good chunk was quite specialized as well. There were tasks that required a specialized knowledge in my sub-field that other people just don't simply have. One of my professors leaned on me pretty hard for one of his papers and said it wouldn't have been as good as it was if it wasn't for me; I wouldn't have been able to do that without a heightened knowledge of the literature and intricacies of his sub-field.