CV: Tip, Tricks, and Swapping

[day_manderly]

So, we all want our applications to be just perfect, don't we? CVs do not receive enough attention, me thinks. Does anyone have useful know-hows? Who'd like to swap a CVs with another person?

Tips & tricks I've encountered:

1. Put the most important/impressive info first. Mine has education, and then - straight on - relevant research experience.
2. Then, a CV should be as readable as possible. A footer and proper sectioning are a must.

Does anyone have any thoughts on proper CV architecture? Also, I personally would love to cross-check CVs with somebody; please, PM if you are interested.

Edited September 19, 2016 by day_manderly
grammar

[day_manderly]

Oh, and I already have a question. Have you inserted a section on the coursework you've done? Does it even make sense if one has worked as a researcher already and done much more there?

[TakeruK]

This may depend on our differences in fields etc but I think generally, CVs are going to be read less carefully than other parts, like your personal statement or the letters of reference. This means that, to me, it's really important to spend a bit of time really maximizing your ability to communicate information clearly and concisely, but I wouldn't spend additional time choosing between minute differences in wording.

This is in contrast to most non-academic CV advice you see online, since for typical non-academic job applications, the only thing the company gets is your cover letter and your CV. For many grad school apps, the CV is mostly redundant---much of the information is already covered in other aspects. Some schools (in my field anyways) don't even want a CV, instead, they have several forms to fill out that convey similar information (e.g. list of publications etc.)

I don't think a footer is a must. Mine has a header with my name and the page number, but no footer. I definitely agree that section ordering is important. My CV currently shows: Education, Research, Publications, Awards, Students supervised, Teaching/Outreach, Service/Leadership.

On that note, considering the audience of your CV is really important. Different versions of my CV have different emphasis (e.g. the CV I wrote for the volunteer teaching position at a non-profit emphasized the teaching and service parts instead of research). For grad school applications, transcripts are almost always included, so no need to indicate coursework on your CV.

Finally, I don't think there is really one single "proper CV architecture". You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's readable and does its job of conveying important information. One of my friends likes design and makes very visually stunning CVs. They got compliments on it from their admissions committee (but I don't think it's really a factor in getting in). It's also fine and safe to just copy the standard academic CV format that seems to be on everyone's website (at least in my field). I think both ways can be right. Making a unique CV can help you stand out, as long as you still make sure the critical info is communicated. Making a boring CV means you risk blending in with everyone else, but you know that it's a format that works (and with the standardization, people know where to look to find things). I prefer mine to be somewhere in between---not as visually creative as my friends but enough tweaks to personalize mine vs the standard.

 

[day_manderly]

I actually meant 'header' in lieu of 'footer'.

While what you are saying is certainly true, all of it, but the thread was created precisely because CV is often overlooked - both by students, and, perhaps, by adcomms. Yet, it IS in the application list, and a great one would do only good. Not to mention the boost in confidence one gets upon applying if there is one more document that is extremely well done.

[TakeruK]

3 hours ago, day_manderly said:

I actually meant 'header' in lieu of 'footer'.

While what you are saying is certainly true, all of it, but the thread was created precisely because CV is often overlooked - both by students, and, perhaps, by adcomms. Yet, it IS in the application list, and a great one would do only good. Not to mention the boost in confidence one gets upon applying if there is one more document that is extremely well done.

Interesting---in my experience, I've met people that spend way too much time on the CV and focus on it more than other parts. Maybe it's because the CV is something that many people are familiar with through other life experiences (job applications etc.) However, I think the reality is that an excellent CV does the same amount of good as a good CV, so in my opinion, it's better to spend the time elsewhere (either on other parts of the applications or other parts of your life!).