Hi all,
I made this typst template originally to port my personal resume to typst from Latex. It tries to be a faithful port of the Awesome-CV latex template that I was previously using. Hope you find it useful.
https://github.com/DeveloperPaul123/modern-cv
Edit: added missing link
I understand. But, consultants could work on so many various things based on the project. Its better to provide context of the role and what industry that project was instead of only showing one block of text.
As an example, If I worked at a company for 2 years, I could have used GitHub for 3 months in one project and used GitLab for 6 months in another project. If I write both of them in the same block, you would think I have 2 years of experience in both which is not accurate.
Obviously there are ways you can write that in the description. I was just wondering if there are options to have nested experience.
@tarius
The skills section is the place you can list years of use of each tool or technology. The experience section is a place to list accomplishments, independently of what tools were used.
My recommendation is based on science consulting, where a pretty clear division can be made between tools and accomplishments.
I dont use a Skills section at all in my resume. How do you determine the quality of skills based on just keywords in the skills section?
In description if you show that you worked in certain technology for “this” long, you would get somewhat an idea of how skilled that person is in that tech
Lets say I put Office in skills section, you wouldnt know how skilled I am in office. I might have only worked with it for a month. And I am talking about resume without any fancy graphics with bar graph to show the skill level
@tarius
The same question would apply to skills mentioned in the experience section–unless the experience section is nothing but a description of use of those skills. It seems as if you and I may be valuing the experience section in different ways.
But the direct answer to your question is in an interview. If you assert both valuable skills and experience, then you will get pressed to demonstrate or explain those face-to-face.
That’s why I said if the skill is listed as a description in the experience (not literally the keyword), the “time range” would give you somewhat of an idea about the person. Key here is not listing just the skill, but what they actually did with that skill.
If you are a recruiter/manager that gives a call to everyone, then I appreciate what you do. But, wouldn’t your job be much easier if you are able to understand the candidate’s skill from the description without even talking to them? Filtering out inexperienced people would be much easier instead of just going by the skills section.
In the current market for IT folks, its not easy to get an interview. So you wanna give as much information in the resume to get that first call. This is from my personal experience in the last 6-10 months
@tarius
I’m interested in both the candidate’s skills and achievements. The list of skills is a quick and easy filter, but once past that, achievements deserve a lengthier explanation–and they may still reference skills.
Having hired for years in an IT-adjacent discipline, I like to see skills and achievements factored out, not unlike the way code or data structures should be factored.
A/B testing of resume structures might be interesting.
Wouldn’t the application software filter out the keywords from the description?
@tarius
I don’t know what application software you’re referring to.
I meant like Workday, Greenhouse, ADP, etc.