Discussion on:

Four mistakes you probably don�t know you�re making in your resume

on their CV?

"Isolated it's DNA and discovered cure for skin cancer."

On a serious note, do you think the two out of ten reviewers you mention would focus exclusively on the grammar versus the content?

In the past I had to screen every packet that came through HR because they focused on things that really weren't pertinent to the job I was hiring for. To be fair I didn't hire any writers!

Don't be narrow-minded: you are presupposing that one cannot be an excellent writer and an expert in a field. The two are not mutually exclusive. No hiring manager should focus exclusively on grammar while ignoring the candidate's qualifications but that does take away the requirement and desirability for everyone to have a command of basic grammar. You needn't be an Evelyn Waugh or Somerset Maugham but it's unforgivable to be ungrammatical.

does that mean you don't hire the person that cured skin cancer?

Who is being presumptuous? My point is that we all make mistakes. I guess that makes me a pansy because of my forgiving nature...

You draw conclusions based on things I neither stated nor implied. Of course, I would hire the person who cured skin cancer. But if he's that smart, why can't he learn basic grammar, the basic elements of which should have been learned by 6th grade, certainly 8th. Yes, your point that "we all make mistakes" is true. My point is we should try to avoid them and elementary grammar is de rigueur.

The fact remains that subject knowledge and grammar knowledge are not, nor should they be, mutually exclusive. Furthermore, you present an extreme example, using the person who cured skin cancer. The rank-and-file of us who apply for jobs do not possess global expertise and global achievements. Using your extreme example, if the choice lies between hiring a genius with slipshod grammar and an idiot with perfect grammar, the choice is obvious.

You make what is simultaneously a disparaging comment about yourself that you're "a pansy because of my forgiving nature". That at root seems to be a sign of ego. You're giving yourself a backhanded compliment disguised as a disparaging, feeling-sorry-for-yourself comment. In actuality you're inordinately pleased with yourself for having what you term a "forgiving nature" and must advertise it on post.

Don't confuse being forgiving with being laissez-faire/without standards. They're two radically different things in concept and execution.

(BTW, I made a typographical error: I was typing too fast and touched too lightly on the keyboard. I should have written, "but does NOT take away the requirement and desirability for everyone to have a command of basic grammar." instead of what I wrote" "but that does take away the requirement".)

it's unforgivable to be ungrammatical.

Therefore I did call you out on something you stated. I was focused on the content as much as the presentation. That is often lost in the grammar wars.

P.S. You stick your tongue out most eloquently!

that the person in question _actually_ found a cure for skin cancer. I'd assume that they were a minor part of the team, at best. And I wouldn't even necessarily be conscious of the fact that I had reached this conclusion for that reason, which is even more damning for the candidate. I think that's more the point that's being made.

willingness to ignore a gaffe in favor of great skill and experience.

While a conjunction is a word that joins words or groups of words, a contraction is a shortened word that uses an apostrophe.

While point 3 is titled, "Your plurals have apostrophes," it seems to be more concerned with the improper usage of the possessive of "it."

Please point out that if you rearrange your sentence to use the active voice, make sure to use the proper verbs. I see too many sentences using transitive verbs intransitively just to sound active. Unfortunately they just sound wrong.

Instead of I led their help desk while there. I prefer While there I led their help desk.

The author's version just rubs me wrong. I don't know why.

The example was likely culled from an actual resume.

Right On Toni...#2&3 stick out like bandaids on a butterfly in any document! It amazes me that people don't take more pride in their language. I deal with administrators who should know better (taught from grade school to graduate school), but don't have a clue how uneducated they appear. Memorize the simple rules and use them correctly. People do take notice so spare a little time to proof any document that has your name on it. It's simple!

I believe the word should be homophone, not homonym. I do agree with your point, however. I do not profess to be an English language scholar, but I, too, am irritated by these frequent incorrect words.

Try to work out what this means. It's from an E-mail I received: "I couldn't walk through the mud unless I was wearing waiters."

But at least I hope he tips well.

That's hilarious! Sounds like kitchen staff abuse, LOL. What the poor person meant is unless he or she was wearing "waders"--i.e., hip-high, or at least higher than regular shoes, rubber boots--he couldn't have gotten through the mud.

In number example, you used a past participle example to illustrate gerund use. Rule number 1 applies to past participles too, but your example is confusing.
While you pointed out the mistake correctly of confusing it's and its, "its" is a possessive and the rule in this case is apostrophes are only used with nouns, not prepositions.
As for homophones and homonyms, people for many years have been using the word homonym for homophone, so that one is probably OK.

Here is another example of Murphy's Law. In any article on grammar, the author will make a simple mistake that makes eyes roll, to wit:

"2. You dont know a homonym from a hole in the ground.
This one gets me because its not like Im asking that people to be grammar scholars."

I claim no immunity from making similar errors myself, so don't think I'm being mean. I'm just relieved to see others join me from time to time.

Too often I see the use of then (consecutive action) instead of than (comparative action). Case in point: "I am remembered more for saving thousands of dollars then reducing countless manhours."

That one irks me like fingernails scraping a chalkboard. It ranks right up there with the confusion of 'to' and 'too'.

The number one mistake from my perspective, and the one that causes more resumes that I read to be tossed, is the good old conjunction. People have no idea how to use conjunctions. "I managed the set up of the new server system and am proud of the result." Wrong. Conjunctions conjoin two sentences that contain related thoughts. Each part of the conjoined sentence must stand on its own: "I managed the set up of the new server system" and "I am proud of the result."

'"I managed the set up of the new server system and am proud of the result." Wrong.'

Actually not wrong. From Practical English Usage (Michael Swan, Oxford): "Words for repeated ideas can often be left out in the second of two co-ordinate clauses." He gives the example "She was depressed and didn't know what to do".

Close but no cigar. "Words for repeated ideas" says it. The ideas are not co-ordinate clauses in my example, although they are in yours. They are separate. The first is "set up", speaking of the mechanical action itself (oddly he didn't say "setup of the the new server", which is more common - and also wrong), the second speaks of pride in the accomplishment, which is purely emotion oriented. The thoughts are too divergent to meet Mr. Swan's specification.

What many, if not most people, get wrong is using the conjunction "and" instead of the preposition "to" as in writing or saying, "I went to the house and got the key" instead of "I went to the house TO get the key."

Bravo! You are absolutely correct.

You're correct that, "I managed the set up of the new server system and am proud of the result," is considered bad form, but your reason is not correct. The only thing incorrect about that sentence from a grammatical standpoint is the change in tense. It would be correct if it read, "I managed the set up of the new server system and was proud of the result," or if it read, "I managed the set up of the new server system, and I am proud of the result." The latter example would probably be better for the resume, but either sentence would be correct.

"I managed the set up of the new server system and was proud of the result," is also incorrect. Again, the first thought is "set up", speaking of the mechanical action itself, the second speaks of pride in the accomplishment, which is purely emotion oriented. "I managed the set up of the new server system, and I am proud of the result." is definitely correct. In the this case, tense is ignored between the thoughts, the mechanical action having been performed in the past and the pride carrying on into the future, as the conjunction "and" conjoins the two thoughts which, although dissimilar, are directly related. And, unlike the other examples, the thoughts on each side of the conjunction are stand-alone sentences, which is required for a conjunction to be used properly. Any sentence that employs a conjunction must be balanced.

I can find no support for the idea that, "I managed the set up of the new server system and was proud of the result," is incorrect.

A compound predicate has to agree on tense. Beyond that, you should be careful not to make it ambiguous. Your commentary on the compound sentence is fine, but it hardly makes the compound predicate version incorrect. Your reason for it being incorrect seems pulled from the air.

"If you see an apostrophe in a word, its a conjunction (a word that joins words or groups of words)."

The apostrophe indicates a contraction.

I think the biggest one I see all the time is the confusion with your, you're, you are. I see things like, "only if your cool", or "your buying". And this is normally from individuals that have four year degrees.

Your last sentence should read, "And this is normally from individuals who have four year degrees." "Who" is for people. "That" is for other things.

This mistake is so obscure that few people are aware of it.

hi, toni. yeah, like what some guys here said "it's" is contraction, not a conjunction. examples of conjunction are "because", "however" and "but."
also, "it" is not a noun--it's a pronoun. "its" is not a plural--it's a possessive pronoun/adjective.

I am quite surprised by your items 2 and 3. I am not a native English speaker, but the difference between "there", "they are" and "their" is pretty clear to me... (also between "it's" and "its"). Do you really see this type of errors?

all the time!

Dr Harold Shipman, the GP from Nottingham who murdered hundreds of his patients, was convicted partly on the basis of his poor spelling. He forged the wills of some of his wealthier patients but his spelling of certain words gave him away. "I leave evrything to my lovely GP, Dr Harold Shipman". The moral is that if you intend to murder your clients, and who can say they haven't wanted to, then make sure your spelling is ok.

"This one gets me because its not like Im asking that people to be grammar scholars."

That's just as well really. Did you mean, "That annoys me because I am not asking people to be grammar scholars?"

Toni Bower's resume example states "youd say 'ABC Corp.: I led their help desk while there.'
ABC Corp is one entity, thus the pronoun referring to it is singular. The correct example would be "ABC Corp.: I led its help desk while there.'

The errors mentioned in this article generally will prevent a candidate from being hired. Company workforces are too lean to be able to afford the luxury of clerical staff to correct other workers poor spelling and grammar. Additionally, one cannot rely upon software applications' spell-check and grammar-check functions to correct mistakes.

Additionally, many candidates do not know the basic structure, layout, and degree of detail expected by Human Resource personnel and hiring managers. For assistance, go to http://www.conduitconsulting.com/Experience/CareerConduit.htm

The example in the article is not actually incorrect. You can say either "ABC Corp.: I led their help desk," or, "ABC Corp.: I lead its help desk," as long as you are consistent about referring to the organization as either a single entity or a group. Your verbs and pronouns have to be consistent, and you shouldn't refer to the organization as a single entity in one sentence and as a group in the next sentence.

Often you are encouraged to use whichever form is appropriate for whether you are referring to the organization as an entity or as a group of people. Following that rule would probably make the plural more appropriate in this case since you are referring to your role over a group of people internal to the company.

Technically, though, either form is considered correct.

Actually, whether a noun that refers to a group takes the singular or the plural depends on which dialect the speaker or writer is using, American or British. The two dialects have different grammar and usage rules on this issue. It's one of the few grammar and usage areas where the two dialects disagree.

The plural vs. singular agreement rules are not hard and fast in all cases in either dialect. Wikipedia has an excellent discussion of the detailed rules in the article, "Comparison of American and British English", in the section, "Grammar", "Nouns", "Formal and notional agreement". Here is the web link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_American_and_British_English