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'.