Opinion
TECHNICIAN
PAGE 5 • THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2018
Accomplishments on a resume take precedence over skills A truth that I’ve gradually realized and accepted as I’ve advanced through higher education is that at this stage, especially at an institution the size of NC State, I am in a conRasheed stant state of evaluation. Harding Regardless of my awareStaff Columnist ness of this, nearly every decision I make that remotely involves college in any way is recorded, categorized or graded in some fashion. This, of course, is no surprise or shocking revelation. Integrating that understanding into my lifestyle, however, has proven a different challenge. Maintaining an updated mental rubric of what we’re being evaluated on in every social, academic or professional situation we find ourselves in can be quite draining. Whether it’s the participation standards of a particular course, the etiquette of a career-based event or the harmless interactions with our peers on and off campus, there will always exist society’s aggregated scrutiny of our actions. Part of this notion involves understanding which people need to know which of your attributes, as well as how those people prefer those attributes be communicated to them. Consider the numerous factors that go into writing a solid resume. Often it can seem as if a new consideration or tweak pops up as soon as you’ve finished editing in the last one. Coupled with this is
the fact that everyone has a different idea of the “perfect resume.” I’m not claiming to know what that would look like; the variations are endless. One piece of advice that stood out to me and really put the world beyond college into perspective was the distinction between skills and accomplishments. While there was no confusion on my part about their definitions, I did display a tendency to interchange their importance. In fact, there are plenty of reasons, some obvious and some less so, for prioritizing the inclusion of accomplishments and achievements in a resume instead of a list or summary of “skills.” Without proper demonstration, skills are just subjective descriptions. A person who merely mentions their mathematical skill is much harder to believe than one who actually solves a complex equation on their own. In one scenario, it’s their word against anyone else’s; convincing anyone of their aptitude depends solely on any (subjective) verbal or nonverbal indicators of their sincerity. In the other scenario, a witnessed display of their ability provides all the (objective) proof needed to banish any doubts. Resume writing and reading follows similar logic. A piece of paper or digital document that details an applicant’s academic and professional history should contain, well, their history. History is always being made, so any present or ongoing acquisition of relevant qualifications shouldn’t be left out. My recommenda-
tion is to stick to the indisputable facts that paint a picture of what said applicant can explicitly do. “Who you are” is an interview problem; only then is there an opportunity to establish a rapport and a baseline professional personality. “What you’ve done” establishes your fitness for the job beforehand; employers are investigating and hopefully investing in your abilities, not your textbook personality. One useful sentiment that I’ve come across multiple times has to do with ascribing some quantity to the impact of your accomplishments. “When detailing your career accomplishments,” writes Robin Madell of US News, “avoid being vague. Use exact numbers, dollars and quantities whenever possible.” Accomplishments are even less linguistically vague than a bundle of skills. Describing personal achievements of what was expected in a position and the application of those achievements beyond their contexts diversifies an employer’s understanding of an applicant’s capabilities outside of a list of tasks. In short, accomplishments provide a clear outline of your previous duties and exploits as well as your impact beyond them. “[G]o beyond listing day-to-day tasks and responsibilities,” writes Madeleine Burry of The Balance. “Think bigger: Employers want to know what you’ll accomplish if you’re hired on. Give them a sense of your abilities by putting your achievements — whether it’s overhauling
an inefficient system, saving the company money, or generating sales revenue — on display.” Personal, professional or academic projects are also descriptive indicators of unnamed skills, interests and inclinations. A portfolio of designs, inventions, presentations and physically built models speaks volumes about what you enjoy doing and how well you do it. Of course, listing the conceivably desirable buzzwords and go-to phrases at one’s disposal is convenient and hard to resist. All it takes is both understanding that certain positions require certain skills and recalling specific moments in your life when those “skills” were displayed. An applicant’s memory of a moment when they were “punctual” would ideally suffice in convincing themselves they consistently are so. The problem is that employers cannot read minds. They have no clue if you even believe you are punctual, and even your belief in this description of yourself wouldn’t be proof enough that you possess the actual trait. Overall, accomplishments on a resume kill many birds with one stone. Anyone can state their skills, but outlining relevant personal experiences and achievements can put those skills into perspective. They also give potential employers an idea of your potential qualitative and quantitative value to their organization. As usual, actions speak louder than words.
What people are missing in the free speech debate Shawn Fredericks Correspondent
Free speech on college campuses is a hotly debated topic that gets many people riled — more particularly right-leaning people. Universities, specifically public universities like NC State, are becoming the battleground for the debate, with hard lines being drawn in the sand between partisans.
The problem with this framework, like many partisan issues, is that nuance and contextualization are lost in the debate with only extreme absolutes left as options. A great “Star Wars” quote that I deem to be very fitting in the discussion of principles, especially political ones, is very simple and very enlightening: “Only Sith deal in absolutes.” Granted, the rightleaning side of this partisan issue tends to be more overzealous for my taste in their attempts to “protect” free speech with the promotion
of tolerance and, in my view, normalization of hateful speech. The thing is that both extremes are misunderstanding each other. The right tends to think that “protecting” free speech is the same as accepting hateful ideas. More libertarian views take any criticisms of free speech as the promotion of censorship and hold that there are no distinctions that should be considered in free speech. However, there is a lot of nuance that is lost when these are the only positions
that can be taken with no alternatives being deemed acceptable. My view is this: free speech needs to be a central principle that has to be upheld, but it cannot remain this vague subjective principle that continues to only serve the free speech of the socioeconomically privileged. There is a distinction between equality of speech and the license to say whatever you want.
SPEECH continued page 6
