8 i Positioning Yourself on Paper


Your first impression is that all-important Cv / resume…


* The names and locations etc. have been changed to protect the identity of the real student behind the CV.


Our thanks to: Carolyn Mcoscar, Graduate Recruiter, royal bank of scotland


Victoria McLean, MD, City Cv, career and executive coaching


Tim Webster, Principal, Dartmouth Partners graduate recruitment consultancy


Three banking insiders – a banking graduate recruiter, a graduate recruitment consultant, and a CV coach – review a real* CV selected from those submitted by students to eFinancialCareers.


TIM WEBSTER Principal, Dartmouth


Partners graduate recruitment consultancy


What recruiters look for 1 2


Your academics – degree and even A-levels/Highers at the right grades to convey a track record of achievement.


Your achievements – “I go straight for relevant work experience, then immediately to education. And across the board we're looking for ‘outputs’,” says Tim Webster, principal, Dartmouth Partners graduate recruitment consultancy.


3


Your attention to detail – check out the different dash lengths in the dates and the inconsistent use of full stops. Why does this matter? As an entry-level analyst, colleagues and clients might think if your presentation is sloppy, could your thinking be sloppy too?


Format & language 4 5 6 7


Layout – easy to scan; bulletpoints help to keep focus, but the stray, second-level bulletpoint under Fidelity is overdoing it.


Length – a one-pager is generally fine for graduate jobs; but the info in places is vague, so Tom could have gone to two pages to convey more detail.


No personal statement – the reviewers were split, but all agreed it’s not needed if it’s clear what type of role you’re going for and why.


Fonts – some inconsistent fonts and spacing throughout, with the bottom section just squeezed onto the page, giving an impression of lack of care.


12


13 14


8


Language – Tom trips up at the end with the overly casual ‘undergrad’ studies rather than ‘undergraduate’ studies – yes, Tom, one of the reviewers actually pointed that out - that’s how much detail matters!


Work experience 9 10


Off-cycle internship – possibly dangerous to include something you haven’t yet started, as you never know what might happen between now and then.


Alliance Trust – too vague, which undermines Tom’s credibility. One reviewer thought it was pure work shadowing, in which case he should say so, as being unclear raises doubt.


11


Fidelity – much more specific about what he did; he clearly had ‘outputs’ although even here it would be good to see more specifics e.g. about which particular phamaceutical companies.


education


Balance? Tom gives Education more space than Work Experience, and too much weight to the Columbia course, which was a short course compared with his degree or MSc.


Focus? Tom’s football achievements should be under ‘additional information’ or ‘interests’ sections.


Level? St Andrews, for one reviewer, is not the best place to do financial economics, but as a university it is strongly placed in the rankings. Also, did he do Highers or A-levels?


17


18 19


20


I go straight for relevant work experience, then immediately to education. And across the board we're looking for ‘outputs’.


leadership 15 16


Is it really necessary? Depends on which role Tom is going for, but not all graduate roles in banking specifically target leadership skills.


Is it really leadership? Not really. It’s administration. And the one piece of real leadership Tom has – as captain of a football team – has been left out of this section altogether.


skills & interests


General – it’s important that there is an Interests section, as it conveys a broader view of who you are.


Technical – shouldn’t start with these, and should try to specify level of proficiency.


Entrepreneurial – better to use space to show achievements - recruiters know how to spot the skills your achievements convey.


Financial – recruiters do like some signs of genuine interest in the field for which you’re applying.


Overall Main strength? The layout. Main negative? The vagueness.


In or out? Despite the lack of detail, all three reviewers would have filtered Tom’s CV to the next recruitment stage.


Overall assessment – solid but not outstanding.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66