exaggerating your income to get a mortgage

"Paul Burridge" wrote

The only point I noticed in your post was that some employers are stupid enough to expect someone's CV to always remain *exactly* the same, which is not only unrealistic but incredibly naive. You suggested that, if any are found different, it would be "Nasty for anyone who's followed the 'tayloring' advice!" This suggests that the employer is expected to assume that the applicant is lying on one/more of the CVs, does it not?

Hognoxious pointed out that it is quite valid to have different versions of your CV. He even *did* make a suggestion to "address your point" :- "If I found out that some bunch of self-appointed busybodies called me a liar behind my back, I'd sue the scumbags out of existence." [Presumably relying on slander/libel laws.]

If you believe that this isn't a valid response when encountering your scenario, why didn't you just say why you think it's not?

If they have several different CV's they are obviously lying and intending to deceive the selectors. Nothing to hide nothing to fear :O| Incidently she spounds like a tart.

half_pint.

Low inflation means the burden stays higher for far longer thats the point. People traditionally have expected the burden to be fairly light after a few years and so tend to budget accordingly.

Adding the word 'obviously' doesn't make it true, actually.

You've just been given two examples where that is not the case, yet you repeat the same old crap.

I suppose they'd be lying if one version said a year of visual basic, and the other said 12 months of VB?

Tell me again why sending a CV in French to a French company is lying. Tell me again why sending a CV in German to a German company is lying.

Still, I bet you don't have multiple CVs - after all, there's only one way to say "paper round".

Coward, making cheap insults that you wouldn't dare do face to face. Back in the box with you.

"half_pint" wrote

Rubbish. They are simply helping the selectors to more quickly find the relevant stuff, rather than sending a CV of >>20 pages of A4.

If the prospective employer wants more info, they can ask at the interview - so nothing is being hidden. The CV is simply the step to get to the interview, so does not need to give the applicants entire life story in intimate detail.

Incidentally, who said *he* was *she* ?!!

"half_pint" wrote

Are you saying that the burden *cannot* be as high initially, just because it won't lighten as quickly?

That someone can bear the burden of paying (say) 40% of income on mortgage repayments for, what, say 2-3 years (?) - but that they can no way bear that burden for 5-10 years? Where is the cut-off point?

Personally, if I thought I could bear the burden of paying 50% of income now, I'd usually expect to be able to bear that burden in 3 years time, in 5 years time, in 10 years time and in 25 years time.

I know I'm pissing in the wind here, but....

I disagree. The only valid reason for changing CVs is for up-dating purposes. You can't change what you have done in the past.

It's a difference in degrees, I suppose. The examples your mate, Hognoxious gave were flippant and not worth addressing. What we are talking about here is people who 'massage' their CVs so as to taylor them specifically to the post for which they are applying. There is a point at which such 'massaging' becomes a material misrepresentation. It's that point and beyond that I'm discussing here (or trying to). Anyway, my views don't count for diddly-squat. I neither employ nor am employed. I'm an outside observer. Far more importantly, though, Equifax and its subscribers *do* think it's highly important to check for consistency in CVs or they wouldn't do it. Let's face it: to massage your CV for a specific job basically implies that you're trying to induce a certain employer to believe that you're cut out for a job that he would *otherwise* not believe you quite so suitable for. And that's deception.

No, but you can decide to make a couple of pages of A4 describe and emphasise different parts of it - If you're Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and you're going for a job designing a bridge, are you not going to go into more detail about your bridges than your ships?

Jim.

Absolutely right. If you lead a team, but also provide expert technical support you will stress either one, the other or both depending what job you are going for.

In the extreme case an employer might not give a damn about some aspect of you career or experience.

In anycase I submit (m'lud) that it is far, far, far to the power of really far more likely that the prospective employer is lying to *you*.

noch ein Jim

"Paul Burridge" wrote

True, you cannot change what you have done in the past. But would you put

"Paul Burridge" wrote

No - well you may think you were, but I & H are not - we are simply talking about people who detail different areas of their experience to different employers, because they realise: (1) Prospective employers *do* want to read about *relevant* experience; (2) Prospective employers do *not* want to read about *irrelevant* experience.

Your comments suggested that you were trying to imply that "different CVs" equates to "the applicant is lying".

"Paul Burridge" wrote

I am not talking about deception. Simply giving just the details (and all the details) that the prospective employer is likely to be interested in.

Nonsense. Consider this (genuine) case

A qualified accountant, who has a more than passing interest in opera. Entirely separately from her professional work she has worked in a voluntary capacity in the theatre, and in particular in professional operatic productions in summer festivals (in a non accounting role)

Do you think she should attach the same weight to this part of her life in her CV when applying for the Finance Director role with a high street retail chain as when applying for the same role at a leading touring opera company?

Brian

"bigbrian" wrote

Eh??

Isn't that what I was saying? :-)

Many of the things that you have done in the past are irrelevant for a particular position you are applying for, and other things that you have done lose their relevance due to the passage of time.

If your CV contains 10 pages of information that is totally irrelevant, I doubt the person who gets it will finish reading it.

It is not only good sense, but it is also being respectful of the person's time you are sending it, to present only those things that are of use in determining your suitability for the job.

Sorry. :- )

I hung my reply onto the wrong post. Should have been a reply to Paul

Brian

"bigbrian" wrote

Yeh, I think the butler is fighting a losing battle here!

Strawman. Nobody suggested that. I've worked as a barman, bouncer, motor mechanics assistant. But that was over 10 years ago. Are they even worth mentioning - I've been doing IT since than?

Sorry, never met him in my life. Just because everybody seems to disagree with you doesn't prove you're being ganged-up against. Perhaps there's an alternative explanation?

The Analyst/Programmer/Project manager example is flippant?

How so? You do understand that people can have a multitude of skills. You should read some Charles Handy books.

Yes, at the point when you put something that's *factually incorrect*.

We agree on something.

must resist temtation to jibe

gnnnnnn nn nn!!! [faints]

I know for a fact that some employers use graphologists as part of the selection process. That means there's a reasonable chance some employ astrologers. Presumably, they think it's highly important.

Millions of flies think horseshit is highly important.

I can just picture J.Random Equifax employee: Hmm, version 1 says he has a year of Visual C++, whereas version 2 says 12 months of ... what's this, roman numbers maybe? Five off a hundred, hmmm

Forget the Charles Handy books; get a dictionary.

However, the emphasis within a CV is likely to be somewhat different, depending on what vacancy is being applied for. If I were applying for a sales position once again in the retail furniture industry (although I have not worked in that industry since 1997) for instance, prospective employers would be somewhat unlikely to be interested in my detailed knowledge of the TCP/IP protocol, ability to install, maintain and support a number of computer operating systems and so on, and even less interested in some of the specialist knowledge I have in that area.

So, whilst I agree that the chronological content of a CV (where one worked and when) is likely to and should remain constant, the text within that CV is likely to vary considerably within the context of the position being applied for. As an example, when changing roles a little over a year ago with my present employer, I was required to submit a new CV to support my application for that new role; that varied greatly from the CV submitted (other than in terms of chronological details, as mentioned above) in connection with my application for my original position, and all involved in the process (HR & the various line managers involved) agreed that it should do so, too.

Preparing CVs is an art, and can greatly increase one's chances of gaining (or not gaining) suitable employment. As another example, my original CV submitted in connection with my original application for employment with my current employer was a Microsoft Word document. The CV submitted in connection with my application for my most recent role was a plain text document composed on a UNIX system, formatted to be read on a standard 80 character width text console. One tailors one's CV to one's target audience (submitting a CV in Microsoft Word format is grounds for automatic rejection by some employers in the field in which I am engaged now), and providing that one doesn't omit or without basis in fact add places of employment or chronological detail, that is an entirely accepted (and necessary) part of the recruitment process.

There you go with your flippant examples using synonyms again. Still, I suspected I would be wasting my time, anyway. No matter. Equifax *will* check any CVs submitted to them, retain those submitted on file and check for discrepancies with any subsequent ones submitted by the same person. It is *they* who will judge whether a difference is material, not you or I. And I think it's more likely than not that anyone who gets refused a job on account of any such discrepancy will never get to know the reason. Clear enough now?

People regularly get their file from equifax don't they? Has anyone here found it come back stuffed full of CV's ?

Jim.