WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.580 Welcome to the debate. So today, we're turning 00:00:03.580 --> 00:00:06.700 our attention to a document that is, well, it's 00:00:06.700 --> 00:00:10.259 ubiquitous in professional life, yet curiously 00:00:10.259 --> 00:00:13.460 ill -defined. It's a file that sits on the hard 00:00:13.460 --> 00:00:15.800 drive of nearly every adult listener, probably 00:00:15.800 --> 00:00:18.219 saved under a dozen different names like, you 00:00:18.219 --> 00:00:22.660 know, Final Version 3 or Updated 2025. I am talking, 00:00:22.719 --> 00:00:26.160 of course, about the Curriculum Vitae. The CV, 00:00:26.399 --> 00:00:29.100 or depending on where you live and what you do. 00:00:29.530 --> 00:00:32.149 The resume. And I suspect for many people listening, 00:00:32.289 --> 00:00:34.189 those two words are completely interchangeable. 00:00:34.609 --> 00:00:37.750 Precisely. And that interchangeability, that 00:00:37.750 --> 00:00:40.549 blurring of lines, is exactly where we find our 00:00:40.549 --> 00:00:43.009 contention today. We aren't just looking at a 00:00:43.009 --> 00:00:45.329 piece of paper. We're looking at a fundamental 00:00:45.329 --> 00:00:48.969 divergence in philosophy. On one side, you have 00:00:48.969 --> 00:00:51.649 the curriculum vitae in its truest classical 00:00:51.649 --> 00:00:55.350 sense, a comprehensive, exhaustive record of 00:00:55.350 --> 00:00:58.140 one's course of life. And on the other, you have 00:00:58.140 --> 00:01:01.140 the modern standard, a ruthlessly efficient, 00:01:01.520 --> 00:01:05.879 curated summary designed for a really rapid screening. 00:01:06.180 --> 00:01:08.319 Right. It's the battle between the historian 00:01:08.319 --> 00:01:11.560 and the marketer. Is this document a biography? 00:01:11.980 --> 00:01:15.159 Or is it a brochure? A biography implies a narrative, 00:01:15.299 --> 00:01:17.900 which I believe is essential. But yes, the core 00:01:17.900 --> 00:01:21.079 question is clear. Should a CV be a repository 00:01:21.079 --> 00:01:23.780 of one's entire professional history, preserving 00:01:23.780 --> 00:01:26.400 nuance and depth? Or does it have to be a two 00:01:26.400 --> 00:01:29.340 -page snapshot, stripped of everything that doesn't 00:01:29.340 --> 00:01:32.060 immediately sell a specific skill set to a specific 00:01:32.060 --> 00:01:35.180 buyer? I'd frame it as utility versus vanity, 00:01:35.400 --> 00:01:38.099 but I have a feeling you might see it differently. 00:01:38.420 --> 00:01:42.140 I certainly would. I am the advocate, and I'll 00:01:42.140 --> 00:01:44.319 be arguing that the curriculum vitae, especially 00:01:44.319 --> 00:01:47.579 in its academic and research context, is a vital 00:01:47.579 --> 00:01:50.500 historical document. This trend toward narrative 00:01:50.500 --> 00:01:53.340 formats and preserving detail isn't vanity, it 00:01:53.340 --> 00:01:56.180 is accuracy. You can't just reduce a 30 -year 00:01:56.180 --> 00:01:58.659 career to bullet points without losing the truth 00:01:58.659 --> 00:02:01.659 of the expertise. And I'm the dissenter, and 00:02:01.659 --> 00:02:04.219 I come at it from a different way. I'll argue 00:02:04.219 --> 00:02:06.599 that for the vast majority of the working world, 00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:10.240 a CV is a tool with a single purpose. get an 00:02:10.240 --> 00:02:13.439 interview. If it's not concise, if it's not scannable, 00:02:13.539 --> 00:02:16.900 and if it's not tailored, it is a failure. The 00:02:16.900 --> 00:02:19.060 comprehensive approach is frankly often just 00:02:19.060 --> 00:02:21.800 a barrier to employment. You can be the most 00:02:21.800 --> 00:02:24.199 qualified person in the world, but if your document 00:02:24.199 --> 00:02:26.919 is a slog to get through, you won't get the job. 00:02:27.439 --> 00:02:30.539 Then let us begin with the definitions, because 00:02:30.539 --> 00:02:33.460 words matter, and in this case, geography seems 00:02:33.460 --> 00:02:36.599 to dictate everything. They do. Let's get into 00:02:36.599 --> 00:02:39.740 it. Okay, so I want to start by really grounding 00:02:39.740 --> 00:02:42.159 this in the term itself. Curriculum vitae. It's 00:02:42.159 --> 00:02:46.360 Latin, right? For course of life. The very etymology 00:02:46.360 --> 00:02:49.400 implies a journey, a progression. It implies 00:02:49.400 --> 00:02:52.319 a document of substance. When we look at the 00:02:52.319 --> 00:02:54.360 standards in academia, especially in the United 00:02:54.360 --> 00:02:57.719 States and Canada, the CV is explicitly distinct 00:02:57.719 --> 00:03:00.539 from a resume. It's meant to be a full history. 00:03:00.680 --> 00:03:02.599 We're talking about academic accomplishments, 00:03:02.900 --> 00:03:06.080 teaching, research, publications, awards, honors, 00:03:06.159 --> 00:03:09.479 all of it. You're listing categories. But let's 00:03:09.479 --> 00:03:13.939 talk about volume. Because, oh, history is, well, 00:03:14.020 --> 00:03:16.900 it's a very polite way of saying long. The volume 00:03:16.900 --> 00:03:19.759 is a reflection of the contribution. I mean, 00:03:19.800 --> 00:03:22.340 the source material notes that an academic CV 00:03:22.340 --> 00:03:25.000 can be, and I really want to stress this, as 00:03:25.000 --> 00:03:27.900 long as 69 pages. Now, I know you might recoil 00:03:27.900 --> 00:03:30.879 at that. Recoil is an understatement. But just 00:03:30.879 --> 00:03:33.520 consider the depth of a 40 -year career in high 00:03:33.520 --> 00:03:36.129 -level research. To compress that into two pages 00:03:36.129 --> 00:03:39.349 isn't editing, it's erasure. If you have published 00:03:39.349 --> 00:03:42.629 200 papers, given 50 keynote speeches, and mentored 00:03:42.629 --> 00:03:46.090 30 PhD candidates, that information is the qualification. 00:03:46.650 --> 00:03:50.110 I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. 69 pages? That 00:03:50.110 --> 00:03:52.629 is not a job application. That's a memoir that 00:03:52.629 --> 00:03:55.569 absolutely no one asked for. Even in academia, 00:03:55.830 --> 00:03:58.930 who is actually reading page 54? It is a record 00:03:58.930 --> 00:04:01.330 of evidence. It allows a committee to verify 00:04:01.330 --> 00:04:03.599 the standing of the scholar. It's a record of 00:04:03.599 --> 00:04:05.419 everything, which means it highlights nothing. 00:04:05.699 --> 00:04:08.240 But let me offer a different perspective. You 00:04:08.240 --> 00:04:10.080 were focusing so heavily on this North American 00:04:10.080 --> 00:04:12.819 academic distinction. But in general usage across 00:04:12.819 --> 00:04:15.340 all other English -speaking countries, and very 00:04:15.340 --> 00:04:17.879 specifically in British English, the term CV 00:04:17.879 --> 00:04:20.839 is synonymous with a short summary. Synonymous 00:04:20.839 --> 00:04:23.420 in usage, maybe, but functionally different. 00:04:23.600 --> 00:04:26.920 Now, functionally identical to a resume. If you're 00:04:26.920 --> 00:04:29.920 applying for a job in London or Sydney or practically 00:04:29.920 --> 00:04:33.110 anywhere outside of a U .S. university, and they 00:04:33.110 --> 00:04:37.189 ask for a CV, they expect a maximum of two sides 00:04:37.189 --> 00:04:40.730 of A4 paper. That is the standard. If an American 00:04:40.730 --> 00:04:43.250 academic applies for a corporate job in London 00:04:43.250 --> 00:04:46.490 and sends a 20 -page document because they think 00:04:46.490 --> 00:04:49.490 CV means course of life, they are going straight 00:04:49.490 --> 00:04:52.069 into the bin. That's a constraint of paper, not 00:04:52.069 --> 00:04:55.129 of intellect. It's a constraint of time. We know 00:04:55.129 --> 00:04:58.410 the reality of the hiring process. Employers 00:04:58.410 --> 00:05:00.269 rarely spend more than a few minutes reviewing 00:05:00.269 --> 00:05:03.189 a document. In fact, many studies suggest it's 00:05:03.189 --> 00:05:06.189 mere seconds, often under 10 seconds for that 00:05:06.189 --> 00:05:09.029 first scan. Successful documents have to have 00:05:09.029 --> 00:05:12.350 white space. They must be easy to scan. If you 00:05:12.350 --> 00:05:15.170 hand a recruiter a 69 -page document or even 00:05:15.170 --> 00:05:17.870 a five -page document, you are signaling a lack 00:05:17.870 --> 00:05:20.209 of respect for their time. You're failing the 00:05:20.209 --> 00:05:22.750 practical test of the job market. I see why you 00:05:22.750 --> 00:05:26.459 think that, but let me offer another view. You're 00:05:26.459 --> 00:05:29.439 prioritizing the comfort of the screener over 00:05:29.439 --> 00:05:32.839 the quality of the candidate. Clarity doesn't 00:05:32.839 --> 00:05:36.579 require brevity, it requires precision. If I 00:05:36.579 --> 00:05:39.259 am applying for a post -secondary program, a 00:05:39.259 --> 00:05:41.939 grant, or high -level tenure track position, 00:05:42.420 --> 00:05:46.660 white space is not a virtue. Detail is the virtue. 00:05:47.199 --> 00:05:50.019 The University of California, Davis explicitly 00:05:50.019 --> 00:05:52.920 notes this. They state that in the U .S. and 00:05:52.920 --> 00:05:56.600 Canada, while the terms are sometimes used interchangeably 00:05:56.600 --> 00:05:59.319 in conversation, there is a distinct functional 00:05:59.319 --> 00:06:03.459 difference. CVs are for academic positions. Resumes 00:06:03.459 --> 00:06:07.040 are for non -academic ones. Right, but notice 00:06:07.040 --> 00:06:11.100 the caveat there. They are sometimes used interchangeably. 00:06:11.199 --> 00:06:14.100 That's the linguistic reality. But that doesn't 00:06:14.100 --> 00:06:17.670 mean they should be. The source material clarifies 00:06:17.670 --> 00:06:20.829 this beautifully. It notes it is a widespread 00:06:20.829 --> 00:06:23.670 misconception in American English that calling 00:06:23.670 --> 00:06:27.509 a short document a CV is incorrect. It isn't 00:06:27.509 --> 00:06:30.610 incorrect, necessarily, but it blurs the line. 00:06:30.810 --> 00:06:33.350 My argument is that preserving that functional 00:06:33.350 --> 00:06:35.889 distinction, different contents, different lengths, 00:06:35.990 --> 00:06:39.449 is intellectually valuable. By collapsing everything 00:06:39.449 --> 00:06:42.269 into a short summary, we lose the tool we need 00:06:42.269 --> 00:06:45.100 for rigorous evaluation. But we aren't collapsing 00:06:45.100 --> 00:06:48.220 it. We're just using the label CV for the short 00:06:48.220 --> 00:06:50.800 document because that is what the market dictates. 00:06:51.040 --> 00:06:53.860 Outside of North America, the word resume is 00:06:53.860 --> 00:06:57.379 barely used. In the UK, New Zealand, Ireland, 00:06:57.579 --> 00:07:00.779 you don't send a resume. You send a CV. And that 00:07:00.779 --> 00:07:03.600 CV represents experience and skills in a concise 00:07:03.600 --> 00:07:07.439 format. If you insist that a CV must be a long 00:07:07.439 --> 00:07:09.959 history, You are essentially telling the entire 00:07:09.959 --> 00:07:12.259 English -speaking world outside of North America 00:07:12.259 --> 00:07:14.319 that they're using their own language incorrectly. 00:07:14.800 --> 00:07:17.620 That's an interesting point, though I would frame 00:07:17.620 --> 00:07:20.579 it differently. It's not about correctness, it's 00:07:20.579 --> 00:07:23.680 about expectations. Labels frame expectations. 00:07:24.000 --> 00:07:27.439 If I ask for a CV and you give me two pages of 00:07:27.439 --> 00:07:29.600 bullet points, I don't know your research interests. 00:07:30.139 --> 00:07:32.399 I don't see your full publication list. I don't 00:07:32.399 --> 00:07:34.459 see the trajectory of your thought. You don't 00:07:34.459 --> 00:07:37.680 see it because for 99 % of jobs, it doesn't matter. 00:07:37.860 --> 00:07:40.180 If you're applying to be a project manager or 00:07:40.180 --> 00:07:42.379 a software engineer, nobody cares about your 00:07:42.379 --> 00:07:45.199 trajectory of thought regarding a paper you wrote 00:07:45.199 --> 00:07:48.300 in 1998. They want to know, can you use the software? 00:07:48.439 --> 00:07:50.040 Have you led a team? Can you start on Monday? 00:07:50.300 --> 00:07:53.079 And that reductionism is exactly why we have 00:07:53.079 --> 00:07:55.120 a crisis of competence in so many industries. 00:07:55.279 --> 00:07:57.620 We hire based on keywords and then wonder why 00:07:57.620 --> 00:08:00.089 the person lacks depth. But I want to pivot to 00:08:00.089 --> 00:08:01.949 something that I think proves my point, that 00:08:01.949 --> 00:08:04.509 the world is actually craving more depth, not 00:08:04.509 --> 00:08:07.829 less. I'm all ears. Let's talk about the narrative 00:08:07.829 --> 00:08:11.110 CV. This is a really significant evolution in 00:08:11.110 --> 00:08:14.709 the document's history. Oh, here we go. The storytime 00:08:14.709 --> 00:08:19.569 CV. It is not storytime. It is context. The field 00:08:19.569 --> 00:08:22.790 is moving away from simple lists and toward explaining 00:08:22.790 --> 00:08:25.329 societal relevance. Just look at the source material. 00:08:25.899 --> 00:08:29.240 In October 2024, the Government of Canada's main 00:08:29.240 --> 00:08:34.659 research councils, NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR, announced 00:08:34.659 --> 00:08:38.500 a transition to a new CV template. A bureaucratic 00:08:38.500 --> 00:08:41.120 template change? That's your evidence? It is 00:08:41.120 --> 00:08:44.120 significant. These are the bodies that fund the 00:08:44.120 --> 00:08:46.759 vast majority of research in the country. They 00:08:46.759 --> 00:08:49.279 are allowing for free -form narrative personal 00:08:49.279 --> 00:08:51.740 statements. This aligns with the responsible 00:08:51.740 --> 00:08:54.240 research assessment movement and trends we're 00:08:54.240 --> 00:08:56.460 seeing in the UK with UK Research and Innovation 00:08:56.460 --> 00:08:58.960 and in the US with the National Institutes of 00:08:58.960 --> 00:09:02.100 Health. Okay, let's pause and look at what that 00:09:02.100 --> 00:09:07.299 actually means. You are citing the NIH, the Government 00:09:07.299 --> 00:09:11.639 of Canada, and UK Research and Innovation. These 00:09:11.639 --> 00:09:15.320 are massive, government -funded grant bodies. 00:09:15.580 --> 00:09:18.299 Of course they want narratives. They have committees 00:09:18.299 --> 00:09:21.100 whose entire job is to read these things. They 00:09:21.100 --> 00:09:23.500 are trying to allocate millions of dollars, so 00:09:23.500 --> 00:09:27.100 they need to justify the spend with impact. They 00:09:27.100 --> 00:09:29.559 want to understand the value of the work, not 00:09:29.559 --> 00:09:32.440 just the count of the citations. A list of papers 00:09:32.440 --> 00:09:34.679 doesn't tell you if the research actually changed 00:09:34.679 --> 00:09:37.919 policy or improved patient outcomes or influenced 00:09:37.919 --> 00:09:40.700 a community. The narrative format lets the researcher 00:09:40.700 --> 00:09:43.399 connect the dots. That is a compelling argument. 00:09:43.840 --> 00:09:46.940 For a scientist seeking a grant, I will grant 00:09:46.940 --> 00:09:49.600 you that. But have you considered the context 00:09:49.600 --> 00:09:52.299 of the private sector or even the non -academic 00:09:52.299 --> 00:09:54.419 public sector? The private sector could learn 00:09:54.419 --> 00:09:56.580 a lot from this. The private sector doesn't have 00:09:56.580 --> 00:09:58.620 the time. You're talking about narrative flow 00:09:58.620 --> 00:10:01.299 and societal relevance. I'm talking about applicant 00:10:01.299 --> 00:10:04.980 tracking systems. The robots. The reality. The 00:10:04.980 --> 00:10:07.179 source material explicitly mentions that in the 00:10:07.179 --> 00:10:09.559 2010s, it became popular to provide electronic 00:10:09.559 --> 00:10:11.779 versions via employment websites or LinkedIn. 00:10:12.059 --> 00:10:14.620 When you submit a CV today, it's often processed 00:10:14.620 --> 00:10:17.320 by an ATS before a human being ever sees it. 00:10:17.460 --> 00:10:19.799 These systems do not care about your freeform 00:10:19.799 --> 00:10:22.080 narrative. They care about keywords. They care 00:10:22.080 --> 00:10:24.620 about standard formatting. Which is a tragedy 00:10:24.620 --> 00:10:27.519 for human nuance. We are letting algorithms dictate 00:10:27.519 --> 00:10:30.799 human value. It might be a tragedy, but it is 00:10:30.799 --> 00:10:32.820 the rules of the game. If you write a beautiful 00:10:32.820 --> 00:10:34.899 narrative about your course of life, and the 00:10:34.899 --> 00:10:37.440 algorithm is looking for Java and Agile, and 00:10:37.440 --> 00:10:39.360 you buried those words in a paragraph about your 00:10:39.360 --> 00:10:41.840 philosophy of coding, you are filtered out. You 00:10:41.840 --> 00:10:44.000 don't get the job. I'm not convinced by that 00:10:44.000 --> 00:10:46.539 because it assumes we must capitulate to the 00:10:46.539 --> 00:10:49.659 machine. The narrative format allows for context. 00:10:49.720 --> 00:10:52.700 It allows an applicant to explain a gap in employment 00:10:52.700 --> 00:10:56.279 or why a certain research path was chosen. Standard 00:10:56.279 --> 00:10:58.840 bullet points punish anyone with a non -linear 00:10:58.840 --> 00:11:01.720 career path. You can explain that in the interview. 00:11:02.299 --> 00:11:05.480 The CV is just the key to the door. But you just 00:11:05.480 --> 00:11:08.700 said the door is locked by an algorithm. Exactly. 00:11:08.840 --> 00:11:12.940 So use the key that fits. Brevity. Keywords. 00:11:13.240 --> 00:11:16.519 Clear headings. The narrative CV is a lovely 00:11:16.519 --> 00:11:18.940 concept for tenured professors or people applying 00:11:18.940 --> 00:11:21.580 for Guggenheim fellowships. For the rest of the 00:11:21.580 --> 00:11:24.720 workforce, industry, nonprofits, the public sector, 00:11:24.899 --> 00:11:27.700 the ability to tailor information to a specific 00:11:27.700 --> 00:11:30.500 position is what matters. You don't send the 00:11:30.500 --> 00:11:33.919 same history to every employer. You curate. Curating 00:11:33.919 --> 00:11:38.360 is fine. Omission is the problem. But let's step 00:11:38.360 --> 00:11:41.200 back from the mechanics of hiring and look at 00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:44.940 the document itself. I want to discuss the etymology 00:11:44.940 --> 00:11:47.799 because I think it reveals the weight this document 00:11:47.799 --> 00:11:50.480 should carry, regardless of what an ATS thinks. 00:11:50.820 --> 00:11:53.100 I suspect we are about to get a Latin lesson. 00:11:53.419 --> 00:11:57.059 A brief one. As I mentioned, the term is a loan 00:11:57.059 --> 00:12:00.059 word from Neo -Latin. Traditionally, it was spelled 00:12:00.059 --> 00:12:03.259 curriculum vitae, with the ligature, the and 00:12:03.259 --> 00:12:06.960 a combined. Which practically no one uses anymore, 00:12:07.179 --> 00:12:10.220 mostly because finding that character on a standard 00:12:10.220 --> 00:12:14.580 keyboard is a nightmare. Rare, yes, but elegant. 00:12:14.980 --> 00:12:17.559 But here's where it gets interesting. The plural. 00:12:17.980 --> 00:12:21.399 In English, we often see curriculums. Which is 00:12:21.399 --> 00:12:24.059 perfectly acceptable. I have three curriculums 00:12:24.059 --> 00:12:26.460 on my desk. It's acceptable in dictionaries, 00:12:26.480 --> 00:12:29.759 yes, but the traditional Latin plural is curricula 00:12:29.759 --> 00:12:33.700 vitae. And notice, it's vitae, singular. The 00:12:33.700 --> 00:12:37.480 course of a life, not curricula vitarum. Curricula 00:12:37.480 --> 00:12:40.960 vitarum? Yes. Some people try to pluralize both 00:12:40.960 --> 00:12:43.620 words, thinking they're being clever. They think, 00:12:43.659 --> 00:12:46.120 well, if I have multiple courses, I must have 00:12:46.120 --> 00:12:49.399 multiple lives. Logical, in a way. But incorrect. 00:12:50.110 --> 00:12:52.649 The source material calls this a hypercorrection, 00:12:52.710 --> 00:12:55.710 based on superficial knowledge of Latin. Vitae 00:12:55.710 --> 00:12:59.490 is a genitive singular. It means of a life. So 00:12:59.490 --> 00:13:02.230 curricula vitare means the courses of a life. 00:13:02.429 --> 00:13:05.590 So saying curricula vitarum is basically tripping 00:13:05.590 --> 00:13:08.730 over your own pretentiousness? Indeed. It implies 00:13:08.730 --> 00:13:11.490 courses of lives, which is technically acceptable 00:13:11.490 --> 00:13:13.870 if you're referring to a group of CVs from different 00:13:13.870 --> 00:13:16.129 people, but usually it's just someone trying 00:13:16.129 --> 00:13:18.789 too hard and missing the mark. My point is, there 00:13:18.789 --> 00:13:20.789 is a precision to the language that mirrors the 00:13:20.789 --> 00:13:23.049 precision required in the document. When we treat 00:13:23.049 --> 00:13:25.529 the CV as just a list of stuff, we get sloppy. 00:13:25.690 --> 00:13:27.850 We get curriculums. We lose the connection to 00:13:27.850 --> 00:13:30.429 the course of life. That's a fascinating linguistic 00:13:30.429 --> 00:13:34.330 debate, truly. But I, I come at it from a different 00:13:34.330 --> 00:13:38.070 way. I find this debate interesting, but ultimately 00:13:38.070 --> 00:13:42.049 academic. And I intend that pun. I expected nothing 00:13:42.049 --> 00:13:45.360 less. Whether you use the ligature A or not, 00:13:45.600 --> 00:13:48.460 or whether you pluralize it with an S or an A, 00:13:48.620 --> 00:13:51.279 the document's utility is defined by the reader, 00:13:51.340 --> 00:13:53.779 not the writer, and certainly not by a dictionary. 00:13:54.139 --> 00:13:56.759 But if the reader is ill -informed... The reader 00:13:56.759 --> 00:13:59.600 is the employer. They are the one with the power. 00:13:59.879 --> 00:14:02.559 If the employer wants a resume and you insist 00:14:02.559 --> 00:14:05.259 on sending a curriculum vitae because of its 00:14:05.259 --> 00:14:08.580 neo -Latin roots, you are prioritizing your ego 00:14:08.580 --> 00:14:12.019 over the objective. It is not ego to insist on 00:14:12.019 --> 00:14:15.639 accuracy. It is standards. It is if the accuracy 00:14:15.639 --> 00:14:18.700 doesn't serve the goal. The source material states 00:14:18.700 --> 00:14:22.820 clearly. A CV's format is not fixed. Its main 00:14:22.820 --> 00:14:25.600 purpose is to impress an employer, showcasing 00:14:25.600 --> 00:14:28.860 skills, experience, and creativity. And creativity 00:14:28.860 --> 00:14:33.460 can be shown through narrative, through a comprehensive 00:14:33.460 --> 00:14:36.759 display of one's work. Creativity in presentation, 00:14:37.059 --> 00:14:40.730 not in reinventing the wheel. The source notes 00:14:40.730 --> 00:14:43.830 that successful resumes have enough white space 00:14:43.830 --> 00:14:46.970 to make them easy to scan. That is the design 00:14:46.970 --> 00:14:49.970 constraint. You are arguing for a document that 00:14:49.970 --> 00:14:53.049 exists in a vacuum. I am arguing for a document 00:14:53.049 --> 00:14:56.549 that exists in a market. I am arguing for a document 00:14:56.549 --> 00:14:59.309 that respects the complexity of a human life. 00:14:59.629 --> 00:15:02.669 When we reduce a career to skills and experience 00:15:02.669 --> 00:15:05.990 tailored for a specific position, we commodify 00:15:05.990 --> 00:15:09.419 the person. The comprehensive CV, the one that 00:15:09.419 --> 00:15:11.759 lists the publications, the presentations, the 00:15:11.759 --> 00:15:16.559 awards, says, this is who I am in full. And the 00:15:16.559 --> 00:15:19.480 concise CV says, this is what I can do for you 00:15:19.480 --> 00:15:22.600 right now. And frankly, that is what pays the 00:15:22.600 --> 00:15:25.679 mortgage. Perhaps. But notice how the source 00:15:25.679 --> 00:15:28.379 mentions that a CV represents a full history 00:15:28.379 --> 00:15:31.759 of academic accomplishments. Even in the U .S., 00:15:31.759 --> 00:15:34.740 where the resume is dominant, the CV is required 00:15:34.740 --> 00:15:38.240 for academic positions. Why? Because in that 00:15:38.240 --> 00:15:41.419 field, what you did 10 years ago matters. The 00:15:41.419 --> 00:15:44.059 foundation matters. If you're hiring a heart 00:15:44.059 --> 00:15:46.320 surgeon, you want to know every fellowship they 00:15:46.320 --> 00:15:49.159 did. You don't want the concise marketing summary. 00:15:49.799 --> 00:15:53.779 Agreed. In that field. But you cannot extrapolate 00:15:53.779 --> 00:15:55.980 that to the rest of the economy. If you're a 00:15:55.980 --> 00:15:58.440 graphic designer, your portfolio matters more 00:15:58.440 --> 00:16:00.779 than a list of every client you've ever had since 00:16:00.779 --> 00:16:03.789 1990. If you're a sales director, your numbers 00:16:03.789 --> 00:16:05.929 matter more than a narrative about your philosophy 00:16:05.929 --> 00:16:08.870 of sales. But even there, the course of life 00:16:08.870 --> 00:16:11.570 matters. The evolution of a style matters. The 00:16:11.570 --> 00:16:13.929 consistency of performance matters. We are going 00:16:13.929 --> 00:16:16.509 to have to agree to disagree on the philosophy 00:16:16.509 --> 00:16:19.870 of the course. Because I see a course as something 00:16:19.870 --> 00:16:23.309 you navigate. You see it as a map you have to 00:16:23.309 --> 00:16:26.679 carry with you forever. I suppose so. But looking 00:16:26.679 --> 00:16:29.419 at where we've landed, it seems we have two perfectly 00:16:29.419 --> 00:16:32.899 valid documents trying to share one name. That 00:16:32.899 --> 00:16:35.799 is a fair assessment. To summarize my position, 00:16:36.139 --> 00:16:39.120 while brevity has its place, perhaps in a cover 00:16:39.120 --> 00:16:42.120 letter or an introductory email, the curriculum 00:16:42.120 --> 00:16:45.360 vitae remains the essential format for deep intellectual 00:16:45.360 --> 00:16:48.850 and professional accounting. The shift toward 00:16:48.850 --> 00:16:51.590 narrative formats in high -level research supported 00:16:51.590 --> 00:16:55.330 by major funding bodies in Canada, the UK, and 00:16:55.330 --> 00:16:58.289 the US proves that we are realizing the limitations 00:16:58.289 --> 00:17:01.649 of the bullet point. We need the history. We 00:17:01.649 --> 00:17:04.230 need the course of life to truly understand the 00:17:04.230 --> 00:17:07.509 candidate. And to summarize my view, for the 00:17:07.509 --> 00:17:10.930 modern workforce, the CV is a flexible, concise 00:17:10.930 --> 00:17:14.109 marketing document. Its value is measured solely 00:17:14.109 --> 00:17:16.549 by its effectiveness in securing interviews. 00:17:17.049 --> 00:17:19.930 not its page count. Whether you call it a CV 00:17:19.930 --> 00:17:23.049 or a resume, if it isn't tailored, if it isn't 00:17:23.049 --> 00:17:26.170 scannable by both humans and ATS bots, and if 00:17:26.170 --> 00:17:28.910 it doesn't respect the reader's time, it belongs 00:17:28.910 --> 00:17:32.410 in the recycling bin. It seems the context really 00:17:32.410 --> 00:17:35.309 is the deciding factor here. It is, if you're 00:17:35.309 --> 00:17:38.190 in academia, medicine, or high -level research. 00:17:38.710 --> 00:17:41.690 You need the course of life. You need the evidence. 00:17:41.730 --> 00:17:44.210 You need the 69 pages if that's what the career 00:17:44.210 --> 00:17:47.289 demands. Exactly. But if you're in industry, 00:17:47.670 --> 00:17:50.569 the nonprofit sector, or the public sector. You 00:17:50.569 --> 00:17:52.289 need the summary. You need the marketing tool. 00:17:52.490 --> 00:17:55.589 One thing I think we can both agree on is how 00:17:55.589 --> 00:17:57.730 the digital age is sort of blurring these lines. 00:17:58.049 --> 00:18:00.769 Yes. The source mentioned LinkedIn and social 00:18:00.769 --> 00:18:04.109 networking services. In a way, those platforms 00:18:04.109 --> 00:18:07.230 allow for both. Right. You can have the electronic 00:18:07.230 --> 00:18:09.789 version that acts as a comprehensive record. 00:18:10.240 --> 00:18:12.359 Basically an infinite scroll of your history. 00:18:12.519 --> 00:18:15.380 That's your course of life. A digital compromise. 00:18:16.180 --> 00:18:18.640 The comprehensive archive lives online where 00:18:18.640 --> 00:18:20.819 space is infinite. Well, the curated summary 00:18:20.819 --> 00:18:23.319 gets sent via email as a PDF, where attention 00:18:23.319 --> 00:18:27.000 is finite. That is a very elegant solution. You 00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:29.079 keep your curriculum vitae in the cloud, your 00:18:29.079 --> 00:18:31.799 curricula vitae. Don't push it. And you send 00:18:31.799 --> 00:18:34.640 your resume to the recruiter. Precisely. It allows 00:18:34.640 --> 00:18:37.279 you to be the historian and the marketer. You 00:18:37.279 --> 00:18:39.339 just have to know which hat to wear and when. 00:18:39.519 --> 00:18:41.900 And perhaps that is the ultimate skill, knowing 00:18:41.900 --> 00:18:44.460 your audience. That's the first line of any good 00:18:44.460 --> 00:18:47.180 CV. Thank you for listening to the debate. We 00:18:47.180 --> 00:18:49.519 hope this conversation has prompted you to look 00:18:49.519 --> 00:18:52.180 at that document on your desktop a little differently, 00:18:52.339 --> 00:18:55.339 whether it represents a marketing pitch or a 00:18:55.339 --> 00:18:57.579 life's work. Just make sure you spell check it. 00:18:57.799 --> 00:18:58.839 Until next time.