Linked by lemur2 on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 22:30 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 478481
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: holding things back
by sorpigal on Mon 27th Jun 2011 11:36
in reply to "RE[3]: holding things back"
What's non-technical or retarded? The fact that many HR departments know that MS Office is the most used office suite, the best way to exchange documents, and, to some extent, the best office suite from both a technical point of view and usability?
Are you a Microsoft shill? This reads like marketing and is patently false. MS Word format isn't the "Nest way to exchange documents" - it's been PDF or Postscript for many years, if you want it to look the same everywhere and want to be sure everyone can read it.
It would be retarded to require documents in other formats.
It would be idiotic to *require* a particular format, which they do. Better to require "A format we can read," that's all. This "Word .doc only" thing started back when many different office suites were popular and HR people were tired of receiving documents they could not even open. The rule probably isn't strictly enforced if you give them a resume in a format they can deal with. I don't know of any places offhand that actually refuse to open resumes that aren't .doc or .docx.




Member since:
2008-09-11
I have not looked recently but my personal experience has certainly been that a lot of HR departments require resumes in Microsoft Word format (or even plain text).
A big part of this is just the non-technical and somewhat retarded culture of HR.
What's non-technical or retarded? The fact that many HR departments know that MS Office is the most used office suite, the best way to exchange documents, and, to some extent, the best office suite from both a technical point of view and usability?
It would be retarded to require documents in other formats.