How Long Should a Resume Be?

Here's an interesting question:

How long should a resume be?

In fact, is there even a "right" answer?

Many would say the standard is simple: one page. Others would say that you can go on for more, though most of them would admit that after one page, much of it doesn't get read.

Here's what Monster has to say:

Consider a One-Page Resume if:

• You have less than 10 years of experience.
• You're pursuing a radical career change, and your experience isn't relevant to your new goal.
• You've held one or two positions with one employer.

Consider a Two-Page Resume if:

• You have 10 or more years of experience related to your goal.
• Your field requires technical or engineering skills, and you need space to list and prove your technical knowledge.

Put the most important information at the top of the first page. Lead your resume with a career summary so your key credentials appear at the forefront of the resume. On the second page, include a page number and include your name and contact information.

Consider a Three-Page Resume or Longer if:

• You're a senior-level manager or executive with a long track record of leadership accomplishments.
• You are in an academic or scientific field with an extensive list of publications, speaking engagements, professional courses, licenses or patents.

I'm pretty much in this camp, though I'd limit a resume (at least an initial resume) to two pages. If the employer needs more after that, you can always provide it.

What do you think? Is there a "right" number of pages for a resume?

Comments

[Kevin]

I think one or two is appropriate, three just seems long winded and the prospective employer probably won't read it all anyway. Like you said, if they need more details they will ask.

[rwh]

I'm in the academic world. I think I could squeeze my CV onto 3 pages if I made the font small enough. Most academic CVs I see are anywhere from 10 pages on up. Mostly it's the list of publications and service on editorial boards.

[Ryan @ Smarter Wealth]

I am definately a two page resume man even though I have less than 10 years of experience in anything.
Three pages is much too long for me.
However, I am hoping to never have to write a resume again because it is my dream to be a full time writer and entrepreneur. That is why I started a wealth blog. I love finance and I love writing. Thanks for the content

[Servius]

Today, resumes are viewed electronically almost exclusively. The number of pieces of paper it would print on is of little relevance.

OTH, "Brevity is the soul of wit".

Everything at the front of the resume should be geared towards selling an interview. The rest of it should be topics for the interview.

[Tracee F.]

I'm in I.T. and I haven't seen any successful resume's in years that weren't 2 pages. 1 isn't long enough in the tech world to get across your tech experience in detail, and 3 is long-winded.

I think the "right answer" varies depending on what industry you're in, and how much experience you have.

[Mark]

I think it varies depending on the field of work and job experience. Starting out of college, I wouldn't dream of putting it on 2 pages because I was going into the business world, but my girlfriend who was a teacher it was acceptable to have it on two pages.

Now that I'm 5 years into the working world, and have had various jobs (climbed the ladder a little at my old company, and recently switched companies to do something different.) I would think I might have to move to 2 pages if I left this job.

Now the real question I see a large debate on, is it better to have a functional resume vs. a chronological resume? (Functional lists key points over all your jobs in order of importance, and just lists job titles at the bottom. Chronological lists each job with tasks/skills you did within that job.)

[mrm]

The one-page resume myth is useless. Even if you have less than 10 years experience, you can't possibly be descriptive enough in only 1 page to give any prospective employers a good feel for the level of experience you have from your current job, not to mention prior jobs.

Why even care about length at all? As long as it's not excessive and too wordy. It's important to present what you know on that paper if you expect to get the chance to explain it in person.

[FMF]

MRM --

I disagree for a few reasons:

1. If you can't write concisely enough to get five years of experience summarized on one page, many people won't want you working for them.

2. The average reviewer spends seconds looking at a resume. The longer it is, the less of a chance he/she will see what you want him/her to see.

3. The only purpose of your resume is to get you an interview -- it's not meant to tell your life story. Trying to do the latter will show you don't know much about "they way things are done" and will be a red flag to some employers.

[Random John]

I'm a lawyer with more than 10 years' experience. I've seen thousands of resumes and interviewed hundreds of candidates for big-firm jobs. Seriously. From late August to mid November, we were expected to do at least 10 interviews per WEEK. (Don't get me started about how much that sucks when you still have to make your hours with "real" work)

I am sure I'm not the only person who automatically throws out any multi-page resume without reading it. If I saw a staple in the corner, I'd just reject the applicant.

I thoroughly disagree with mrm. Thinking so much of yourself that you go on for pages and pages is just flat out rude, not to mention it demonstrates that the person has no ability to separate signal from noise.

The resume is just there to set you up for an interview. You do that two ways: by showing you have relevant experience (which is typically familiar to the interviewer, so just shorthand it) and by putting out a few facts that will serve as topics of conversation during the interview or, even better, be common points with the person who is reading your interview. (Hey, you like 18th century russian lit, me too! Hey, I worked at HP, did you know so and so?)

Oh, and please for the love of God, don't put "Travel" as an interest. EVERYONE likes to travel.

[George]

Consider where you're going with the resume too. When I was looking for a job, I had two resumes.

One was a single-paged, conscience descriptor page of my qualifications, education, and goals. I used this one at career fairs, job fairs, etc. Quick, bam-slam, sign application here. It allowed recruiters to skim quickly with one hand, not require page flipping, and they could instantly see my the core of my qualications.

I also had a two pager, which was more descriptive and contained more of my skills and quals. This was used more for actual application/resume submissions.

[t3ch]

It also depends on who's doing the hiring. I know several recruiters and talk with all of the managers the jobs I've had, and they all have different feelings toward that. I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer, especially since whether YOU think there's a magic number or not doesn't mean your employer will.

If you're cutting yourself short by putting it on one page, put it on two. It seems pretty simple to me.

[JB]

I use two resumes as well - I always provide a one-pager. It contains more than enough enough to get past the "save or discard" stage.

I also provide a longer resume which lists detailed work experience - significant accomplishments, detailed job titles, training. This longer version is 4 pages and reads more like a CV than a resume.

[Tracee F.]

I don't know about the HR level of resume' reviewers, but I was on a hiring panel with my supervisor for two tedious and exhausting rounds of hiring in my department just last year. We needed enough information to determine if the person had the technical skills to warrant even a phone interview, and we couldn't get it from any of the one-pagers. Some of the 3-pagers were ok, but I found them tedious and tended to discount them. 4 or more was right to the bin. 2 seemed just right for the technical information we were after.

Also, when I was contracting and interviewing a lot, all of my recruiters had me do a 2-page resume'. Again, I think everything depends on your field. In I.T., a 2-page resume is expected and virtually no one bins a 2-page, but a 1-page usually won't get you interviews nor will a 3+page.

As for chronological vs. functional, I had recruiters force me into a functional resume' when we were covering up a hole in my skillset or my work record. I don't care for them. And, everyone I've worked with on the hiring side also hated them. We want to see experience in context of how recent it is, as well as be able to spot gaps in work history, a functional resume' clouds the issues. It may be different in other industries, but in I.T., your experience not only has to be present, but also CURRENT. Chronological, all the way.

[LotharBot]

Think of your resume as an advertisement for your services. You're trying to sell a company on you.

Ads that are too long get ignored. Ads that are too short don't give the customer any reason to buy. You want to target the right length. I think FMF's recommendations are solid, with the caveat that in certain technical fields (IT, engineering, etc.), another half page is a good idea.

[Richard]

My saved resume file is two full pages. The most important things are all on the first page. I could print just the first page for most jobs. Page two has the other jobs that didn't fit onto page one listed.

If I really want the job, I'll edit the document to show just relevant work experience on page one and turn that in. I also be sure to provide a link to my full resume on line.

[Sara]

Here's what I do: I have a "working resume" that lists every job I've ever had, including college internships, skills, achievements, whatever. If I want to apply for a job, I start with that and edit it down to one page using what is most relevant for that job. That means not only deleting certain old jobs, but also descriptions of job duties that are less meaningful for that position.

I think most people who argue in favor of two or three page resumes (excluding extremely technical jobs, high level executive jobs, and some other stuff that make up less than 1% of all job offerings) haven't had to hire someone recently. Once you've had to sort through 50 resumes for one position that you need to hire as soon as humanly possible, you'll think long and hard about making a resume that's more than a page. It comes across as a little bit arrogant that you need to take up that much space/time, especially when you can tell someone is sending out that two-page resume to everyone and haven't edited it for relevance at all.