The grammar one worries me. I wonder if that was corrected for country of birth, e.g. if this is an apples for apples comparison of native English speakers (USA, Canada, UK, Australia etc) or if it includes non-native speakers.
If there are people of non-English decent, I wonder if they would be more likely to have errors, especially grammatical, that are understandable. If that is the case, this may simply be a correlation to poor interview performance, and a bias towards the singular group of native English speakers, and that they may have let great programmers go.
Now, I'm not saying it is true, I am just saying that is a possibility that would alarm me when errors on a resume is such a huge indicator, and wonder whether that is not something they should be correcting for.
Author here. I get this counterpoint a lot and for good reason. My best response is that a resume isn't something you come up with on the fly. It's a document you have every opportunity to show to people, get feedback, and improve upon. Therefore, if you're not a native speaker, you should presumably have the self-awareness to mitigate that disadvantage by enlisting outside help.
I understand those arguments, but it doesn't addresses the issue for a very specific reason. What if the problem is the way internally the team works?
When measuring end-to-end, any part of that may influence the final outcome. If, and I am not saying this is true, if there is a tendency to have a few more errors (especially grammatical with it's its) in a non-native tongue, success outcomes MAY point to a bias in interviewing, or in how people interact internally.
Or not. It is just something I wondered, and something it doesn't seem like you've looked at specifically, and understandably as well, because who wants to open themselves to accusations of bias with their own data?
I opposed the connection between general grammar/spelling and what people do on the job. I'm a perfect example of it: informal writings are quite rebellious while professional ones are carefully written and revised. Because I'm paid to and misunderstandings cost more. :)
That said, I totally agree with your comment here that the preparation time available should render resumes free of such errors. They should be peer reviewed, as well. Problems caused by a lack of either indicate a character flaw to me.
Comments
The grammar one worries me. I wonder if that was corrected for country of birth, e.g. if this is an apples for apples comparison of native English speakers (USA, Canada, UK, Australia etc) or if it includes non-native speakers.
If there are people of non-English decent, I wonder if they would be more likely to have errors, especially grammatical, that are understandable. If that is the case, this may simply be a correlation to poor interview performance, and a bias towards the singular group of native English speakers, and that they may have let great programmers go.
Now, I'm not saying it is true, I am just saying that is a possibility that would alarm me when errors on a resume is such a huge indicator, and wonder whether that is not something they should be correcting for.
Author here. I get this counterpoint a lot and for good reason. My best response is that a resume isn't something you come up with on the fly. It's a document you have every opportunity to show to people, get feedback, and improve upon. Therefore, if you're not a native speaker, you should presumably have the self-awareness to mitigate that disadvantage by enlisting outside help.
I understand those arguments, but it doesn't addresses the issue for a very specific reason. What if the problem is the way internally the team works?
When measuring end-to-end, any part of that may influence the final outcome. If, and I am not saying this is true, if there is a tendency to have a few more errors (especially grammatical with it's its) in a non-native tongue, success outcomes MAY point to a bias in interviewing, or in how people interact internally.
Or not. It is just something I wondered, and something it doesn't seem like you've looked at specifically, and understandably as well, because who wants to open themselves to accusations of bias with their own data?
I opposed the connection between general grammar/spelling and what people do on the job. I'm a perfect example of it: informal writings are quite rebellious while professional ones are carefully written and revised. Because I'm paid to and misunderstandings cost more. :)
That said, I totally agree with your comment here that the preparation time available should render resumes free of such errors. They should be peer reviewed, as well. Problems caused by a lack of either indicate a character flaw to me.
decent -> descent.
Muphry's law strikes again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
And there are differences in acceptable grammar/ writing styles in all of the English speaking country's
The USA is more permissive of double negatives for example.
And this ignores the fact that some candidates will have dyslexia.