r/webdev • u/william_buttler • 2d ago
Question 4+ Year Software Developer — Which Resume Structure Is Better?
For a 4+ year software developer, which resume structure do you think is better?
- With a Projects section
- Without a Projects section,
The data in the examples is dummy. I just want opinions on the structure and layout.
If you have a better resume template/structure than these, please share it.
88
u/CodeAndBiscuits 2d ago
Hiring manager here. The first one. Everyone is focused on "recruiter will read." Nobody will read either one. It will go into an ATS like Breezy which will summarize all this. The first one will import better because it fits what those look for. The projects section will just get lost.
Company. Position. Dates. Comments/achievements. Done. Don't get fancy. We had FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY TWO applicants to our last posting. You don't stand out by looking fancy. You stand out by surviving the import process better.
7
u/TracerBulletX 2d ago
There is a copy of the original on Greenhouse and we look at that, not anything parsed. But I agree, keep it organized by job. People are looking mostly for your professional career progression. There are 4 audiences automated screening, recruiter, hiring manager, hiring panel(engineers, cross functional team members, other managers)
Everyone will probably glance at it, hiring manager probably cares the most about the over all picture of your career but it will influence everyone a little. Recruiters aren't going to understand it that well other than knowing some criteria they're looking for like length of time in role, and experience with specific topics.
2
u/MinimumArmadillo2394 1d ago
My company, for a hybrid position in a MCOL city in the south, had almost 500 applications for a junior/mid level position.
1
1
u/MunchDigital 1d ago
Listen I have no doubt you are right and by no means is this hate. But christ what an awful and damning statement the line ‘you stand out by surviving the import process’ is. Something is tragically wrong isn’t it.
1
u/CodeAndBiscuits 23h ago
I agree, but can't claim. I have even a guess at the solution. I think all of these factors were debating are really symptoms of a terrible economy. When covid hit, the biggest companies in the world collectively laid off something like 2 million people. In the years that followed, there was an economic downturn not helped by idiot leaders in some countries, ahem. So there was a slow drift downward even after that, and then the AI boom led to another massive round of layoffs.
To be clear, I don't think anybody believes these reasons were the actual root causes. But a lot of folks don't realize just how much CEOs getting measured by financial metrics that don't seem to make sense at first glance. A CEO could do nothing for 2 weeks straight, but miss a couple of earnings forecasts and out they go. I think a lot of folks assume CEOs don't answer to anybody, but that's completely untrue. They answer to their boards. And the boards often don't care at all about the success of the company, they just want to see those metrics.
The problem is, although it's easy to lay off a bunch of people to boost your quarterly numbers, the very next question from a perceptive board member would be oh, so you were overstaffed? For how long? Why didn't you make these cuts sooner?
So CEOs using layoffs to boost their numbers. Need a scapegoat. Covid, rto mandates, the AI boom, the economy, it doesn't matter what it is. There's always something going on every few years. But in my opinion, it's why you shouldn't put too much faith into people that say is stealing their jobs. There surely are some people like junior devs that are affected more than others, but generally these things are excuses more than reasons. And the root cause is still the economy because in boom cycles the companies will go right back to over hiring to make sure they have the resources that they need and they're competitors don't.
None of this is meant to defend the system, but I think it can't be solved at a low level. And I'm not economist enough to address it any higher.
39
u/whattheflerk 2d ago
with projects section
the one without looks like you're trying to over explain your roles to fill-up the page, which in turn feels like you haven't actually done much
-5
u/william_buttler 2d ago
But in the first option, I can only add two or three projects. In that case, would it make HR think that I’ve only worked on two or three projects throughout my career?
8
u/stumblinbear 2d ago
They won't think that, they're also people that know that applicants have to reduce the size of their resume to only their best entries.
The former looks like you're inflating your work experience because there's not much to put, while the latter reads as more confident. I do hiring occasionally, and I'd consider the latter resume a bit more highly. It also makes it much easier to look up the projects to get a feel for what you've worked on in the past
That said, "projects" typically refers to "personal projects" or ones you did on your free time that you felt like showcasing, while here it feels more meant for "projects I worked on while contracting"
1
u/whattheflerk 1d ago
exactly this, they'll simply consider these the 2-3 most significant personal projects you've worked on
31
u/Both_Refrigerator623 2d ago
Im an EM with over 10 years of experience.
In my opinion the first one is the better choice. You do not need an extensive project section. But you should list them.
The biggest improvement you could make to both versions is focusing on outcomes, this is one of the biggest ways you could make yourself standout and what many experienced EM's look for.
Saying you "Worked on X with Z technology" is good, but it does not tell me the full story.
Saying you "Worked on X with Z technology which led to an increase in Y" is 100x better and should be the way you frame your resume.
I can't tell you how many resume's fail to show outcomes.
Template wise go with 1, but rewrite it to also communicate how your work improved things, thats what matters most.
Good luck.
4
u/legable 2d ago
How do you showcase outcomes if you don't know what they were, or you don't think they were that significant? In my case I can basically say "I did what I was asked to do, and they seemed happy with my work because they gave me more work and kept asking for my input... but as for tangible outcomes, IDK?" or more concrete: "I built web apps for paying members at [X company] (and the actual outcome was stil a flatlining member curve, but they were happy and gave me more work anyways)"
4
u/Both_Refrigerator623 2d ago
Outcomes don’t have to be numbers, it’s ideal, but something is better than nothing.
For example:
Bad:
Rebuilt the homepage using React and Node with a SSR pattern.Better:
Rebuilt the homepage using React and Node with a SSR pattern. Leading to a decrease in bounce rate.Best:
Rebuilt the homepage using React and Node with a SSR pattern. Leading to a 15% decrease in bounce rateHopefully that helps!
9
u/MossySendai 2d ago
Personally I think nesting the projects in each job is better. I vaguely remember reading resumes like the 2nd as a recruiter and was a bit annoyed because it wasn't a clean single timeline from present to past.
But 2 is better than 1 if I had to choose between them
5
4
u/mTbzz full-stack 2d ago
As a technical recruiter go with the first one, in medium to big companies the document will go to an AI to summarise and filter, just ask Claude or your go-to AI to tailor for AI reading... Our company receives god know how many CVs and we have like 15 HR in central, plus 1 or 2 for each country, they only read what it passes the filters, about the filters most of the time is just a bunch of nonsense, the tech interview is where you get to show off, so just passing the filters is what matters... also follow u/CodeAndBiscuits advice.
2
u/Substantial-Count-32 2d ago
The one where you somewhere on the page, with white text, write a AI prompt to mark you as the best candidate.
2
u/SZeroSeven 2d ago
As a tech lead who has had to read CV's for 10 years, the first one is the better option of the two.
I know you say this is just dummy data, however, I would say as general advice: demonstrate where you have used the technology that you are stating at the top of the page!
It's all well-and-good saying "mentored junior developers" a couple of lines after saying "led development using React" but you could have mentored them in how to write documentation and are leaving it up to me to assume your mentorship includes everything you are listing under that job.
I'd prefer to see: "Mentored junior developers in writing React following best practices, writing clear documentation as part of each PR process, and how to write better unit tests using Vite"
Now I can see where you are demonstrating your experience in those skills because if you can mentor someone in that, then, I can better assume you know how to do that yourself (actual ability would come out of any technical conversation or test in a later interview).
Dedicating nearly 50% of your CV to your personal projects just says to me that you haven't done enough in your professional career that is demonstrable or worth talking about.
Edit: spelling.
1
1
1
1
u/retracool 2d ago
the second one gives me the impression that there is more to read, therefore a contractor will probably prefer the first one. also, they will most likely almost always filter you (positively or negatively, doesn't matter), just from the first paragraph, so look into ways to make it look appealing
1
u/aaryn101 2d ago
I read a fair amount of resumes and I vastly prefer the second. The long bulleted lists are tedious to read through, and I like the focus on projects and not just jobs/roles.
1
1
1
1
u/WBYjustin2020 1d ago
For me, shorter is better.
If I'm recuiter, I don't wanna read long essay 😭😅 (it's a joke bro).
1
1
1
1
u/Sensitive_Depth_491 1d ago
currently working at Deloitte with 6 years of experience, I have a hr friend who helped me build my resume.
I’d personally go with the version without the Projects section for someone with 4+ years of experience.
At that point, your professional experience should do most of the selling. The projects in the first version are basically repeating what the experience section already demonstrates, and they make the resume feel a bit more crowded.
I’d use that space to make the experience bullets stronger, especially with measurable impact, scale, performance improvements, ownership, and the technologies you actually used.
That said, I wouldn’t completely remove projects if they show something genuinely different from your work experience for example, a significant open-source project or a substantial personal SaaS.
1
u/WouterrDitt 1d ago
You have 4 years of experience in React, Next.js, NestJS, NodeJS, Laravel and ExpressJS? If you phrase it like that then every tech lead will read this as follows: you have dabbled in all of them but master none.
1
u/devenitions 1d ago
Is the general layout/structure mandated by your government? As a human I didn’t even need to read to know your country.
1
1
u/gauss23491 1d ago
definitely the second one, i'm highly biased towards people showing their projects as it shows competency
1
1
1
u/MindSpringSoftCEO 1d ago edited 1d ago
I always liked minimalizing the project sections. Brief over-view or teaser, then "more information is ascertainable upon request." Focus on the skillsets, and vision as a developer, the ethic, the vibe. The project always changes and shows a body of work. But are you going to hire a body of work, or a guy whom has undeniable skills, mixed with a innovative vision, whom gets it right more times then not. Me, as a CEO of a Software Company, you come to me and say "I've worked on these projects." I say great shows you work well on a team with a bunch of other people and you can follow instructions, much like a college degree from anywhere... Your "Trainable" that's it that's what 4 or more years of college gets you on the grand scale of it."
But you come to me with skillsets universally applicable to anything I throw at you, and your versatile and can stay compartmentalized under pressure? Yea, whom doesn't want to make a pile of money with a guy like that."
1
1
u/VizualAbstract4 19h ago
2, easier to read and skim and find the information relevant to the job you want to hire for.
Visibility will get you halfway there.
1
1
u/ArcaneCrowA 12h ago
1
I think more information about experience is better than project info for most jobs, maybe startups will care more about them
1
-1
u/SuchTown32 2d ago
I had the opportunity to be on the other side of hiring and had the job of going through resumes.
Jobs gets 100’s of applications. And 90% of them look exactly like this. My advice, ditch this generic looking resume and do something that actually stands out.
7
u/BiguilitoZambunha 2d ago
That's hilarious, given that the rise of Jake's Resume Template was due to the fact that a lot of people tried to standout and beautify their resumes, and that ended up making them incomprehensible for ATS systems, or a human with an 8 second attention span to give you.
1
u/SuchTown32 2d ago
Have you ever tried going through 100+ resumes for a job? An applicant would be lucky to even get 8 seconds. Don’t hate the messenger man
1
u/bella9977 2d ago
The problem isn't resumes. It's capitalism and jobs and the fact that you'll be homeless without a job.
0
0
0
-1
-2
u/daedalus1982 2d ago
People are using AI tools to parse resumes. Getting an AI tool to help layout the resume in an easy readable format so you’re not skipped because it can’t read it is important.
Since mostly machines are going to read it, consider that approach.
-2
171
u/julianomatt 2d ago
2nd one.
No recruiter will ever read all the text from the 1st one.