Why resume writing is snake oil

I just asked ChatGPT to size the global resume writing industry. Here’s what it had to say:

The global resume writing industry was valued at approximately $1.37 billion in 2024 and is expected to grow steadily, reaching around $1.44 billion by 2025, and about $1.59 billion by 2033... The growth is driven by increased demand for professional resume services due to heightened job market competition, coupled with advancements in technology and personalization through AI-driven resume writing tools.

I don’t know if these numbers are exactly true, and I don't know what portion of that is resume writing for engineers specifically, but it doesn’t really matter. I am certain that they are directionally correct. As the market has gotten worse, I’ve heard more and more job seekers ask for resume reviews and rewrites, and I’ve seen many companies in the interview prep space start offering resume reviews.

They’re all selling snake oil, and no one should spend a dime on it. I’ll explain why in a little bit, but first let’s talk about something else I found on the internet.

A few days ago, I saw this post on Reddit. It was a leaked internal set of hiring requirements (sometimes called a “hiring spec”) that looked like this:

Of course, there was the usual Reddit shock and awe and pearl clutching about whether this hiring spec could be real.

Yes, it’s real. As someone who’s been in hiring for over a decade, I’m certain of it. And not only is it real, but it’s routine. It’s business as usual.

I’ve been a head of talent at top startups, and I used to run my own recruiting agency where I hired for a bunch of companies who have since become household names. When I worked as an agency recruiter 10 years ago, companies regularly shared documents like this one with me. The only difference between then and now is the idea of a “diversity bonus.” Everything else hasn’t changed in a decade.

Documents like this are why I quit recruiting to start interviewing.io.

And documents like this are the reason that the entirety of the resume writing profession is a snake oil pit.

There is one notable exception to this rule, which I’ll talk about, but most people should not spend a dime on resume writers. Here’s why.

Recruiters aren’t reading your resume. They’re skimming it for very specific things.

In 2024, we ran a study where we asked 76 recruiters to look at resumes and indicate which candidates they’d want to interview. Recruiters are most likely to contact you if:

• You look good on paper (i.e., you have top-tier companies and/or schools on your resume… just like in the “hiring spec” above)
• You belong to a group that’s been traditionally underrepresented in tech (i.e., you’re a woman or a person of color… just like in the “hiring spec” above)
• To some extent, if you have niche skills (e.g., ML engineering)

What's missing? Things like, for example, having a quantifiable impact or demonstrating teamwork. Essentially, everything recruiters look for is stuff that you either have or you don't.

In this same study, we also learned that when recruiters do look at resumes, they spend an average of 30 seconds reviewing them. That's not enough time to read every bullet. Instead, they are mainly skimming for recognizable companies and schools.

Here is an excellent example, also from Reddit, that makes this difference very clear.

This resume certainly passes the skim-test: good companies, appropriate roles, and a good university too. It's only when you actually spend more than 30 seconds reading the resume that you learn that not only is this resume obviously fake, but it also celebrates accomplishments like "Spread Herpes STD to 60% of intern team.” And yet, it got a 90% callback rate. Recruiters just aren't reading the details.

In other words, either you already have what recruiters are looking for (which often may be different than what’s explicitly listed in a job description… because they certainly aren’t sharing the real “hiring spec”) or you don’t. If you have it, then you don’t need a resume writer — though it’s always smart to make it easier for recruiters to find the things they’re looking for. If you don’t have what they’re looking for, no amount of agonizing over how you present yourself is going to move the needle.

So, if recruiters aren’t reading and are just skimming for brands, why do people agonize over their resumes and give money to resume writers?

Why the resume myth persists

In interviewing.io’s Discord server, I regularly see requests for resume reviews. I also see other interview prep companies charging money for resume reviews. Presumably they charge because the demand is there. But why are people willing to pay for something that is completely useless?

I think it’s a mix of misinformation and the desire for control.

Recruiters rarely admit that they’re skimming primarily for brands. If you read recruiters’ advice for job seekers, it almost always includes advice about quantifying your impact, including your side projects¹, and so on. These bits of advice are well-intentioned, I’m sure, but they perpetuate a harmful myth and an exploitative resume writing cottage industry.

The other reason is control. Job searches are intimidating, and putting yourself out there is hard. It’s much easier to retreat to the comfort of polishing up your bullet points because it’s something you can control. You get into a routine, rewrite your bullets, and upload your resume to a bunch of places. Then when you don’t hear back, you retreat to familiar ground, grind on your bullets some more, and rinse and repeat. Because it’s easier to believe that if you can just get your bullets right, you’ll finally hear back. That narrative sure beats out the idea that no one is reading your resume no matter how much you fine-tune it.

The notable exception: If you already look good on paper, polishing your resume CAN be useful.

If you’re fortunate enough to have top brands on your resume, cleaning it up can be a good use of your time. I still wouldn’t hire a resume writer because the details don’t matter very much. Just make sure that recruiters can easily spot the brands.

Here’s an example. Take a look at the before and after screenshots of the resume below.

Before

This resume belongs to one of our users who was kind enough to let us share it. He actually has two of the three things that recruiters look for: FAANG experience and a niche title (ML engineer). But both are buried! And the section that gets the most attention is wasted on undergraduate awards.

As you can see, he spent almost 3 years at Apple, but a recruiter skimming his resume might not notice that because it was a while ago. Instead, he showcases an undergrad award and some technologies/languages that he knows. Neither of those is nearly as useful to recruiters as FAANG experience.

His current title is also ML engineer, and one at the Principal level at that. But it wasn’t always: He went from back-end to SRE to a little bit of everything to ML, and because of that, it’s possible a recruiter would miss it as well.

After

We edited this candidate’s resume to put all the things recruiters look for at the very top of the resume and moved the buzzword soup to the bottom. This candidate is obviously well-positioned because he has FAANG experience, several top schools, and niche skills — but before, many recruiters didn’t spot them. After he made these changes, the number of interviews he got increased by 8X.

Note that we didn’t really rewrite anything. We just moved stuff around. You can do this yourself without needing a professional writer.

For everyone else, stop working on your resume, and start doing outreach.

If you’re like most people, you don’t have top brands on their resume, so no amount of rewriting is going to move the needle much. Instead of agonizing over it, stop applying and start doing outreach to hiring managers. It’s your best shot to get noticed and to get someone to look at you as a human being, instead of a collection of brands. Here’s how to do it. For a deeper dive into both resume writing and how to get in the door, you can read Beyond Cracking the Coding Interview (both chapters are also available for free).

Footnotes: