Lots of people concentrate on the language, but it's the approach and attitude that's critical. Quoting from the article:
You'll notice he doesn’t recite past achievements.
He doesn't mention the painting of the altarpiece
for the Chapel of St. Bernard; he doesn't provide
a laundry list ... (snip)
No, he does none of these things, because those
would be about his achievements, not the Duke's
needs.
Instead, he sells his prospective employer on what
Leonardo can do for him.
I see so many job applications that are exactly a laundry list of achievements, and nothing about what the applicant could do for me.
And that’s exactly what your resume needs to do,
too. Not the laundry list/standard bio that talks
about you, but the marketing piece that talks
about the benefits to your future employer and
how you fit into his or her needs and desires.
> I see so many job applications that are exactly a laundry list of achievements, and nothing about what the applicant could do for me.
There is another side to this, which is that many job ads don't provide anything like enough information for candidates to do that.
Most job ads tell us what skills are desired, and a tiny bit about the industry the company works in, and even less about the specific project the candidate would be focused on. It's difficult for me to tell you, "I can bring your galambosian robotics framework to the next level by applying the latest Fibonacci refactoring techniques!" if all I know is "we're a leading-edge company working on bringing killer robots to the masses!"
Furthermore, the cover letter will in many cases be screened by an HR wonk who isn't qualified to judge any of that.
So the approach of a cover letter that points up specific expertise that may apply to the position is often the best a candidate can do. "My work on galambosian robotics frameworks has definite application to the world of killer robots" is at least as much "pointing out past achievements" as "telling what I can do for you", but without a lot more information than companies are willing to give, it's difficult to make it better.
That's certainly true, and we agree on that. More, you make good and valid points.
Having said that, there is more that candidates can do. They can find out what the company does, for a start. Then if the ad says what skills are required, state clearly that you have the skill and provide evidence.
Those two things along will put you ahead of 90% of other applicants.
"I work well in groups, but also work well alone." - you and every other applicant will claim that. Provide evidence.
Leonardo didn't have a detailed job description to work from, he put in some thought about what his potential employer would want, and then demonstrated that he could provide it.
> we're a leading-edge company working on
> bringing killer robots to the masses!
Then you'll need control systems, real-time software, image analysis, goal-oriented planning systems, etc. Do you have those skills? Say so and provide evidence. You won't know exactly what frameworks they use, but you can demonstrate the ability to move between frameworks taking with you your underlying design and problem solving skills.
I agree entirely that the hiring process is broken, but you can get well ahead by being different and relevant. And if your application doesn't get past the HR wonks, is it really somewhere you want to work?
That's an excellent point, and yet another reason why agencies are the spawn of the devil. Yes, they need to protect their own interests, and yes, they can't be populated by specialists who can both understand the job specifications and evaluate potential applicants, but even so, they are, in general, astonishingly poor at what they do.
Question is, is there enough value in disrupting that particular market?
For better or for worse, that's what's so frustrating about hiring/interviewing.
I pay my taxes. I drive the speed limit. I never cheated in high school or college. I signed up for the Selective Service. When I see trash on the ground, I pick it up. I keep off the grass.
Yet when talking to a potential employer, I magically become this shifty-eyed drifter, whose every word is suspect.
The "carpenter" thought he was just doing work. What he didn't realize was that a career in technology means always preparing for when you're next put on trial.
I get it, of course. Programmers are expensive and have a ramp-up time, firing is hard so it pays to be cautious when hiring, etc.
But the net effect, the defaulting to the conclusion that an interviewee is lying or stupid, is toxic.
So, taking that to its logical conclusion, your application would read:
I can do anything you need.
That would be it. You don't need to provide evidence, I'm expected to take you at your word.
Of course not. Of course you expect to provide evidence, you just might not think of it like that. You might think of it as showing me your github repo, or listing your previous jobs and/or contracts, or listing your credentials and/or qualifications.
That's evidence. But I don't want to see all of the things you could list. I want to see the things that support your statements of what you can do, because like it or not, I'm not going to take your word for it if all you do is say:
> I see so many job applications that are exactly a laundry list of achievements, and nothing about what the applicant could do for me.
Seems like to me that the unspoken implication by a lot of employers in how they conduct the hiring process is that they would rather assess that themselves. The candidate lists what they "are" (which is often done as the sum of their past) and the employer decides whether they are a person who will fit what they need.
I don't understand one thing. Why would HR trust a person who says "I can do X"? Everyone can say that. But not everyone can say "I did X". Is hiring really predicated upon the naivete of those doing it?
The point is that the "I did X" should be listed specifically to support the statement "I can do Y." Start with what you know or deduce the the prospective employer needs and wants, then demonstrate evidence that you can do it.
I think on HN it depends on how quickly you get a few strong responses. (which can be largely random, less you're super-deliberate about it.)
If you want to work the social media sauce, the best way is to get a few people having an actual conversation with you ASAP, through the intended medium you want to seed. Flickr, Reddit, Quora, etc all started out this way. I suppose it's necessary but not necessarily sufficient.
If your actual resume consists mostly or exclusively of theoretical future accomplishments, employers will be justified in wondering whether you've actually successfully done anything. If your cover letter consists mostly of rehashing what you've done in the past rather than what you can do in the specific role, employers will be justified in being sceptical about whether you've actually considered whether you're actually the candidate they need.
Leonardo existed in an age where the key players were few and everyone of import knew each other. He didn't have to recite past accomplishments, because all the people he was writing letters to already knew what they were.
Had he been an unknown nobody, he'd have had to bring additional context to his appeal for employment just like everyone else.
Actually, he wrote this employment letter in 1482, before he made anything of serious artistic importance. He may have been somewhat known in the artistic community, but he was by no means very well known.
I mean, here in this age, nobody's going to know who you are as an artist before you make something important. But in the 1400s, just being an artist is a huge enough accomplishment that people are going to know who you are. Also too, what's important to us now is not the same thing as what would have been important to 1400s upper crust society.
The main point I'm trying to make is that 1400s Europe was a really small world. So different than the one we find ourselves in that, if you want to take anything at all from Leonardo's cover letter, adopting his language will probably get you much farther than adopting his actual technique, which was devised to fit the needs of the 1400s.
It may have been smaller, no doubt, but this statement is not correct:
But in the 1400s, just being an artist is a huge enough accomplishment that people are going to know who you are.
Artists in da Vinci's day were more akin to craftsmen. Da Vinci himself was basically raised in an artist's workshop (by Andrea del Verrocchio) and worked alongside dozens of other students on their master's projects. This is in stark contrast to today's artists, who are basically expected to be the sole creative genius (barring people like Damien Hirst, of course, who is known to use assistants.)
Indeed, a very good one, but a cover letter. This is the definition of resume: "a brief account of a person’s education, qualifications, and previous experience, typically sent with a job application". So, writing a resume without listing past achievements is simply impossible.
The author seems to be annoyed by people sending him resumes instead of cover letters. Maybe he should learn what a resume is before complaining about the ones he receives.
Of course he didn't have to deal with recruiters who only match on keywords and HR people whose eyes are easily glazed over. Or respond to job ads or emails filled with buzzwords that are required. I too wish I could just write a positive note to the CEO.
Or was his letter looked over because the Duke's assistant was looking for a technology using "sulfur"... and Da Vinci didn't mention it in his resume.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2234231
More recent submissions, less so:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3857531
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4662582
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7497155
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9393330
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9395139
Have HN's tastes changed? Has it simply not been noticed?