Resume paper?

[mjkacmom]

I haven't worked in 20 years, DH has been with the same company longer than that. Dd19 has a job interview today and is bringing a hard copy of her resume. She's never heard of resume paper, and has taken a job interview class (she is in the business program of a large university). I'm getting mixed google results. She says that if it was still a thing, they would have let them know in class.

So, necessary or dated.

 

[bcla]

Not needed. Most resumes these days are collected in some sort of file format. Even paper resumes are just scanned. Even back when I was using resume paper, I'd notice my interviewers just had a photocopy on everyday paper.

I'd worry more about having readable format. Some employers only want a text format, and making it easy to read is key.

 

[SgtTibbs]

I review a fair number of resumes, I'm more concerned with what's on it that what it's on.

 

[MrsDuck]

A nice touch - can't hurt.

 

[soccerdad72]

Probably a dated tradition. It doesn't hurt, but I doubt it will make a big difference. Most days, resumes are submitted electronically, so employers have a copy in hand at the interview anyways. It doesn't hurt to have one printed out just in case, but nobody will likely notice the paper it's printed on.

 

[princesspiglet]

I work in HR. Totally not needed. We print everything out on standard copy paper. I think I would have a heart attack if I actually got a resume via postal mail on resume paper! I could not care less what paper it is printed on. The grammar and content is the most important.

 

[Squirlz]

The idea used to be that when an employer had a stack of résumés in their hand, the one printed on résumé paper would stand out over the ones on copy paper. I don't think it makes any difference these days.

 

[SirDuff]

While I always bring a hard copy of my resume to an interview, I just print it on whatever (white) paper is in the printer. I'd rather take one and not need it than risk being asked for one.

 

[BrinkofSunshine]

I always print mine on resume paper. I think it's just nicer and looks more professional than printer paper, but that's just me.

 

[bcla]

I always print mine on resume paper. I think it's just nicer and looks more professional than printer paper, but that's just me.

Whatever works for you, but these days it could be more distracting than anything else. I also remember using this stuff that would jam printers. It was 36 lb 100% cotton paper. It was really nice, but even in the 90s I'm not sure it did anything. I'm not really "professional" would describe it. Professionals use plain paper. Maybe "formal"? The fanciest stuff we ever used in the office was letterhead, and it was basically useful only when something had to be submitted to a government agency or a bank.

 

[BrinkofSunshine]

Whatever works for you, but these days it could be more distracting than anything else. I also remember using this stuff that would jam printers. It was 36 lb 100% cotton paper. It was really nice, but even in the 90s I'm not sure it did anything. I'm not really "professional" would describe it. Professionals use plain paper. Maybe "formal"? The fanciest stuff we ever used in the office was letterhead, and it was basically useful only when something had to be submitted to a government agency or a bank.

Maybe what I think of as "resume paper" isn't the same thing it used to be. I just use a heavier paper, and I get it printed at FedEx- it has the same look as regular paper but isn't as flimsy.

 

[DebbieB]

It's been almost 40 years for me, I think it used to be called "bond paper"?

 

[bcla]

Maybe what I think of as "resume paper" isn't the same thing it used to be. I just use a heavier paper, and I get it printed at FedEx- it has the same look as regular paper but isn't as flimsy.

I've used heavy weight (24 lb) extra bright paper before. However, I've seen people scan resumes before. The content and making it easy to read are the most important thing. Also, extra bright paper might be hard on the eyes.

In any case, the majority of resumes these days are viewed on a computer screen. Paper doesn't really factor into anything unless it's taken into an interview and printed on standard printer paper. I remember once having recruiting duties at my local college (my alma mater) since I lived close. I saw maybe one resume printed on something other than regular printer paper. And in any case I was instructed to hand out the business card of our HR director and tell applicants to send an electronic copy by email. One applicant was actually pretty combative and a bit rude about it. If she carried that attitude into a job interview I think it might have even been cut short.

When I collected them and brought them into the office, one guy intercepted me and scanned through them. If he noticed the type of paper, he didn't show it. Our HR director got them and scanned them. It was a lot easier to deal with text that could be searched than paper copies.

 

[bcla]

It's been almost 40 years for me, I think it used to be called "bond paper"?

That's typically a watermarked paper with some cotton or linen content. A variation is thesis paper. I remember when I thought it was important, the big names were Crane, Southworth, and Strathmore. I would even use matching envelopes if I was mailing them.

Of course things are a lot different. 40 years ago, electronic printing wasn't very common except in professional applications using very expensive equipment. I'm guessing that a lot of resumes were individually typed or printed by a professional printshop. By the 80s, I'm thinking electronic printing started being more affordable.

 

[Kathryn Merteuil]

I haven't even thought about this. It seems that all the resumes I have submitted have been electronic. They just ask for the like Word format. There may be some cases where a hard copy is necessary, but I am guessing those cases are not all that common.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm all for anything that might set you apart from the next candidate. Paper is cheap. If you're bringing a hard copy, who not put it on nice paper?

I assume they covered this, but make sure she sends a thank you note after the interview.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Just commenting about yet another thing that makes me feel old.
Today I wouldn't think of resume paper--but I remember when we did do that and it was suggested when doing the little seminars at college for career planning.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

I think the change from resume paper to regular happened around the time laser printers became generally available. I remember my older siblings getting a box of resumes produced at a printer in the mid 80s. That's because home printers looked like this:

And used paper like this:

Where you had to tear each page along the perforations, as well as removed the hole-punched strip of paper from the side.

By the mid-90s, people had access to laser printers, like at a Kinkos.

Nowadays, we get PDF copies of resumes and print them ourselves. I think it would be a sign of an antiquated or poorly organized company if the interviewer did not already have a copy of a resume before the interview. Bringing extra copies for unexpected interview participants is a good idea though.

 

[cmarsh31]

I'm currently applying for jobs for the first time in 16 years - it's all electronic, but when they do ask for a paper copy, I bring it on plain, white, resume paper (grabbed a box from Staples). If nothing else, as a teacher, it sets me apart from the brand-new just out of college kids with theirs on regular paper! Yes, I'm old - we'll say that's "experienced" and in the teaching field, it's a good thing!

 

[elaine amj]

Dated.

I remember doing it in college but haven't bothered since. When I've conducted interviews, I wanted everything electronically. Such a pain when a candidate would drop off their resume.