Order engineering experience by time or relevance to field?

Question

To briefly summarize, I got a first Masters degree in telecommunications engineering, went on to work in the space industry for two years (for which I have a passion), and then jumped into the startup world for an additional 2.5 years out of interest. I am now completing a second Masters degree, this time in space engineering, and am currently applying to jobs in the engineering field.

Among other sections in my one-page resume, I have one on education, where I list my degrees some a quick explanation of my main research, and another on experience. Up until now, I've always ordered that experience section by chronological order. However, I am now wondering whether I should not instead put my two years of experience in the space industry before my other entries in the experience section. If in chronological order, the first entry would be a tech startup unrelated to space, and only the second entry would be in the industry (and third one in the defense industry).

I'm seeking advice on the ordering of that section: chronological, or by relevance, knowing that I ensure my resume is only one page long.

Answer 1

Order your experience chronologically in your resume. Then use your cover letter to highlight your previous space industry experience as part of why you would be suitable for the job you are applying for.

Answer 2

Make your resume easy to parse.

Chronological is easy to parse, and is a good default.

If you actually know what the evaluation criteria are, you can rearrange your resume to mesh better with those criteria. Don't get too clever about it though: that this is a "space" job doesn't necessarily mean they care about your "space" experiences. More likely breakouts are something like technical / leadership, design / sustainment, or similar. This is best used if you have good insight into the organization you are applying to (like an internal transfer), and are confident you can tailor it in a way that will be appealing.

From the little in your question (which I know was 4 years ago!), chronological was the right answer.