I'm in the midst of writing my CV and I have come to the part where I am listing my skills and technologies used.
One thing I am torn on is how to refer to my skills, from what I see there are four options:
1. Years Knowledge
The traditional way seems to be jotting down all time between when they first learnt it and now. I.e if I learnt a language in January 2010 then I would say I had 3 Years 9 months experience, regardless of how often I used the language.
The disadvantage of this is you risk getting questions which are way above your knowledge bounds because you haven't used that skill solidly for 3.75 years.
2. Years Experience
This method sums up the total amount of time spent actually using the skill. So what was previously 3 years 9 months might instead be listed as 3 months, the total time spent actively using the skill.
The disadvantage of this is that your skills are significantly reduced compared to the people who use method 1 (based on people judging by CV)
3. Proficiency Level
This method is basically to say a skill then how proficient you think you are in that skill. I.e
C# - Novice, Java - Expert, ect.
The disadvantage of this is that not everyone measures novice and expert the same as every one else. So this hints at nothing than that you might have used that skill.
4. Just Skills
An alternate method is to just list the skills you have and not provide a metric, for example a list might then look like
c#, java, ruby
with no indication of proficiency. The interviewer can determine that in the interview themselves through questions.
The disadvantage of this is that you give no indication how good you might be in any of these skills.
Obviously 'better' is going to be highly subjective. The purpose of the question is instead, which is more likely to provide a relevant measurement of my skills without appearing to be less skilled comparative to people using other methods