I am a professional project/program manager. I'm working on looking for a new job in the next year (I know timing is bad). I have built a resume with resume.io, which produces beautiful, elegant resumes that are intrinsically readable. Resume.io asks for 10 years of employment history. This resume, with high level synopsis off jobs as we get further back in time, clocks in at 3 pages. And that's bare bones.
So I took this resume and ran it through the AI resume assistant with vmock. It had some good tips that I can address but it of course said:
..needs to be 2 pages. And you need to vastly expand the number of bullets you include on each job desc.
So we have here two conflicting views that represent an apparent trade-off. If I've only got 2 pages to highlight the "I saved the company $5M with my software" bullets that recruiters seem to lust over, what gives? The trade-off here seems to be to remove other sections, e.g. certifications, education, etc. in favor of these super-duper bullet points. But, given that everybody seems to always claim that they "saved the company $5M" or something like that, it really isn't a difference maker because claims like that are easy to make up and hard to verify.
I should add on 2 separate occasions I hired resume/career professionals (one in 2016 and the other in 2019) to write the resume for me. Neither one produced any job leads and was money down the hole. And they each had their own "system" i.e. "templates." One produced a resume that was about 5 pages long. The other produced a resume that was 2 pages but the formatting was so bad that it would make a UX designer gag.
I'm leaning towards the "nobody really knows what gets a job other than having connections already working for the employer" answer.
But assuming that the resume still makes sense, what's the optimal mix of content in the resume format? Does anybody really know? Has there ever been a business school professor that did a study on this topic and if so, can you point me to the reference?