nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Stating your age on a CV

brian ireland

I have been interviewing for staff for the last 4 days. Lots of the CVs had no age on them, maybe the law says you don’t need to put this on your CV, Trust me its a bad move not to put your DOB on your CV.

We can’t hire anyone under 18 and that’s it. We had more than 200 CVs with no age on them so they went in the waste folder. Why? Because we had 400 with the age clearly indicated on them and we had 40 jobs available.
Can I give you a tip if you are looking for a job?
1. State your age no matter how old or young you are.
2. If you are looking for part-time work- state the days or shifts you can work on your Application. This will make it very easy for an employer to decide if you can be called for an interview. If we just see “I am looking for a part time position” its no use as we have no idea what this means. You could be available 1.2.3.4 or five days.
3. We had loads of CVs from youth reach and these where seriously disappointing. They where missing phone numbers, home addresses, full names etc. This was dreadful and not help to the people looking for work as they went into the maybe see you later folder..

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

emuhead

It's bad HR practice to ask for age on a CV. Asking somebody to tick a box to say they are at least 18 years would achieve the same purpose. Age, marital status, family circumstances are not relevant to your company and TBH it comes across as nosy the overemphasis on wanting a date of birth from candidates. I'm not saying that's your intention. I never have put my DOB on a CV, never been asked for it and it's never held me back. But I guess the companies I was dealing with had a more professional approach to recruitment.

seablue

I never put my age on my CV.

Anyway from your job history a potential employer will have an indication of your age. I mean if you have 12 years of work experience they will know you are over 18 :-)

Mrs OBumble

Thoie wrote: »

Again, it depends on the job you're going for. It might be useful for Burger King, who pay for taxis home after late shifts, and would probably prefer not to be sending someone in a taxi from Cork to Dublin.

Yeah - but if someone from Cork gets the job, they will be likely to be moving closer to it. In this case, home address would be meaningless.

corcaigh07

I've always had my DOB on my CV, I'm 29. It would be better to take it out?

skallywag

corcaigh07 wrote: »

I've always had my DOB on my CV, I'm 29. It would be better to take it out?

I don't see any harm at all in having it in, and in any case there will be other indicators within your CV which will (usually) give your age away, e.g. year you graduated, etc.

The point being made is more that an employer should not expect by default to have this included as part of the CV.

Thoie

Tarzana wrote: »

I don't think that's the only time it might be relevant. I've seen job ads for other types of jobs where it's been specified that someone local is required or preferred for various reasons. Awkward location, relocation costs not being offered, needing to familiar with the local area for whatever reason, training courses happening in the lead up to starting that someone living away for the meantime might not be able to attend.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah - but if someone from Cork gets the job, they will be likely to be moving closer to it. In this case, home address would be meaningless.

Someone remind me in future not to make up random examples if we're going to pick them apart

The Cork/Dublin thing was meant as a humorous exaggeration which obviously fell flat!

Yes, there are other reasons why an address might be useful, no, I don't think there is anyone working in Burger King Dublin who commutes daily from Cork by public transport.

Zubeneschamali

brian ireland wrote: »

We had more than 200 CVs with no age on them so they went in the waste folder. Why? Because we had 400 with the age clearly indicated on them and we had 40 jobs available.

Reminds me of David Brent in The Office, who takes half the CVs and dumps them in the bin unread. He doesn't want to hire any unlucky people.

Jim2007

The OP may have made a bad job of making their point, but the kernel of it is this: your best chance of getting to the next round is to make it as easy as possible for the recruiter to find all the information they need on your CV to make a decision about your application and do not assume for a minute that they will spend time ferreting out these details, because it is more likely that they will not!

If someone has to go through 200 resumes, no doubt they will start out being very diligent about it, but somewhere between resume 20 and resume 40 they are going to get tired doing this and they will simple switch to picking resumes that easily meet their criteria, that is human nature. Leave your age of your CV and don't bother putting your home address on it either, but by the same token do not be surprised if you don't make the cut for the interview round!

It does not matter if it is not PC or legally correct, it is what it is and you need to learn to deal with it, because human nature is not going to change.

Zubeneschamali

Jim2007 wrote: »

your best chance of getting to the next round is to make it as easy as possible for the recruiter to find all the information they need on your CV to make a decision about your application and do not assume for a minute that they will spend time ferreting out these details, because it is more likely that they will not!

The OP's best chance of hiring the best applicants was to consider all the CVs they received. Throwing 1/3 of them away like that means they probably hired 13 people who are worse candidates than people whose forms went in the bin.

Maybe they don't care, but then why have a process at all? Just grab 40 applications and bin the rest.

davo10

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The OP's best chance of hiring the best applicants was to consider all the CVs they received. Throwing 1/3 of them away like that means they probably hired 13 people who are worse candidates than people whose forms went in the bin.

Maybe they don't care, but then why have a process at all? Just grab 40 applications and bin the rest.

You've missed the point, if every employer receives 40+ cvs for each post, it is impossible to differentiate many of the applicants from each other. You cannot interview them all so most cvs get binned on "technicalities", every employer will have their own petty likes/dislikes, most applicants may hate that but that's life.

Zubeneschamali

davo10 wrote: »

every employer will have their own petty likes/dislikes

Yes, so no point worrying about the OP's particular hangups. The next employer will have different ones.

Mrs OBumble

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The OP's best chance of hiring the best applicants was to consider all the CVs they received. Throwing 1/3 of them away like that means they probably hired 13 people who are worse candidates than people whose forms went in the bin.

Maybe they don't care, but then why have a process at all? Just grab 40 applications and bin the rest.

Ahh, an employer doesn't necessarily want the best applicants.

Sometimes they want the cheapest one who is good-enough.

Yes, this can be shortsighted. But on the other hand, if you hire a highly experienced widget-woggler for a junior widget-woggling position then you have someone who is likely to get bored and leave as soon as a better job comes along - or to upset the other juniour staff in the team.

Tarzana

davo10 wrote: »

You've missed the point, if every employer receives 40+ cvs for each post, it is impossible to differentiate many of the applicants from each other. You cannot interview them all so most cvs get binned on "technicalities", every employer will have their own petty likes/dislikes, most applicants may hate that but that's life.

But there are prevailing conventions.

I know you said in a previous thread that you discount CVs with no referee details on. Most hiring or HR managers would be the complete opposite of this so the candidate is better off going with the odds. Yes, you might rub one hiring manager up the wrong way but that's way better rubbing 50 up the wrong way.

B.A._Baracus

Always put your age on your CV!!!

Helps to build up a better profile of a person.
Never put your D.O.B. on a CV tho. That's your personal details because you would be combining them with your full name & address. That's a no no.

Thoie

Jim2007 wrote: »

The OP may have made a bad job of making their point, but the kernel of it is this: your best chance of getting to the next round is to make it as easy as possible for the recruiter to find all the information they need on your CV to make a decision about your application and do not assume for a minute that they will spend time ferreting out these details, because it is more likely that they will not!

If someone has to go through 200 resumes, no doubt they will start out being very diligent about it, but somewhere between resume 20 and resume 40 they are going to get tired doing this and they will simple switch to picking resumes that easily meet their criteria, that is human nature. Leave your age of your CV and don't bother putting your home address on it either, but by the same token do not be surprised if you don't make the cut for the interview round!

It does not matter if it is not PC or legally correct, it is what it is and you need to learn to deal with it, because human nature is not going to change.

My point is that if you have some specific non-standard criteria that you're using to select candidates, then the CV route is not the right way, you'd be much better off asking people to fill out an application form that you've designed, and know it's got everything you want in there. That way if you want to throw out the CVs of people under 18, you know you're actually doing that, rather than throwing away random applications.

Most professional roles do not need either your home address or your date of birth, there are other criteria they're looking for (maybe PersonX will throw out any CVs that don't have a specific professional qualification on them). All people can go on to decide what goes into their CV/application is what appears in the job ad. If the job ad states criteria x,y,z, then yes, you can expect your CV to be binned if you don't include or meet those criteria. If I dump all CVs for "Head of Brain Surgery" because they don't list their favourite colour - I'm doing something wrong.

WoollyRedHat

davo10 wrote: »

You've missed the point, if every employer receives 40+ cvs for each post, it is impossible to differentiate many of the applicants from each other. You cannot interview them all so most cvs get binned on "technicalities", every employer will have their own petty likes/dislikes, most applicants may hate that but that's life.

But it's arbitary, because most employers with the tiniest bit of deduction can figure out whether said applicant is 18 or under by looking at both education and work experience, as already stated.

B.A._Baracus

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

But it's arbitary, because most employers with the tiniest bit of deduction can figure out whether said applicant is 18 or under by looking at both education and work experience, as already stated.

Thats very true.
Only problem is that most employers will have loads of CVs in front of them. Barely giving them any time. Sure whats the believed time... 8 seconds for looking at a cv from employers? Sad to say but I doubt most employers would mentally figure it out. They would simply go on to the next cv.

Personally, i'd rather just put my age on my CV to stop all that.

davo10

Tarzana wrote: »

But there are prevailing conventions.

I know you said in a previous thread that you discount CVs with no referee details on. Most hiring or HR managers would be the complete opposite of this so the candidate is better off going with the odds. Yes, you might rub one hiring manager up the wrong way but that's way better rubbing 50 up the wrong way.

You know Tarzana, I actually came around to the populist convention on that one, next time around I won't be looking for referees to be stated, I recognise that I was wrong on that one. But next time around when I have 40 cvs in front of me and only want to interview 5, I'll bin the other 35 for some other reason. That's the way it works when you can't interview everyone that applies and who meet the minimum requirements for the job.

Diziet

I don't see why employers would spend any time figuring out someone's age. I have looked at plenty of CVs and done plenty of interviews; employers do not expect an age on the cv at all. At worst it leaves them open to a discrimination claim.

davo10

Diziet wrote: »

I don't see why employers would spend any time figuring out someone's age. I have looked at plenty of CVs and done plenty of interviews; employers do not expect an age on the cv at all. At worst it leaves them open to a discrimination claim.

Only if they state that is the reason for you not getting the job, have you known an employer to say "you are not getting this job because you are too old"?

The fact is that some employers want a young, enthusiastic employee who wants to make a name for themselves rather than a middle aged person who is comfortable just doing what the job requires. Others want an experienced person who knows the ropes rather than a young whipper snapper who thinks he/she knows it all. Applicants really don't know what sets them apart from other applicants at cv stage, it could be some whim on the employers part, but if you think it might make a difference, why not include your age, you never know it could get you an interview, or not as in OPs case.

Tarzana

davo10 wrote: »

You know Tarzana, I actually came around to the populist convention on that one, next time around I won't be looking for referees to be stated, I recognise that I was wrong on that one. But next time around when I have 40 cvs in front of me and only want to interview 5, I'll bin the other 35 for some other reason. That's the way it works when you can't interview everyone that applies and who meet the minimum requirements for the job.

Yup, I know that people have their own ways of filtering CVs, but people can't know what that thing will be so the best a candidate can do is to follow conventions, make it succinct and comprehensive and neat and typo/spelling mistake free. That's it.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The OP's best chance of hiring the best applicants was to consider all the CVs they received. Throwing 1/3 of them away like that means they probably hired 13 people who are worse candidates than people whose forms went in the bin.

Maybe they don't care, but then why have a process at all? Just grab 40 applications and bin the rest.

It is not about the OP, it is about putting yourself in the best possible position to get the job. As long as you get one of the 40 positions, does it really matter who the other 13 were, seriously!!!

Diziet

davo10 wrote: »

Only if they state that is the reason for you not getting the job, have you known an employer to say "you are not getting this job because you are too old"?

The fact is that some employers want a young, enthusiastic employee who wants to make a name for themselves rather than a middle aged person who is comfortable just doing what the job requires. Others want an experienced person who knows the ropes rather than a young whipper snapper who thinks he/she knows it all. Applicants really don't know what sets them apart from other applicants at cv stage, it could be some whim on the employers part, but if you think it might make a difference, why not include your age, you never know it could get you an interview, or not as in OPs case.

Of course they don't quote it, but discrimination does not have to be stated. In fact, you saying that you want a young enthusiastic employee and stating that anyone middle aged is comfortable doing just what the job requires is enough to land you with a problem. If you think it makes a difference, there is nothing to stop you including your age, but as employers do not expect it, it seems a very out of date and out of touch thing to do.

davo10

Diziet wrote: »

Of course they don't quote it, but discrimination does not have to be stated. In fact, you saying that you want a young enthusiastic employee and stating that anyone middle aged is comfortable doing just what the job requires is enough to land you with a problem. If you think it makes a difference, there is nothing to stop you including your age, but as employers do not expect it, it seems a very out of date and out of touch thing to do.

If it is not stated, how do you know you are being discriminated against on age alone?

Weather you feel it is "out of date" matters not a jot, you are not the one offering the job.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, what I'm saying is that employers have a preference on the type of applicant they are looking for.

RainyDay

davo10 wrote: »

Only if they state that is the reason for you not getting the job, have you known an employer to say "you are not getting this job because you are too old"?

Check the case histories from the Equality Tribunal, it is far more subtle than that. There are many cases where employers said nothing like "you are not getting this job because you are too old" and still ended up losing cases and paying out.

Jim2007

Diziet wrote: »

If you think it makes a difference, there is nothing to stop you including your age, but as employers do not expect it, it seems a very out of date and out of touch thing to do.

Well I'm 50+ and I put my age on my resume for the simple reason the I have no intention of wasting my time doing interviews for jobs I'm not going to get! I was unemployed for two months last year and yes I got rejections because of my age, but a least in the three cases I did attend for interview I was sure that Age was not going to be an issue in the selection process. And I was offered two out of the three positions.

It is almost the norm in Europe to include such information on the resume, for instance in Germanic countries they include a section called 'Persönliche Angaben', which includes: Address, DOB, Sex, Nationality, Marital Status, work permit status and children (with an indication if you are the primary care giver).

This whole idea in Ireland that there is no discrimination in the recruitment process is total nonsense! The only difference between here and the rest of Europe is that people waste their time interviewing and being interviewed in order to ferret out information that is normally available as part of the process in other countries.

Tarzana

Jim2007 wrote: »

This whole idea in Ireland that there is no discrimination in the recruitment process is total nonsense!

I don't think anyone is claiming that.

I really wish people on boards.ie would get over bloody Germany. (and Germanic countries in general)

Jim2007

Tarzana wrote: »

I really wish people on boards.ie would get over bloody Germany. (and Germanic countries in general)

No what we need to do stop following the US nonsense and realise that there are far better opportunities and lifestyles available!

Tarzana

The Irish job application and recruitment process is very different from the US in a lot of ways.

Shelflife

If the job involves something like selling alcohol then the law requires them to be over 18. Now while its possible to work out roughly what some ones age is by looking at their education details, its quiet possible that someone can do their leaving cert and still be only 16 or 17 but could easily be 18 or 19 as well.

if you get a lot of applicants its simply not possible to interview them all. even if you clearly state the hours involved and an age limit of 18 you will still get people getting to the interview stage who will tell you that they cant work all the hours or any of the hours clearly stipulated in the job description or they turn up and you find out that they are only 17.

Personally I cant see the problem putting the age on a CV, if an employer is going to discriminate on an age basis they can do it at the CV stage or at the interview stage. Only difference is that you have incurred the expense of attending an interview. (not condoning it, just pointing it out).