Your opinion is yours, of course. I prefer to have a live conversation with the candidate. I will never be able to learn a person's ability in just 60 minutes, or over a 10-page resume. Do you really need to tell me all the projects and technology you used at work? What I care about is the highlight and give me skills you are most comfortable with. All of them should be relevant to the position you are looking for. Also, CV and resume are not evidence. Interviews can show me whether the person know his / her stuff if I focus on the right questions. I've failed enough candidates I know how some people will make themselves look great on paper, but show up incompetent in real interviews, and the kinds of questions I ask aren't even tricky and don't require some deep understanding of the subject. Real conversation is better than a piece of paper, if I have to weigh the two. The longer your resume is, the more ammunition I have to throw at you during interview. I found more liars than I expected I would have.
A CV isn't a replacement for an interview, it's a tool to cut down on the number of interviews you have to conduct by giving you better information to make the decision about who to interview.
I never said it is a replacement. I said resume should be consice and get to the point. I have tons of experiences in my area of expertise, but I am not gong to sell you an autobiography of my whole career, because I know the highlight of my career. I also don't need to know your experience from 20 years ago, last 5-8 years would be enough.
No, you were responding as if that was what I was saying.
I'm struggling to understand your point when you say that a CV isn't evidence and people can look good on paper but not in person then. That's not an argument against having more information up front to help you decide whether to interview somebody or not.
Because i don't need to know everything up front. I just need to know enough about you to tell me why I should consider interviewing you and enough for me to prepare questions. I don't run interview for 15 minutes. I run between 1-2 hours interview per candidate. If you try to oversell yourself to me, you are trying too hard. I still go through the interview if I think you are the right candidate to interview even if you did send me a 50-page resume, but that doesn't mean I don't want a briefer CV.
So let me ask you the, is it okay for you to get a 20-page resume then instead of 10? How about this, someone with 40 years of experience and now you get a 40-page resume.
Where is this 15 minute interview idea coming from? I run interviews for 1–2 hours as well. I just don't want to waste that time on large numbers of candidates when I can qualify a smaller number more quickly by having better information up front.
Nobody actually does this, but yes, a 40 page CV would be fine as long as it had a cover letter or summary and it was laid out in a way that I could skim it. I'd prefer the 40 page CV to a 1 page résumé any day, because the 1 page résumé doesn't have what I need to make an informed decision. I can skim a 40 page CV in minutes without chasing anybody for more information and without conducting a 1–2 hour interview.
You've still not provided an argument against more information, just said that you don't value it. There's literally no downside as far as I can see. If you're not interested in certain details then you can just skim over them.
