It seems to me, Heather, that you’re intentionally misreading Seth’s blog. His overarching premise is that truly incredible people don’t need resumes to get truly incredible jobs. And he’s right. But wait, there’s more: Seth does suggest that there are other means of proving one’s abilities, that truly spectacular people have these means, and that all of them are “objectively” better than a Word document purporting to “prove” your worth as an employee.
And what, by the way, is so objective about a resume? The dates of employment? The duties and responsibilities? How does any of this prove one’s employability? You seem to think that other “objective” means of determining ability—such as GPA requirements—are bunk; what is it about resumes that’s somehow different or better than a GPA requirement? I would think a GPA is a FAR better indicator of someone’s ability to maintain a certain level of performance.
Here’s the real deal: resumes are the TRADITIONAL way we determine a candidate’s worth. Whether or not they’re an EFFECTIVE determinant is an open question. Seriously. How many candidates with sparkling resumes have you referred to your HMs that turn out to be total schmucks?
I think Seth is on to something. There are ginormously superior ways to identify great candidates.