Advice, Literature

Six Steps to a Daily Writing Habit

I identify so strongly as a person who writes daily that I sometimes find myself bowled over by the fact that I haven’t always done it.

Since my first attempt to write a novel (at age 13), I’ve known that I really enjoy writing. The problem was that I could never really get myself to write. I managed the occasional short story for a contest and I pulled off NaNoWriMo when I was 20, but even after that, writing remained something that happened almost at random. Even when I had something I really wanted to write it was a toss-up as to whether I would be able to sit down and get it on a page.

This continued for a while. Up until January 1st, 2015, I had written maybe 100,000 words. Since then, I’ve written something like 650,000. If your first million words suck – as is commonly claimed – then I’m ¾ of the way to writing non-sucking words.

What changed in 2015? I made a New Year’s Resolution to write more. And then, when that began to fall apart a few months later (as almost all New Year’s Resolutions do), I sought out better commitment devices.

Did you read my first paragraph and feel like it describes you? Do you want to stop trying to write and start actually writing? If your brain works like mine, you can use what I’ve learned to skip over (some of) the failing part and go right to the writing every single day part [1].

Step 1: Cultivate Love

I like having completed writing projects to show off as much as the next person, but I also enjoy the act of writing. If you don’t actually enjoy writing, you may have a problem. My techniques are designed to help people (like me) who genuinely enjoy writing once they get going but have trouble forcing themselves to even start.

If you find writing to be a grim chore, but want to enjoy writing so that you can have the social or financial benefits (heh) of writing, then it will be much harder for you to write regularly. If you aren’t sure if this describes you or not, pause and ask yourself: would writing every day still be worth it if no one ever read what I wrote and I never made a single cent off of it? There’s nothing wrong with preferring that people read what you write and preferring to make money off of writing if possible, but it is very helpful if you’re willing to write even without external validation.

Writing (at least partially) for the sake of writing means that you won’t become discouraged if your writing never “takes off”. Almost no one sees success (measured in book deals, blog traffic, or Amazon downloads) right away. So being able to keep going in the face of the world’s utter indifference is a key determinant of how robust your writing habit will be.

If you don’t like writing for its own sake, don’t despair completely. It’s possible you might come to love it if you spend more time on it. As you start to write regularly, try out lots of things and figure out what you like and dislike. It can be hard to tell the difference between not liking writing and not liking the types of writing you’ve done.

For example, I’m a really exploratory writer. I’ve found that I don’t enjoy writing if there’s a strict outline I’m trying to follow or if I’m constrained by something someone else has written. Fanfiction is one of the common ways that new writers develop their skills, but I really dislike writing fanfiction. Realizing this has allowed me to avoid a bunch of writing that I’d find tedious. Tedious writing is a big risk to your ability to write daily, so if you can reasonably avoid it, you should.

Step 2: Start Small

When learning a new skill or acquiring a new habit, it’s really tempting to try and dive right in and do everything at once. I’d like to strongly discourage this sort of thing. If you get overwhelmed right at the start you’re unlikely to keep with it. Sometimes jumping right into the deep end teaches you to swim, sure. But sometimes you drown. Or develop a fear of water.

It isn’t enough to set things up so that you’ll be fine if everything goes as planned. A good starting level is something that won’t be hard even if life gets in the way. Is your starting goal achievable even if you had to work overtime for the next two weeks? If not, consider toning it down a bit.

You should set a measurable, achievable, and atomic goal. In practice, measurable means numeric, so I’d recommend committing to a specific number of words each day or a specific amount of daily time writing. Here Beeminder will be your best friend [2].

Beeminder is a service that helps you bind your future self to your current goals. You set up a goal (like writing 100,000 words) and a desired daily progress (say, 200 words each day) towards that goal. Each day, Beeminder will make sure you’ve made enough progress towards your desired end-state. If you haven’t, Beeminder charges your credit card (you can choose to pay anywhere from $5 to $2430). Fail again and it charges you more (up to a point; you can set your own maximum). In this way, Beeminder can “sting” you into completing your goals.

For the first few months of my writing habit, I tracked my daily words in a notebook. This fell apart during my final exams. I brought in Beeminder at the start of the next month to salvage the habit and it worked like a charm. Beeminder provided me a daily kick in the pants to get writing; it made me unlikely to skip writing out of laziness, tiredness, or lack of a good idea.

Beeminder only works for numeric goals, so there’s the first of the triad I mentioned covered.

Next, your goal should be achievable; something you have no doubt you can do. Not something some idealized, better, or perfect version of you could do. Something you, with all your constraints and flaws are sure you can achieve. Don’t worry about making this too small. Fifty or one hundred words per day is a perfectly adequate starter goal.

Lastly, atomic. Atomic goals can’t be broken down any further. Don’t start by Beeminding blog posts or gods forfend, novels! Pick the smallest unit of writing you can, probably either time or word count, and make your goal about this. When you’re Beeminding words or time, you can’t fail and get discouraged for lack of ideas or “writer’s block” [3]. It’s much better to spend a week writing detailed journals of every day (or even a detailed description of your bedroom) than it is to spend a week not writing because you can’t think of what to write.

My recommended starter goals are either: write 150 words each day or write 15 minutes each day. Both of these are easy to Beeminder and should be easy for most people to achieve.

Step 3: Acquire Confidence

Even with goals that easy, your first few days or weeks may very well be spent just barely meeting them, perhaps as Beeminder breaths down your neck. Writing is like exercise. It’s surprising how hard it can be to do it every day if you’re starting from nothing.

Here’s the start of my very first Beeminder writing goal. You’ll notice that I started slowly, panicked and wrote a lot, then ran into trouble and realized that I needed to tone things down a bit. It wasn’t until almost four months in that I finally hit my stride and started to regularly exceed my goal.

Dip below the yellow and orange line and you pay up. Green data points mean I had at least three safe days before paying Beeminder. Blue data points are two days. Orange is one.

You can see a similar pattern when I started Beeminding fiction:

The trouble at the beginning is growing pains. The trouble around the end of October came from dropping out of graduate school, moving back home, and beginning a job search.

And when I started Beeminding time spent writing:

Those little spurs three data points into the time graph and seven into the fiction one? That’s where I failed to keep up and ended up giving Beeminder money. They call this “derailing”.

It may take a few derailments, but you should eventually find yourself routinely exceeding your starting goal (if you don’t, either this advice doesn’t work well for you, or you set your original goal too high). Be careful of allowing success to ruin your habit; try and write at least X words each day, not X words each day on average over the course of a week.

The number of days before you derail on a goal in Beeminder is called “safety buffer”. For outputs you intend to Beemind daily, I recommend setting yourself up so that you can have no more than two days of safety buffer. This lets you save up some writing for a busy day or two, but doesn’t let you skip a whole week. If you have a premium plan, Beeminder allows you to automatically cap your safety buffer, but you can also do it manually if you’re disciplined (I did this for many months until I could afford a premium plan).

The set-up on my daily writing time goal.

When you get to the point of regularly trimming your safety buffer you’re almost ready to move on up. Once you’re really, really sure you can handle more (i.e. exceeded your minimum every day for two weeks), slowly increase your commitment. You don’t want to get too cocky here. If you’re currently aiming for 150 words/day and 9 days out of 10 you write 250, set your new goal to 200, not 250. You want to feel like you’re successfully and competently meeting your goal, not like you’re scrapping by by the skin of your teeth.

Step 4: Make Molecules

Once you become comfortable with your atomic goals and find stable long term resting spots for them, you can start to Beemind more complex outputs. This is using Beeminder to directly push you towards your goals. Want to work on your blog? Beemind blog posts. Want to work on a book? Beemind pages or chapters or scenes. Want to keep a record of your life? Beemind weekly journals.

These are all complicated outputs made up of many words or minutes of writing. You won’t finish them as regularly. It’s easy to sit down and crank out enough words in an hour to hit most word count goals. But these larger outputs might not be achievable in a single day, especially if you have work or family commitments. That’s why you want your writing habit well established and predictable by the time you take them on.

Remember, you don’t want to set yourself up for failure if it’s at all avoidable. Don’t take on a more complex output as a Beeminder goal until you have a sense of how long it will take you to produce each unit of it and always start at a rate where you’re sure you can deliver. Had a few weeks of finishing one chapter a week? Start your Beeminder goal at one chapter every ten days.

It’s easy to up your Beeminder goal when you find it’s too lenient. It’s really hard to get back into writing after a string of discouragements caused by setting your goals too aggressive.

Even when you manage to meet overambitious goals, you might suffer for it in other ways. I’m not even talking about your social life or general happiness taking a hit (even though those are both very possible). Stretching yourself too thin can make your writing worse!

I had a period where I was Beeminding regularly publishing writing at a rate faster than I was really capable of. I managed to make my goal anyway, but I did it by writing simple, low-risk posts. I shoved aside some of the more complex and rewarding things I was looking forward to writing because I was too stubborn to ease back on my goal. It took me months to realize that I’d messed up and get rid of the over-ambitious goal.

It was only after I dialed everything back and gave myself more space to work that I started producing things I was really proud of again. That period with the overambitious goal stands out as one of the few times since I started writing again where I produced nothing I’m particularly proud of.

Tuning down the publishing goal didn’t even cause me to write less. I didn’t dial back my atomic goals, just my more complicated one, so I was still writing the same amount. When I was ready to begin publishing things I’d written again, I started the goal at a much lower rate. After a few months of consistently exceeding it, I raised the rate.

Here’s what my original goal looked like:

It’s hard to see, but I derailed five times between the end of December 2015 and the start of May 2016. I wasn’t derailing much in March in April, but I also wasn’t writing anything I was proud of. It was a terrible dilemma. Do I write thoughtful posts and lose money? Or do I churn out work I’m not proud of to save me the costs of a derailment? I think now I’d rather the derailments. At least I liked what I was writing when I was derailing.

Here’s my new blogging goal:

No derailments here! I started this at the rate of one post per month and only increased the slope at the end of March after I’d proved to myself that I wouldn’t have any problems keeping up the pace. It was a near thing at the start of May after two weeks of vacation where I’d had less chance to write than I hoped, but it turned out okay. In retrospect, it probably would have been smarter to increase the rate after my vacation, not before.

As you can see, I learned my lesson about over-ambition.

Step 5: Vanquish Guilt

At the same time as you work on Beeminding more complex outputs, you will want to be examining and replacing the guilt based motivation structure you may have built to get there.

Guilt can be a useful motivator to do the bare minimum on a project; guilt (and terror) is largely what got me through university. But guilt is a terrible way to build a long-term habit. If writing is something you do to avoid a creeping guilt, you may start to associate negative feelings with writing; if you started a writing habit because you love writing, then you’re risking that very love if you motivate yourself solely with guilt.

I recommend looking at Beeminder not as a tool to effectively guilt yourself into writing, but as a reminder of what writing is worth to you. You value consistently writing at $X. You know that every time you skip writing for a day or a week, there is a Y% chance that you might lose the habit. Multiply those two together and you get your ideal maximum Beeminder pledge.

$0 pledges are another fancy premium Beeminder feature. It’s only $0 once though. Every time I derail, it goes up to the next highest pledge level. It takes a full week to lower your pledge by one level, so bee careful.

It’s entirely rational to choose to derail on Beeminder if you value something else more than you value writing just then Here Beeminder is helping you make this trade-off explicit. You may know that not writing tonight costs you $Z of estimated future utility (this doesn’t necessarily mean future earnings; it could also represent the how much writing is worth to you as an entertainment), but without Beeminder you wouldn’t be facing it head on. When you can directly compare the utility of two ways to spend your time, you can make better decisions and trade-offs.

That said, it rarely comes to mutual exclusion. Often Beeminder prompts me to find a way to write, even if there’s something else I really want to do that partially conflicts. Things that I might lazily view as mutually exclusive often turn out not to be, once there’s money on the line.

It may seem hard to make this leap, especially when you start out with Beeminder. But after two years of regularly Beeminder use, I can honestly say that it doesn’t guilt me into anything. Even when it forces me to write, the emotional tone isn’t quite guilt. Beeminder is an effective goad because it helps me see the causal chain between writing tonight and having a robust writing habit. I write because I’m proud of the amount I write and I want to keep being proud of it. I’m not spurring myself with guilt and using that negativity to move forward. I’m latching onto the pride I want to be able to feel and navigating towards that.

Mere reminders to write are the least of what I get out Beeminder though. Beeminder became so much more effective for me once I started to regularly surpass my goals. Slowly, I began to be motivated mostly by exceeding them and that motivation led me to exceed them by ever greater margins and enjoy every minute of it.

For more about the perils of guilt as a motivational tool (and some suggestions on how to replace it), check out the replacing guilt sequence on Nate Soare’s blog, Minding Our Way. For a TL;DR, try “Don’t steer with guilt“.

Step 6: Success Spiral

This is the part where everything starts to come together. When you get here, guilt based motivation is but a dim memory. You write because you want to. Beeminder helps keep you on track, but you’re more likely to spend a bit of extra time writing to see the spike in your graphs than you are because you’ll derail otherwise.

When you get to this point (or earlier, depending on how you like to work), something like Complice can really help you make the most of all your motivation. Complice helps you tie your daily actions into the set long- and medium-term goals you’ve set. It has a kickass Beeminder integration that makes Beeminding as easy checking off a box. It has integrated Pomodoro timers for tracking how much time you work (and can send the results to Beeminder). It allows you and a friend to sign up as accountability buddies and see what each other get done [4]. And it shows you how much work you’ve done in the past, allowing you to use the “don’t break the chain” productivity hack if it works for you (it works for me).

The last few weeks of my writing goal in Complice. For two of the days in the pictured period, I only wrote because I couldn’t bear to lose my streak of days where I’d hit my writing goal.

As I finish off this piece, I find myself tired and lethargic. It’s not that I particularly want to be writing (although some of the tiredness fell away as soon as I started to type). It’s that writing every night feels like the default option of my life. As weird as it sounds, it feels like it would take me more effort to skip writing than to do it.

This is really good, because any grumpiness about writing I might start with is often gone in under five minutes. The end result of me writing – even on a day when starting was hard – is improved mood for the whole day. I love the sense of accomplishment that creating something brings.

The road here wasn’t exactly easy. It’s taken more than two and a half years, hundreds of thousands of words, incipient carpal tunnel, and many false starts. It’s the false starts that inspired me to write this. I doubt, dear reader, that you are exactly like me. Likely some of this advice won’t work for you. It is, however, my hope that it can point you in the right direction. Perhaps my false starts can save you some of your own.

I would feel deeply uncomfortable giving anyone advice on how to be a better writer; I don’t feel confident enough in my craft for that [5]. But I do feel like I know how to develop a kickass writing habit, the sort of habit that gives you the practice you need to get better. If you too want to write regularly, how about you give this a try?

Postscript

I think the steps outlined here could be used to help build a variety of durable habits across disciplines. Want to program, cook, draw, or learn a new language? Think that in any of those cases a daily habit would be helpful? This advice is probably transferable to some degree. That said, I haven’t tried to repeat this process for any of those things, so I don’t know what the caveats are or where it will break down. If you adapt this post for anything else, let me know and I’ll link to it here.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the kind folks at Beeminder for helping me create some of the graphs used in this post. In addition, thanks are due for fielding my semi-panicked support requests when the graph generation caused some problems with my account.

Thanks to Malcolm Ocean of Complice for pointing me towards Beeminder in the first place and for the year in review post that spurred me to make writing my New Year’s Resolution in 2015.

Disclaimer

I genuinely like the people whose products I recommend in this blog post. I genuinely like their creations. They aren’t giving me anything to recommend their stuff.

True story: Beeminder sent out a survey about referral links and I told them they could set up a referral system, but I’d never use it. I think Beeminder and Complice are incredibly valuable tools that are tragically under-used and I don’t want to risk even the appearance of a conflict of interest that might make people less likely to follow my recommendations to use them. For me, they’ve been literally life-changing.

I’ve linked to my specific Beeminder writing goals (there are four of them) at various points throughout this post, but if you want the proof that I’m not talking out of my ass all nicely collected in one place, you can check out my progress towards all of my Beeminder goals at: https://www.beeminder.com/zacharyjacobi.

Footnotes:

[1] If this advice doesn’t work for you, don’t sweat it. I’m just a dude on the internet. This isn’t the bible. What works for me may not work for you and there’s nothing wrong with you if it doesn’t. You’ll just have to find your own way, is all. ^

[2] If Beeminder doesn’t work for you, I recommend a human accountability buddy (who will check up on your writing progress each day and maybe take your money if you aren’t hitting your goals). ^

[3] The best advice about writer’s block I’ve ever seen came from Cory Doctorow. He said that some days he feels like he’s inspired and a heavenly chorus is writing for him and other days he feels like he can’t write worth shit and has no clue what’s he’s supposed to be doing. He goes on to say that no matter how strong these feelings are, a month later he can’t tell the which words were written in which state. ^

[4] I cannot recommend this feature highly enough for people in long-distance relationships. ^

[5] For non-fiction writing advice, try the Slate Star Codex post of the same name. For more general advice, here’s tips from 23 different authors. ^

Advice, Software

A Dialogue on Lateral Thinking

Cast: The Hare (interviewer #1), The Coyote (interviewer #2), and The Tortoise (interviewee).

Hare: Okay, that wraps up the technical portion of the interview. Now we want to ask you some lateral thinking questions.
Tortoise: Lateral thinking questions?
Coyote: You know, questions that challenge your ability to come up with non-obvious solutions? Or when you find a solution by throwing out all your assumptions? Here at Acme Corp., we pride ourselves in coming up creative solutions to problems.
Tortoise: Okay…
Hare: We’ll start off easy [1]. Acting on an anonymous phone call, the police raid a house to arrest a suspected murderer. They don’t know what he looks like but they know his name is John and that he is inside the house. The police bust in on a carpenter, a lorry driver, a mechanic and a fireman all playing poker. Without hesitation or communication of any kind, they immediately arrest the fireman. How do they know they’ve got their man?
Tortoise: Hmmm… Well, if they can immediately tell the profession of everyone in the room without saying anything, presumably everyone is dressed in clothes emblematic of their profession. I think the jumpsuits firefighters…

The Hare snorts in amusement.

Image Credit: MaxPixel

Tortoise: As I was saying, the jumpsuits that firefighters wear often have nametags on them. So they arrest him because he’s wearing a jumpsuit that says “John”?
Coyote: Not quite right, I’m afraid. You see, all the other poker players were women.
Tortoise: I don’t really see how… You aren’t next going to ask me the one about the surgeon operating on her son are you? This isn’t secretly the HR section of the interview?
Hare: No, you’re already through that.
Tortoise: Because I assure you, I do think women can do anything men can.
Coyote: We weren’t questioning that at all.
Tortoise: It just seems weird to have a problem that hinges on interpreting fireman in an archaic way. I’m given to understand that it’s essentially gender neutral now, although I thought firefighter was preferred… Sorry, this is a tangent. You said you had more questions.
Hare: How about you ask the next one Coyote.
Coyote: A man lives in the penthouse of an apartment building. Every morning he takes the elevator down to the lobby and leaves the building. Upon his return, however, he can only travel halfway up in the lift and has to walk the rest of the way – unless it’s raining. What is the explanation for this?
Tortoise: That’s a really odd way for an elevator to work. What time period is this?
Coyote: That isn’t important to the question.
Tortoise: Okay, I know this is a digression, but how can more information not be important to the question? Like this is basic scientific method. You formulate a hypothesis that is capable of being falsified by the world. Then you see if the world falsifies it. And you keep doing it until you have a hypothesis that doesn’t get proven false. It’s basically the same as test-driven development, come to think of it. Didn’t you just ask me if I did TDD?
Hare: We do TDD. We also write code on computers, not whiteboards. The interview doesn’t map quite perfectly to the job, but we have found how candidates perform on these questions often correlates well with their later performance.
Tortoise: Okay, if you say so. Um… maybe the elevator uses water as a counterweight, but the counterweight leaks a lot and only really works properly when it rains? I really don’t have a better answer.
Coyote: Nope. The man is a little person. He can only reach the button for his penthouse when he has an umbrella with him.
Tortoise: Couldn’t he just carry an extendable pointer with him and use that?
Hare: If it’s any consolation, I got this one wrong too. Now I like to visualize the guy as the kind of person who is so lazy he won’t do anything he doesn’t absolutely have to, even if doing it would save him time.
Coyote: Hare keeps insisting that getting this one wrong is a badge of pride, because it proves that you have a huge inferential gap to that kind of laziness.
Tortoise: That’s the most reasonable thing I’ve heard in the last five minutes.

Coyote snickers nervously.

Image Credit: Jitze Couperus

Coyote: Um… Well, one last question: Assume there are approximately 7,000,000,000 (7 billion) people on Earth. What would you estimate to be the result, if you multiply together the number of fingers on every person’s left-hands?
Tortoise: Oh wow, that’s… oh, I see! Zero. There’s plenty of people with no fingers, so the result has to be zero.
Coyote: I’m glad you got that one. When people try and write out a solution the whole thing gets out of hand.

Tortoise groans.

Image Credit: Eric Kilby

Hare: Actually, that brings up an interesting point. Are puns a form of lateral thinking?
Coyote: I don’t think so. I think puns are more of a brute force thing. You know roughly what you want to say and what you’re punning off of, so you can do a brute force search in your head for likely combinations.
Tortoise: Puns feel closer than those questions. When I think of lateral thinking, I think of a much less constrained solution space. I felt like those problems just tested my ability to be clever in the exact right way on command.
Coyote: What does having one answer have to do with it?
Tortoise: Well look at your first question. A priori, I don’t think any reasonable person would consider my hypothesis less likely than the “correct” answer. If I was in the room with the police, then obviously my answer would reflect reality less closely than the answer that John is the only man in the room. But without that information, it really is just luck if you stumble onto the one right answer. Anchoring effects mean it’s hard to generate multiple plausible answers. And because you’re anchored onto the “right” answer, you view my answer as obviously incorrect.
Hare: You honestly did fine on this section. You really don’t have to argue about your score.
Tortoise: It’s not about score, it’s about the principle of the thing! Even if lateral thinking is a useful quality in a software developer–
Hare: What makes you think it isn’t?
Tortoise: Lateral thinking, by definition, involves unexpected solutions. Answer me honestly: do you like reading code where someone did the unexpected thing? I’d rather an ugly but conventional solution to an unexpected one that’s “elegant”. I mean, there’s a reason no one uses Perl any more, right? “More than one way to do it” is a horrible philosophy for code that has to be read by many people!
Coyote: Tortoise has a point there, Hare. I remember when Perl programmers used to brag to me that they could write a web server in one line of code. It made me think of the scientists in Jurassic Park. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you immediately have to go out and do it.
Hare: I don’t think programmers need to use lateral thinking all the time. But aren’t there often places where an unconventional solution saves a lot of time?
Tortoise: Name one.
Hare: What?
Tortoise: Name one unconventional solution you’ve implemented that saves time. Bonus points if you don’t need five lines of comments to keep everyone else on the team from being confused by it.
Coyote: I actually have one! I had to round to the nearest half to enable functionality that the designer wanted. I considered this horrible concept with recursive if-statements. But then I found out there was a much better way to do it. You just multiply your number by two, round, then divide by two. It’s one line and perfectly clear if you think about it for a second.
Tortoise: So why didn’t you ask me about that?
Hare: We have an interview script. We can’t just change whenever one of us comes up with a clever solution to a problem.
Tortoise: Then pick a few examples in your code where you actually had to think laterally and give them out as worksheets. At least that has a chance of accurately measuring our lateral thinking. And if we get it right, you have a convenient baseline in Hare here.
Coyote: Actually, I didn’t come up with the solution.
Hare and Tortoise: Stack Overflow?
Coyote: Stack Overflow [2].
All pause to consider this.
Coyote: Huh. So if I understand you correctly Tortoise, your point is twofold. One, lateral thinking isn’t a very important quality in a programmer. Doing things conventionally is actually more useful, because as Guido van Rossum pointed out when he designed Python, code is read more than it’s written.
Tortoise: That’s a really good way of phrasing it. How would you phrase my second point?
Hare: Actually, can I try this one?
Tortoise: Certainly!
Hare: The way we’re testing candidates on lateral thinking is pretty much invalid because there’s only one right answer and it’s the one we’ve already decided on. A better test of lateral thinking would be to give candidates some of the problems where lateral thinking was actually useful to us. And if we do this, we should be open to solutions that are different (or even better) than ours. Like your jumpsuit solution of the John problem.
Tortoise blushes
Tortoise: I think that sums it up well. And thanks.
Coyote: One thing I still feel weird about is treating lateral thinking as not that important.
Tortoise: I may have overstated my opposition a bit. I don’t think it’s unimportant. But I think there are many other skills that are more important and easier to test. Technical writing is a good example. It’s actually pretty easy to test someone’s technical writing and documentation abilities in an interview and that’s a skill a good programmer will use every day.
Hare: Or time estimation! I bet we could incorporate that really easily into the blackboard task.
Tortoise: Oh, that’s a really good one. I’m definitely stealing that for interviews I conduct in the future.
Coyote: I’ve got it!
The Tortoise and the Hare stare at him blankly.
Coyote: I’ve realized why I felt so bad about us not being enthusiastic about lateral thinking. I read a lot of science fiction and a lot of my heroes (like Ender, Breq, and Miles Vorkosigan) use lateral thinking to win. And you know how it is… when you read books like that, you want to imagine you’re like the hero. Admitting that lateral thinking isn’t that important to programmers feels like admitting I’m not like them.
Tortoise: Actually, I think Ender is the best example of convention being useful. A lot of what Ender did with Dragon army didn’t involve lateral thinking so much as it involved taking what Ender already knew worked from all of his experiments with his launch group practice sessions and putting it into systems where others could easily use it. This is the sort of thing you see really great programmers do. They make everyone else’s job easier by designing really good systems that transfer well. It was systems that let Ender win all of his battles but the last
Coyote: That’s a different way of looking at it.
Hare: It seems like in a lot of fields, lateral thinking is what makes people great, instead of really good. I’m think scientists and pro athletes, for example. And maybe that’s true in ours as well. But it also might be that what makes a really great programmer is their ability to build up systems that other members of their team can use.
Tortoise: And lateral thinking does help! Whoever it was on StackOverflow that came up with that answer, or whoever taught it to them, that person had to do some lateral thinking. And they’ve ended up saving a lot of programmers a lot of time with it.
Hare: But if we’re counting up total time saved, I guess Stack Overflow takes the cake, doesn’t it?
Tortoise: Yeah, Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood definitely showed how systems are incredibly useful to programmers.
Hare: Well now that that’s all cleared up, we’re actually out of questions. So do you have any questions for us?
Tortoise: So about your benefits package…


Footnotes:

[1] All puzzles in this dialogue taken from http://www.folj.com/lateral/ ^

[2] Specifically this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6137986/javascript-roundoff-number-to-nearest-0-5 ^

Advice, Ethics, Politics

Why I Don’t Want Kellie Leitch to Lead the Conservative Party (and how to Stop her)

Note: A previous version of this post referred to Kellie Leitch as “Ms. Leitch” instead of “Dr. Leitch”. I don’t know how I forgot she was a doctor, but I’m deeply sorry that I did. 

Why I Don’t Want Kellie Leitch to Lead the Conservative Party

A couple months ago, I wrote of Kellie Leitch:

I remain genuinely unsure what Kellie Leitch’s goal is. I went into this blog convinced she was another hypocrite who was only using queer Canadians when it suited her racists agenda. And yet, she voted yea to Bill 279 (to treat gender identity as a protected class) despite almost every single one of her cabinet colleagues opposing it. She does appear to have a principled and reasonably long standing support for queer rights. She voted the party line on whipped bills (as does basically every MP in Canada), but when she’s allowed to vote her conscience, we see that it is rather different than many of the other Conservatives. She may be a political opportunist who can sense which way the wind blows. Or she may be trying to change the conservatives from within.

I spent weeks wondering: is Dr. Leitch just a political opportunist, or is she driven by real (albeit misguided) principles? This week, she provided me with an answer [1]:

“Tonight, our American cousins threw out the elites and elected Donald Trump as their next president. It’s an exciting message and one that we need delivered in Canada as well. It’s the message I’m bringing with my campaign to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.”

So political opportunist it is then.

Let’s be clear, Kellie Leitch isn’t Donald Trump. She’s calculating and clever. She isn’t going to get embroiled in pointless feuds. People are genuinely worried that Trump might declare a literal shooting war if a foreign leader tweets the wrong thing at him. No one is seriously concerned Kellie Leitch would do the same.

And yet.

Donald Trump hasn’t even taken office, but already his election has changed America. His supporters, emboldened at the thought of no longer being held accountable for bigotry are chomping at the bit. Real people, vulnerable people, are being hurt because of this.

Even if (hypothetical) Prime Minister Kellie Leitch governs soundly and sensibly, even if she never enacts a tip-line for “barbaric cultural practices” and never sets up screening for “anti-Canadian values” [2], her candidacy or victory represents a real risk to black, indigenous, southeast Asian, and Muslim Canadians. As much as we’d love to believe otherwise, there are dangerous racists in Canada. A win for Kellie Leitch on a platform of “Canadian Values” and coded anti-Muslim rhetoric would give this small minority social license to harass, attack, and intimidate. A win by Michael Chong or Eric O’Toole would not.

Unfortunately, there is a real risk that Kellie Leitch could become the next leader of the Conservative party (and from there, possibly PM). It’s a crowded field and she’s learned the correct lessons from Donald Trump. Milk every controversy for as much media attention as possible and strongly appeal to the parts of your base most concerned with the changing appearance of Canada.

It’s rich that Kellie Leitch, who received her bachelor’s at Queens, holds an MD and an MBA, and has worked as a surgeon, professor, MP, and cabinet minister, can campaign on a message that the “elites” need to go. A politics without elites would by necessity be a politics without Dr. Leitch.

But this only scratches the surface of my disagreements with Dr. Leitch; I oppose every policy in her platform. I think her plan to put an absolute cap on government spending is silly. The government needs the flexibility to meet any obstacles it faces. Prime ministers from Pierre Elliot Trudeau to Brian Mulroney to Steven Harper all understood this. I oppose her stance on marijuana – I think prohibition doesn’t work and most Canadians agree with me. Myself and others think that her proposed screening for anti-Canadian values in immigrants is easily subverted and a solution in search of a problem.

I encourage everyone else who opposes Dr. Leitch to focus on her policies and why they’re bad for Canada. Insofar as our values differ from those of Dr. Leitch, we should take the time to explain why. We should seek dialogue with her supporters and seek to allay their fears. We should be proud defenders of globalization and immigration and all the benefits they have brought. We should not retreat into our filter bubbles and dismiss the rest of Canada as the wrong kind of people. That kind of retrenchment doesn’t have the best track record right now.

I think there are much better candidates in the conservative leadership race. Michael Chong, for example, has an excellent record on social issues and supports carbon pricing. He and I have policy disagreements, but a Conservative Party of Canada led by Michael Chong would be a contender for my vote in the next election. Given that the NDP has abandoned me, I would dearly like to be able to make a choice between two parties with sound policy proposals and positive plans for Canada going forward. I could not do that with Kellie Leitch at the head of the Conservative Party.

4 Things You Can Do To Help

Kellie Leitch is relying on free media attention to differentiate her from a crowded field. Under no circumstances should we advocate for deliberate suppression of stories about Dr. Leitch. And yet, outrage generates clicks. As long as Kellie Leitch can profit from her simple algorithm – say something objectionable, but not so objectionable that the party kicks you out, wait for the media to write a hundred stories about it, profit from the increased name recognition – she’ll continue to use it.

We can attempt to complicate her algorithm by removing the financial incentive to focus most of the media coverage that the CPC leadership race is getting on her. There are a few ways you can do this.

  1. Promise yourself that you won’t share any news stories about her electronically. By all means, tell you friends. But don’t share it on your Facebook wall where it will generate clicks.
  2. If you must visit a news article about Kellie Leitch (say to research for a blog post about her), visit with an ad-blocker. You’ll notice that I’ve used [N] style references throughout this post. Those are all links to recent stories about Kellie Leitch. I’d ask that anyone who cares about her not winning the leadership race not visit them without an ad-blocker.
  3. Share this information with your friends. If they post a story about Kellie Leitch, gently tell them why this is a bad idea. Don’t get angry. Your friend is doing nothing morally wrong. But they are contributing to the outrage cycle and if you can stop it, that’s great. If they don’t understand the threat Kellie Leitch poses, show them some of the hate crimes that have been committed in America since Trump was elected and explain to them that Kellie Leitch winning an election would possibly have the same consequences. You can link them to this post if you’d like (I don’t have ads on my website and make no money if you do). Or you can show them how Trump’s win has already emboldened the alt-right in Canada.
  4. If you’re a member of the Conservative Party of Canada or plan to become a member before the leadership race membership cut-off of March 28, 2017, you can act more directly to ensure that Kellie Leitch does not win the vote. It doesn’t matter how you rank the candidates, as long as Kellie Leitch is ranked last (although if you care at all about climate change, you may want Brad Trost ranked low on your ballot as well).

Kellie Leitch has gained name recognition and a measure of popularity with her stances. But she’s also made a lot of enemies. She leads the field in both favourability and unfavourability ratings. The next leader of the Conservative Party will be picked using instant run-off with ranked ballots. If Kellie Leitch is at the bottom of most people’s ballots, she can’t win.

Let the next Canadian election be about which policies will bring us peace, order, and good government. Let’s not bring race and belonging into it.

Kellie Leitch related links (don’t visit without an ad-blocker):

[1] http://globalnews.ca/news/3057503/kellie-leitch-wants-to-bring-donald-trumps-exciting-message-to-canada/

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leitch-responds-survey-question-1.3746470

Epistemic Status: Ethics?

Advice, Software

Resume Tips For Students

I graduated from the University of Waterloo with a degree in Honours Nanotechnology Engineering in 2015. Like all engineering programs at UW, this is a coop program. Over the course of four coop terms, I submitted over a hundred resumes and did about 20 interviews.

After I dropped out of graduate school, moved back to Waterloo, and got a job at Alert Labs I suddenly found myself on the other side of equations. I’ve now had a chance to interview students and look at resumes. Hundreds of resumes. Do you know what looking at 200 resumes in a day does to a person? It’s not pretty.

Looking through all these resumes, I was struck by a bunch of self-defeating things that students did. Some of them I remembered doing myself. The double vision was… enlightening. I considered posting an angry anonymous rant on the UW subreddit, but with some helpful prodding, I decided to make a list of advice instead.

Note that all advice is context specific. These are tips that are guaranteed to work if you’re applying for a job and I’m looking at your resume. They’ll quite possibly work well for jobs reviewed by other UW alumni, who also understand the process from both sides. They’re also tips optimized for software jobs, because that’s what I’m hiring for and that’s what I have the most experience applying for. Follow my advice at your own peril.

As always, the views expressed here are my own.

Overall Strategy

Scientists used to partition animals into r-selected species and K-selected species (it refers to the constants the species ostensibly maximized in a population dynamics equation). K-selected species (like humans) have relatively few offspring, but put a lot of effort into each of these offspring. On the other hand, r-selected species (like rats) have a ton of offspring but give each of these offspring very little care.

Which strategy is superior depends a lot on environment.

In coop, it’s the same way. When you’re in 1A or 1B, it actually makes a lot of sense to have a few general resumes (that you still proof-read like mad) and send these out to as many companies as CECA will let you. As you gain experience and figure out what you want, it can pay dividends to become picky about which jobs you apply for and spend a lot of time crafting each resume to maximize the chances that you’ll get an interview.

r-Selection: Apply for all the jobs

If you’re in an early term and using r-selection, you should still spend some time looking at each job. You can send out a lot of resumes, but not an infinite number of resumes and a few heuristics can maximize your chances of being hired. You should probably avoid applying to intermediate and senior positions (the hiring manager may just ignore all first years).

If your resume is sparse, focus on QA jobs, or jobs in early stage companies that can’t afford to pay you very much; they’ll be the most likely to hire you if you lack some (or even most) of the requirements for the positions. Start-ups that are remunerating competitively because they need someone to hit the ground running will be much less likely to extend you an interview if you lack some of the skills they’ve listed.

In most cases, you won’t want to use a cover letter. The person reading it can tell instantly if you’re sending the same one to everyone (yes, even if you change the names), at which point it becomes mostly useless. If you’re using a form letter, the only reason to send one is if you want to prove to the employer that your writing skills are up to scratch. This means that your cover letter must be perfect. Reading it over a few times isn’t enough. Read it out loud twice, then pass it off to a friend to read. Then incorporate their edits and read it out loud twice more. If you don’t trust your own writing, bring it to the writing centre and have them help you.

Don’t be too married to r-selection though. If there’s a job that you’re really interested in, follow the K-selection advice and put together a really solid package.

K-Selection: Optimize your Resume

When you’re in your later terms, it can pay to be picky. Interviews are a huge time commitment and you don’t want to have to do 20 of them (I know people who’ve been in this situation and they did not enjoy it). Look through job postings carefully. From the information you have, imagine yourself working there. Are you happy? Fulfilled? Excited to go to work? If no, then pass.

In addition to optimizing your resume, you should write a unique cover letter for each job. How unique? My rule of thumb is that approximately half of the cover letter should be specific to the job. Be sure to mention whatever it was you imagined would make you happy at the job. Tell the hiring manager that you expect to be able to do your best job there because of _________. Highlight a skill from your resume that the employer is looking for and tell them (in one paragraph) how you used it in a previous coop term or personal project. Tell them the benefits that that company got from you applying that skill there. You want to sell them the idea that their life will be better if you’re working for them, doing that thing.

If you have any blemishes on your record (a failed coop term or low ranking), you can ignore it. This is easy mode and probably the safest bet. But if you’re feeling adventurous or think your dream job has high standards explain what happened. A reasonable explanation can move a resume from the reject pile to the interview pile. Owning up to failures shows maturity. Introspecting and planning on how to do better shows even more maturity. Trust me when I say most employers are looking to work with mature adults.

On your resume, judiciously prune references to skills that the company doesn’t care about. If there’s something you’re so proud of or skilled in that you don’t want to cut it even though it wasn’t in the posting, move it to the end of the skills list. Make it easy for them to see that you have framework X or language Y. When discussing your past coop terms, reference these skills/languages/frameworks. Give them confidence that you really know it.

If you have hard numbers on improvements that you’ve made, let people know. On my resume, I talk about a script that used to take six weeks to run and can now be run in two hours. Like I said above, you want them to believe that things at their company will be X% better with you working there.

Specific Nitpicks

Here I’ve collected every single resume “feature” that has made me groan over the past week. Please don’t do these things!

Microsoft Office

If I am interviewing you for a programming job, I expect you to know how to use Microsoft Office. Because you got into UW, I can safely assume that you know how to use Microsoft Office. Unless I specifically mention in my posting that I want you to know how to use Microsoft Office, you can use the real estate that mentioning it on your resume would have used to tell me about a skill I will actually care about. Save us both some time here.

I don’t care what CECA says, you are not helping yourself if you apply to a job at a software start-up (or Google, or Facebook, etc.) and take up valuable resume space talking about Microsoft Office. Not even Microsoft cares. Just don’t do it.

Familiar With…

Look, I too was a coop student. And sometimes I would see a really cool job with a technology I didn’t know much about. And I would write on my resume: “Familiar with Technology X”. I never did this with something I’d never used. But I stretched the definition of “familiar” pretty darn far.

I would formally apologize to every employer I did this to, except I’m now 98% sure they all knew exactly what I meant with “familiar with”. When I see your resume says “familiar with node.js”, I know right away that I can’t leave you unsupervised working on a node.js project. Familiar with really means “I used this for a week in class” or “I started to work on a project using this but got pulled off of it a day later”.

The worst part comes when you get to the interview. The most common beginning to a question about anything a student is “familiar with” is “well, to be honest with you…” followed by an explanation of why they only sort of know the language/technology and can’t give me a decent answer to the question. It’s frustrating and disappointing, especially when (against all logic) I trust that you’re actually familiar with it and you crash and burn in the interview.

I don’t have a great solution to this one, because the resume arms race makes it hard not to try and inflate what you know. I think the thing I tried to do (when I resisted the temptation to use “familiar with”) is to give context around a technology. Instead of “familiar with Perl”, I’d write “read and rewrote a Perl application”. Instead of “familiar with Angular.js”, I’d write “created a prototype application in Angular.js”.

Anyway, I guess all I really have to say is that you’re fooling no one with “familiar with” and you’re shooting yourself in the foot for interviews when you use it. If you have a foolproof solution to this problem, let me know!

Nitty Gritty Details

This is similar to and complementary with the previous point.

Anything you put on your resume is fair game for an interview question. Be prepared to expand and explain any acronym you use. Read over your resume and make sure you can do this. Actually do it. Don’t just think to yourself oh yeah, AFM, got that, no problem. Explain atomic force microscopy out loud. Notice how many times you say “um”. Ask yourself if the explanation was clear. If you aren’t satisfied with the answer, practice until you are. Remember that this is easy mode. There’s currently no pressure on you. If you’re struggling now, you’re going to crash and burn during an interview.

If you don’t have time to brush up, then remove the acronym or accept that if you get asked about it you’ll probably lose your shot at an offer (and have no one to blame but yourself). If you can’t explain one thing on your resume, I immediately lose faith in your ability to explain anything else on it. You don’t want me to start doubting your general competence, do you?

Machine Learning

This deserves a heading of its own, because it’s extremely irritating.

When you put down machine learning, you are telling me that you can name a couple machine learning algorithms and speak briefly about the advantages or disadvantages of each. You’re telling me you understand sensitivity and specificity and the receiver operating curve. You’re telling me that you understand overfitting and understand strategies to mitigate it.

If you’ve used someone else’s machine learning algorithm with no thought given to hyperparameter optimization, you don’t know machine learning. This is akin to saying “experience in word processor development” because you’ve used Microsoft Word. Please don’t do it.

I solemnly swear I will never hire someone who puts experience with machine learning on their resume and can’t answer basic questions about it and I doubt I’m the only one who feels this way.

Bullet Point Tense

It’s fairly standard to list your responsibilities at a previous job using bullet points.  I have no issues with this per se. But if you’re going to do this, please (for the love of all that is holy) make sure that you read over your bullet points afterwards.

The most common mistake I see students making here is mismatching tenses. Each bullet point should be in the same tense as the others. Ideally they should all be past tense, but present tense is acceptable as long as you’re consistent with it. If your first bullet point is “collaborate with stakeholders…”, your second cannot be “researched key customer requirements”.

If this doesn’t make sense to you, go talk to the fine people at the writing centre. They’ll be able to explain it better than this blog post can.

Also be careful about how you end bullet points. If one has punctuation, all the others need it too. They’re either sentences or stand-alone thoughts. Either is fine, but don’t use both. This is the sort of thing that 95% of people won’t notice and then the hiring manager for your dream job will and then they’ll start assuming that you don’t really care about details.

These seem like minor nitpicks. And they are! But your resume is more than a list of your skills. It’s a reflection on you. How can you expect me to trust that you’ll care about all the fine details of the job I have for you if you don’t care about them on your resume? How do you expect to convince me that you really do have the “excellent written communication skills” you just listed if you’re messing up basic grammar rules? If I hire you, I want to do it confident that I’ll be able to understand the documentation you write or the panicked 3AM messages you send me about taking the server down. In today’s increasingly text-based world, good written communication isn’t optional.

Bold and Italics

How many times have I used bold and italics so far? Not very many. If I suddenly use it, I’ll get your attention right away. This point is very important! See?

If you bold every skill on your resume, you’ve bolded no skills on your resume. Do this and all I see is this bad looking blur of bold text at the top. You’ve made me less interested in hunting for important skills, not more. Honestly, you can skip bold altogether if you just rearrange your skills so the ones I care about are right at the front. Even if I don’t consciously notice that you’ve helped me out (I probably will notice after slogging through 50 resumes that obstinately refused to do this, but still) I’ll subconsciously register that your skills seem to be a lot better suited for the position than everyone else’s.

If you’re going to use bold, use it only for the technologies that are listed in the job description or to highlight notable achievements. Bold the percentage you decreased outages by or the percentage you outperformed the typical coop by. If you have more than 8 or so words bolded on your whole resume, seriously consider removing some of the bold formatting.

Past Compensation

When we go to interview you, CECA gives us a handy dandy print-out that tells us how much students make (on average). We know roughly what your past compensation is. We know what we’re planning on paying you. Don’t bother telling us what you made during past coop terms. It’s wasted space and isn’t going to influence what we pay you. Just don’t.

School Projects

If you’re in first or second year and really need something to put on your resume, you can put school projects on it. But remember that we’re going to see resumes from your classmates. We’re very quickly going to catch on to the fact that you did that programming project you’ve dressed up as cool because the school made you, not because you wanted to. This makes it of limited value to us, except as a marker of some experience in a specific technology.

Try and write these sections to highlight the technology and what you learned about it. Or if you went above and beyond the project and added to it in your own time, tell us that. Otherwise use this section mainly for plugging white space in your layout and delete it as soon as you have enough work experience to fill a page. If you ever comes down to writing about a work term or writing about a project, do the work term unless the project lets you highlight a language that the job requires that you couldn’t otherwise highlight.

Hobbies

I swear that almost every student in Waterloo has three hobbies picked from a list of ten socially acceptable and academically interesting hobbies. Badminton, Martial Arts, Piano, Hockey, Soccer, Reading, Violin, Archery, Photography, and Video Game Design (which somewhat improbably seems to show up far more often than playing video games).

I have nothing against these hobbies. They’re all (except for soccer) perfectly fine ways to spend time. They also do absolutely nothing to differentiate you. If everyone else has the same hobbies as you, on some level I’m going to believe that you’re faceless and replaceable. Sure, I’ll intellectually know that you’re an individual with something unique to bring to my team. But after 200 resumes, I’m going to have trouble really believing it.

So tell me about the hobby that you’re really excited about but scared put on your resume. Make me remember you as “the student who was brave enough to put Magic: The Gathering on their resume”. Tell me about how you’ve done statistical analysis and stayed up all night trawling Wikipedia to make sure that you’d have the best fantasy hockey team in your league.

If your favourite thing to do genuinely is something really popular and you know that if you simply list it you’ll fade into the background, give me a deeper window into it. Don’t write me a novel, just give me one or two really genuine sentences that convince me that you can get excited about something. Then you’ll no longer be faceless coop applicant #43. You’ll be a person who I’m invested in and interested in hiring.

There’s one last advantage of doing a good job on the hobbies section of your resume. You might be asked about it in the interview. If you play this right, you can talk for a minute or two about a subject you’re extremely confident in and comfortable with. Interviews last a fixed time and those minutes might otherwise be spent grilling you about the nitty gritty details of your technical stack. This is a trade that will almost always come out in your favour, so make sure you can talk about any hobbies you list for at least one minute and make sure you can do it while being visibly excited.

Closing Thoughts

When I was in debate, we learned about the argument tree. It has leaves (these are your opponent’s facts), branches (these are your opponent’s points), and a trunk (this is the viewpoint that underlies your opponent’s whole argument). You have an axe and need to get rid of the tree.

It’s really safe but also fairly ineffective to cut at the leaves. You’ll probably end up doing nothing, in the end. It’s more effective (but riskier) to attack the branches, you may actually even get somewhere that way, but it’s slow going. It’s most effective to hack at the trunk. If you can pull this off (and you won’t always be able to) then you’re guaranteed a win (and you’ll have won with style).

(Incidentally, I recommend debate for anyone who wants to improve their interview skills – it really forces you to think on your feet and improvise and many debaters will be willing to work with you to cut down on verbal tics like “um” and “like”)

Trying to get a coop job has a similar risk/reward curve to debating. You can throw out a lot of acronyms and skills and try and convince the hiring manager that you meet the minimum requirements for the job. This doesn’t really backfire, but it also isn’t going to make the hiring manager excited about you; good enough might be enough to get you a job, but only if someone more interesting doesn’t come along.

You can point out all the ways you made life better at your past coop. This is riskier – maybe you pick metrics that the job you’re applying to doesn’t care about or they decide that you didn’t have the requisite number of three letter acronyms. But it can pay off big time. You can make the hiring manager start to be invested in the idea of a coop with your qualifications and abilities and less willing to settle for just good enough.

Or you can take the time to really craft your resume and cover letter into a story about how you – your skills, experience and personality will make life better and more fun if you’re hired. Now the hiring manager is invested in the idea of having you there. They won’t settle for anyone else, no matter how many acronyms are on their resume. They’ll fight their bosses to get you.

This won’t work everywhere. Some people will find you grating and that sucks. I mean, it’s probably better to find that out before you commit to working with them, but it still sucks. But when this works, it works. I’ve had friends offered extra salary if they ditch other offers. I’ve seen new coop positions created just for people who’ve pulled this off. If you can do this, you’re golden.

On Failure and Second Chances

I read through 200 resumes this week and 185 of them annoyed me in some way. Maybe they applied without any of the qualifications I was looking for. Maybe they said “familiar with” one too many times. Maybe they used a form cover letter, or addressed the cover letter to the wrong person. Whatever they did, I closed their resume in annoyance or disgust.

I don’t remember the name of a single person who annoyed me. If they were to take all this advice and apply again next year, they’d get an interview. In order to screw up memorably, you have to try. Like seriously try. Threaten to hurt us if we don’t interview you. Try and bribe us. Talk about how much smarter you are than us and how you could run our company better. Do one of those things and we’d remember you. But garden variety screw-ups just don’t cut it, not when I have 200 resumes to go through.

I remembered one name at the end of the process. Want to know why? They wrote an excellent cover letter that was clearly targeted right at us. They showed a sense of humour. They didn’t pad their resume at all. They mostly listed relevant skills. They did everything right, but it looked like I wouldn’t be able to interview them anyway, because they didn’t quite have the experience we were looking for.

That was the name I remembered.

Anyway, the point of this story is that if you make a good impression you’ll probably be remembered, but if you screw up a resume in a way that feels horrible to you, don’t worry. It’s a disaster to you, but to us it’s pretty routine. We’re not going to blacklist you.