Crafting a compelling CV often involves navigating a minefield of decisions: what to highlight, what to leave out, and how transparent you really need to be. A particularly challenging dilemma arises when considering whether to reveal personal weaknesses or maintain strategic silence. While instinct suggests it is unwise to broadcast shortcomings, the fear of appearing evasive by leaving out crucial details can be powerful.
However, new research offers a definitive answer to this specific dilemma, particularly for recent graduates entering the workforce. A study focusing on academic qualifications reveals a clear, evidence-based conclusion: candidates with lower qualifications perform better if they do not disclose this information on their CVs. The findings suggest that, in this case, absolute honesty may not be the most advantageous approach.
In the UK, where we did the research, most universities award undergraduate degrees on a scale: first class, upper second (2:1), lower second (2:2) and third. While a first or 2:1 is often considered evidence of good performance, lower titles are held in lower esteem.
A lower ranked graduate job seeker has the option to choose what to disclose on their CV. They can be upfront about it or simply state that they have a degree, without mentioning class. (A third option, lying about class, is probably a bad idea because employers can and do ask for proof.)
Perhaps surprisingly, traditional economic theory is probably in favor of coming forward. Interactions like this, in which a “seller” (in our case, a job seeker offering his or her skills) possesses information about his or her quality that he or she may or may not voluntarily reveal to “buyers” (in this case, employers), have been popular topics for analysts of game theory (the mathematical study of strategic interactions).
The idea begins with the notion that people who do not provide available evidence about their quality seem to have something to hide. Some economists have concluded that buyers will assume that sellers who do not disclose their data must not only be bad, but also have the lowest possible level of quality.
In our context, this means that employers would think that any graduate whose CV omits degree classification information has a third-class degree and should treat them accordingly. To avoid this, any applicant who received a score of 2:2 or higher would be wise to disclose this.
To see how job seekers really behave, we analyzed the CVs of recent graduates on the employment website Monster. We noticed that a substantial minority did not disclose their grade promotion. Among them were probably many challengers with at least a 2:2.
About the author
Tom Lane is a senior lecturer in economics at the University of Newcastle.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
To determine whether these applicants were making a mistake, we also carried out a large experiment, submitting over 12,000 applications to real graduate vacancies. These varied only in the classification of the job applicant's title and whether this was disclosed on their CV, although other details remained the same.
Success was measured by how often requests resulted in invitations for an interview or further communication. Unsurprisingly, the most successful applications were those with a first-class degree.
However, those who said nothing about graduation were not the least successful. Instead, their success rate was between that achieved by job seekers who disclosed 2:1 and 2:2. Applicants who openly reported having a third-class degree were the least likely to receive a response.
Simply put, full disclosure hurt his chances.
the third degree
Our findings challenge the clear logic of traditional economic theory. If employers always assumed the worst about lack of information, hiding poor ratings shouldn't help.
However, in practice, it seems that recruiters don't have time to examine every detail. Faced with hundreds of applications, they can skim through CVs and focus on the most notable positives or negatives. If the rating isn't there, it may simply go unnoticed.
Of course, interviewers can ask about qualifications later in the application process, but by initially withholding this information, otherwise unattractive applicants can help themselves get to the interview stage, at which point they can use other qualities to impress.
The practical message of our research is clear. If you have strong academic credentials, highlight them with pride. But if your results are weaker, you have no obligation to publicize them. Skipping them won't guarantee success, but it may increase your chances.
The graduate job market remains highly competitive. However, our study suggests that lower ratings need not define a candidate's prospects, as long as they make careful decisions about their self-presentation.
Strategic omissions can help level the playing field for those whose academic record does not reflect their potential. So if you recently graduated with a third, you don't need to panic and you don't need to mention it either.
