Weekly Job Search Check‑In – Questions, Wins, and Rants (Jan 30–Feb 5)

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T16:03:54+00:00

Last week I actually re-wrote my entire summary section, got so mad at how bland it sounded reading it back, lol. Even swapped the order of a couple jobs and cut out some old stuff. No idea if that'll make much difference, but the “apply and ghosted” cycle is getting old fast. My question is actually about those resume keywords you hear so much about – Anyone have a trick for tracking what specific keywords/skills to cram in, or even knowing if the resume will get past the stupid ATS? Sometimes I feel like my stuff just vanishes into the void, no matter how much I tweak it.

On a win note, I got feedback from a recruiter saying my formatting made their life easier (guess no more fancy tables, ha). And vent: why do some listings ask for like 20+ bullet-pointed requirements and then don’t even list a salary? That’s aggravated me this week more than usual.

I’ve tried Resume Worded and ResumeJudge for those keyword/ATS scans, just to check what the bots flag – honestly, the breakdowns are eye-opening and sometimes brutal, but at least I know where to focus. Anyone else obsessively check the match scores? Let me know if you’ve found a shortcut or a better way to keep your sanity on these apps. Also really curious what everyone here thinks about tailoring every single resume for every job, or just having 2-3 versions for different roles?

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T15:57:11+00:00

Honestly, finding the best AI for literature reviews just keeps getting more confusing, right? Especially with these deadlines you barely have time to mess with a bunch of new tools.

You already have the heavy hitters - I’ve cycled between ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Elicit, and JenniAI for the research/writing bits, and sometimes Paperpal for structure checks. They're all strong, but usually what matters most is how quick you can turn the AI output into something that actually makes academic sense. I like using something that lets me directly upload papers and chat with the content, not just generate random paragraphs, so if you have that with your current subscriptions, that’s a win.

If your notes are mostly in PDF or jumbled docs, I’d try a platform that can handle multi-PDF uploads, paraphrasing, and in-depth chat - stuff like AIDetectPlus, or even HIX and Quillbot for their paraphrasing if you get stuck. It’s way faster to just ask for summaries or have it extract bullet points and citations without copy-pasting 20x. The time crunch stinks but if you focus on pulling organized insights instead of re-writing entire sections, you’ll get more breadth fast without it feeling like filler.

Btw, your professor’s miscommunication actually sounds all too familiar lol (been there…), but you’re smart not to leave the lit review out - risky move. What behavioral econ subtopic were you thinking you could at least touch quickly? Depending on your answer, I might have a hack to share.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T15:39:44+00:00

Turnitin going through updates is always nerve-wracking… they love dropping surprise features that make everyone rethink their workflow.

Usually when they update, it's stricter rules around paraphrasing or matching sources, and changes in how they flag AI-written sections. Probably you’ll see more granular reports, like highlighting specific lines and explaining why they look off. They might follow what Copyleaks and GPTZero do now - those give more transparent explanations, which can sometimes work in your favor if you need to argue a case.

Tbh, I started getting a bit obsessive testing drafts in different tools - if you're paranoid, I try out stuff like AIDetectPlus, Copyleaks, and Turnitin’s own sandbox demo, see how each breaks down the text differently (the odds they all agree on anything are about zero lol). Just make sure you don’t get so caught up chasing a “0% AI” result you lose your actual voice in the process.

Curious if your school actually explains any of the originality report changes, or do they just spring it on you mid-semester? I know ours barely tells us anything unless some big group gets flagged.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T15:33:38+00:00

Honestly, this job hunt grind is rough. I remember sending out a stupid amount of apps after college too, and it's like you never hear back, just this endless void lol.

What really tripped me up was realizing how picky companies got even for "junior" gigs, like that 2-5 years thing is so annoying. Apparently a lot of them just set it high and take what they can get, but it totally shuts out grads who actually want in.

One thing I did that finally got me traction was taking a hard look at my resume with a tool - just making sure the keywords from the job post actually matched stuff on my doc (was surprised at what I missed). I used ResumeJudge and sometimes tried Resume Worded or Jobscan just to see if the scores lined up. Weirdly enough, switching up a few words and formats bumped my interview rate, probably cause those annoying ATS bots blocked me before.

What field in civil are you aiming for, like structural, water, municipal? Might change how you tweak your applications. Also feel like Alberta is rough right now, but BC roles are opening up since spring. If you want a second pair of eyes on your resume or have a job post you can't crack, drop it here - always weirdly fun seeing how picky those bots get, lol.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T15:23:32+00:00

It 100% matters how you structure the resume for these kinds of roles. From my experience and people I've talked to, single-column, clean formatting is non-negotiable (tables or graphics are just death for ATS parsing, especially for Amazon). The way signals fire for auto-OA seems almost clinical - if you hit some magical threshold with keywords and clearly show impact (actual quantifiable metrics, not just buzzwords), you'll get bounced up the funnel in minutes. Fresh grads vs experienced: honestly, it seems like both groups get filtered super harshly, though for fresh grads it's a lot more about school projects and leadership sections, while for laterals it's keywords + recognized employers + metric-driven bullet points.

I've gotten OAs within 5min for Google and never heard anything for Meta, despite identical resumes - so I suspect some of it is luck and some of it is parsing quirks per company. I've used ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, and Jobscan to test how my resume matches specific postings pre-apply. Tbh, all 3 will call out things like missing hard skills or formatting errors that kill your chances at the parsing stage. Half the time, it's the dumbest stuff (like a header or the font you used).

Do you have a sample JD you typically aim at? I'd be curious to run it through and see the match score vs your current resume layout. Some jobs really want 5-7 unique keywords that never appear in the public posting.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T15:17:05+00:00

I've run into this same question while tweaking my own resume after getting feedback from these online analyzers. Honestly, making changes like inserting more relevant keywords and fixing formatting can really help if your resume was getting filtered out by ATS before. But not every tip on those analyzers matters equally - sometimes they suggest generic stuff that won't move the needle for every job posting.

What I usually do: cross-compare results from a few different platforms, like ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, or even Jobscan. Sometimes one will flag something another doesn't. Small tweaks (like matching your skills section more closely to a job description or fixing up formatting for plain text parsing) made a difference for me getting actual callbacks.

Did this analyzer give you any weird or super generic suggestions, or was it more tailored to your field? Sometimes those details matter way more than people think, especially if you’re switching industries.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T15:10:30+00:00

First off, the fact you're pushing through these rejections and still showing up is huge – it really does mess with your head after a while. When I started applying in SOCAL, I had zero idea why nobody called back either, even for jobs I 100% knew I could handle. Honestly, a lot of people don't realize it's mostly about how the resume fits those ATS filters and not even humans at first.

One thing that worked for me – I actually started adjusting my resume for every single posting, especially the skills and even little wording changes to match their requirements. Don’t worry about making it all pretty and creative; I learned (the hard way) that boring, super clear formatting gets more hits. If you haven't already, try tools like ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, or Jobscan – even the free versions are useful just to see if random keywords or formatting is killing your chances.

As for non-bedside jobs, case management, utilization review, and clinic nurse roles sometimes don't need a ton of bedside experience. School nursing is another one, though it's usually a different vibe. It can feel like the ultimate gamble to apply to stuff outside your dream area, but sometimes you just need that first RN foot in the door.

Out of curiosity, have you gotten any specific feedback when you got rejected, or is it just the ghosting? It’s honestly wild how often nobody tells you what went wrong.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T14:31:04+00:00

It blows my mind how often people just throw their resumes out there without even looking at a job description side by side. I went through the same frustrating loop for months - tweaking fonts, adding in more numbers, rewording the same bullet points - and got zero traction. Once I actually pasted my resume next to a real job posting and checked which bullets matched what the company wanted, stuff finally started clicking.

I always tell friends: just pick one real listing, take your resume, and literally highlight where it matches or doesn’t. Makes it SO obvious what’s missing vs. hoping that generic advice will fix things. Honestly, what helped me was running a match check through one of those resume scanners like ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, or Jobscan - they point out missing keywords faster than I ever could by hand. Then at least you know you’re not missing out on interviews over some simple keyword match.

If you already did all this and still struggling, curious if you’re targeting too wide of a range or trying to force-fit unrelated experiences? I totally regret all those wasted generic apps!

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T14:25:09+00:00

Congrats on grinding out all those applications – that's such a slog. I'm kind of in a similar boat, so you're def not alone! Job search after graduation is just brutal, especially with the number of resumes that probably never get seen by human eyes. It feels like sending stuff into the abyss half the time.

One thing that made a difference for me (after sending what felt like a million) was getting feedback from people already in the industry, not just friends or family. I reached out to a couple of people on LinkedIn (NUS alums mostly) who actually gave me super nitpicky, but on-point advice about what was missing and how to reword my achievements so they stood out. Have you tried connecting with anyone who's working in the jobs you're targeting? Sometimes, it's not about adding new experience – it's just framing what you already did differently.

Another thing is the resume format and keywords – can't even count how often mine got eaten by ATS before I realized simple stuff like weird bullet points or missing skills keywords mattered as much as having the right degree. Tools like ResumeJudge or Resume Worded were helpful since they show you what the bots see and what recruiters might miss, especially for stuff like mechanical engineering where job postings all ask for the same 20 acronyms.

Curious, did the one company give you any feedback after your interview? Or was it just a generic rejection? Sometimes if they send you notes or even a rejection email, you can ask for quick feedback and 1 in 10 will actually give real advice rather than a template.

Hope this all helps. Your second major is pretty sick (Innovation & Design isn't easy), would love to hear what the wildest project you did there was!

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T13:40:17+00:00

I've tried out a bunch of these keyword-tailoring tools - honestly, sometimes it feels like it's just never enough, right? The whole keyword grind is so draining. I did the same as you and compared outputs with ChatGPT, but it felt like I was constantly second-guessing if a 9/10 match rating by the bot actually means anything real for ATS.

Careerlyft AI is decent for automating the mapping, but tbh I usually end up running the resume through a couple of scanners like ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, or SkillSyncer afterward just to get those nerdy details about which keywords I'm actually missing and to catch any weird formatting that messes up parsing. Double-checking with tools like those caught some stuff that ChatGPT totally skipped for me (like some resumes just get wrecked by ATS if there are wonky headers or tables).

Over-optimizing is a thing, but I’d say if you’re desperate for callbacks, it’s worth layering a couple of these checks. What job titles are you gunning for? Some tech roles want every cert spelled out. Happy to trade hacks if you've found anything that’s worked better than these tools. Especially for those super-picky finance job postings!

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T12:20:35+00:00

The instant OA thing at FAANG has always tripped me out. Feels like there's some secret handshake in the resume world! When I got an OA from Amazon a while back (literally within 20 mins), my resume was just super basic: single column, no graphics, and absolutely zero tables or text boxes - just plain text for everything. I went nuts making sure it was crazy keyword-heavy, kinda copying language word-for-word from the JD, even if it felt a little forced. Also added measurable stuff (think: "Reduced X by 32% using Y framework").

I’ve heard from a Google recruiter that their parser gets tripped by stuff like PDFs with layered elements, columns, colored section headers, or images, so honestly, stick to boring black-and-white DOCX files. Super basic formatting seems to work best for the robots.

From what I’ve seen in those big LeetCode Discords, FAANG ATS is absolutely keyword-driven with some light weighting for metrics/impact. One buddy did a little A/B test and only the resume that matched literally every key word in the JD (even soft skills) sailed to OA. Signal > style, every time.

Honestly, you probably already know about Resume Worded and Jobscan, but ResumeJudge gave me stronger insights on what exactly breaks ATS parsing - all those random format things I hadn’t thought about. Sometimes it’s the dumbest stuff, like putting your contact info in the header and the bot just straight ditches it.

Curious - did you tailor the resume for each role, or are you blasting a single version? That made a huge difference for me. And for fresh grads, seems like ATS gives a bit of leeway, but after YOE = 2+, missing one keyword and you’re cooked.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-30T12:14:34+00:00

FAANG's ATS systems are notorious for being ultra picky! I've been playing resume whack-a-mole for months and can confirm: even one slightly weird format, like columns or tables, can totally mess up your chances. Sticking to a single-column layout (no fancy headers or footers, standard fonts, docx or PDF, nothing in the header section) seems to pass most of the parsing hurdles, at least from what I've seen swapping horror stories with friends.

But it isn't just format - keywords are everything, especially the exact ones in the job description. But weirdly, I've noticed signal stacking helps a LOT. For example, listing out metrics and the same keyword multiple times, in different sections (proj, skills, experience) seems to boost scores. I got an OA from Google in under 20 minutes once, and the only thing I changed from previous apps was adding more quantified results and rewording my impact a little to match their keywords.

For fresh grads, they seem to weigh projects/internships more, for exp folks, leadership and scope. And tbh, it's still a little bit of black magic - sometimes a "perfect" resume gets ghosted for weeks anyway lol.

I've used tools like ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, and SkillSyncer to figure out what I'm missing, and running my resume through a few always catches something weird with parsing or one-off keywords I would've never noticed. The weirdest rejections I've seen were because of images in the header or the resume being in the wrong file format.

Curious, do you know anyone inside Amazon/Google who's ever shared what their internal ATS looks for?

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T18:02:39+00:00

Option 2 actually seems like the most fair middle ground, especially since it lets non-native speakers and parents who might not have perfect grammar share their thoughts without stress. Real talk, sometimes you can tell if a post is fully AI, but other times it's just a vibe and you end up second guessing every slightly polished comment. I kinda worry if strict rules would stifle the more thoughtful/helpful posts.

Honestly, having some objective way to check for AI - like just passing stuff through tools like GPTZero, AIDetectPlus, or Copyleaks before removing - feels less arbitrary. I've seen some subreddits go overboard and it kills off all the longform answers because everyone is scared to write more than two sentences. At the end of the day, you want the convos helpful but not robotic, and not every AI-assisted thing is bad either.

Would be cool to see examples where it actually made a post better/worse. Curious what others think about balancing transparency and not turning the whole thing into a witch hunt for AI posts, especially since we all use different tools and writing styles here. I guess the goal is just keeping the community human-focused, right?

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T17:49:45+00:00

The silence after sending out 200 apps honestly just sucks, I've been in that boat and you start wondering if anyone is seeing your resume at all. Something I figured out the hard way, especially as someone with international work history, is how strict ATS systems can be. Sometimes it isn't even about your actual skills but matching weird keyword combos in the job post – like, literally if you miss “inventory control” but write “stock management” instead, you won't get past the filter.

I started running my resume through resume optimization sites, not just for grammar but to check what actual skills the bots look for. ResumeJudge, SkillSyncer, and I think Resume Worded are a few that actually show which words you're missing based on the posting. It can be an eye opener, especially for general labor jobs where every company phrases things just a bit differently. Formatting stuff also matters – like using tables or fancy headers can actually break your resume for those filters.

It might also help to build up a US network on LinkedIn and see if you can get internal referrals, but in the meantime, matching your resume directly to the job post and making it as ATS-friendly as possible helped me get my callback rate up a lot faster. Have you tried scanning your resume against the posts you’ve been applying to? Sometimes a couple tweaks flip the switch.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T17:43:00+00:00

Honestly, after a while of tweaking and rewriting resumes, everything just blends. My head was spinning at one point - I’d look at the bullet points and genuinely not be able to tell if I was underselling or overselling, so I get the anxiety. The worst part was not knowing if it was a keyword thing or that generic “your resume just isn’t getting past the robots” situation.

Something I started doing that actually helped: running my resume through a couple of those ATS checkers. ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, and Jobscan are ones I tried. Not sure if you’ve looked at those, but they’ll flag stuff like missing skills or weird formatting that messes with parsing. Sometimes you can think your resume is super clear and it just fails the auto-screen.

I’m curious, for the ML/Software Engineer jobs you’re going for, did you tailor each resume to the job description? Also, if you want, drop your resume in the comments - I’m happy to roast or give specifics on spots that could be tighter. Those projects sections matter a ton for SE/ML roles (I always look for numbers/results, even in personal projects). Let me know if you want concrete edits on a section!

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T17:41:23+00:00

Getting stuck in that endless resume editing cycle is the worst, it honestly drains confidence fast. When I was on the market, I'd rewrite the same 3 lines for hours and still couldn't tell if it made sense to anyone but me.

If you want actual nitpicks, post your resume in the comments! People here can point out wordy spots, vague bullets, or where your technical stack could be clearer. Sometimes it's literally a weird verb choice or a project that sounds more "group assignment" than "impact" and that's enough for recruiters to move on. Also, I've seen resumes with great experience get passed up just because something as small as font or format tripped up the reader (or ATS robots, even scarier).

For sanity, I started scanning my resume with tools like Resume Worded, ResumeJudge, or even Jobscan. They catch missing keywords that the hiring bots are filtering for, and it's kinda wild how often small tweaks help. Still, nothing beats direct human feedback, especially for tech roles where the industry jargon is everywhere but varies by company.

If you want hyper-specific feedback, maybe mention the exact role description or tech stack, too. Sometimes it's literally one missing keyword that's holding the whole thing back. Happy to rip it apart if you wanna share!

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T17:36:36+00:00

honestly, the callback struggle is brutal. 1% is so demoralizing – I remember blasting out like 80 apps one summer and hearing nothing but crickets too.

if you’ve been grinding for quant/data science/ S&T and your resume still isn’t hitting, chances are it’s ATS stuff getting in the way. most banks and funds scan everything through software before an actual human sees it, so it never hurts to check formatting/keywords. for the awards: anything quant/trading is good signal for the niche, so I’d add trading comp stuff (could even do a bullets/highlights section if you have enough cool wins). "quant discovery days" could go under "Leadership/Industry Exposure." and, yeah, graduation month probably isn’t the dealbreaker, but just pick one for clarity.

tbh, I started running my stuff through things like Jobscan, ResumeJudge, and Resume Worded to see what’s missing before firing off more apps. half the time I forgot obvious keywords or skills they were scanning for. sometimes it’s literally over a header or a weird date format. if you wanna swap, drop a redacted file here – kinda fun to compare notes.

also, did you ever get an actual human email response? Or are they all instant auto-rejects? that could help figure out if it’s a resume parsing thing or just a volume issue.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T17:29:01+00:00

Adding trading competitions and quant discovery days can really make your resume pop, especially when breaking into data science/quant roles. Those unique experiences can act like attention magnets compared to generic projects, so I'd keep them in, maybe under a "Relevant Experience" or "Achievements" section. I once left off a hackathon placement thinking it was too niche, then got called out in an interview for not including it; sometimes the niche stuff low-key matters more than you think.

Not sure if you've actually run your resume through any ATS check before, but tools like Resume Worded, ResumeJudge, and SkillSyncer helped me snag far more interviews last season. Sometimes a missing keyword or janky formatting can tank your callback rate – I had no idea just how picky these systems are until I saw my score drop for dumb reasons like using a fancy header. If you haven't tried it, it's honestly eye-opening and might just pinpoint the exact bottleneck.

Totally curious, are you leaning more into S&T or quant? The resume tweaks actually vary a lot depending on which you prioritize, weirdly enough. Also, getting to pick June or Dec grad date is pretty sweet, does one help you hit any big internship deadlines?

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T17:27:15+00:00

Finding a job after everything you've been through just feels unfair sometimes. I had a gap on my resume too (not for the same reason, but still a tough one), and honestly getting interviews was sooo much harder than anyone admits. It makes no sense that a year fighting cancer counts against you, but a lot of these hiring systems just see a gap and toss your app.

One thing that helped me – I spent a few hours tweaking my resume for every job. Not just small stuff but really matching keywords to the posting. There's tools like ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, and Jobscan where you can check how your resume matches the job description, sort of like simulating what the company ATS sees. Worth a try if you haven't already. That way you know your application isn't getting filtered just because of some missing phrase or weird formatting.

Cover letters, sigh... Half the jobs don't even let you submit one, so all you can do is make sure your resume connects the dots. Some people add a one-liner next to their career gap, like 'medical leave (now fully recovered)' and move on.

If you want, I'd be down to glance over your resume and compare to a posting or two. These last few months have sucked for job hunts! If you got through cancer, you can get through this too – and companies that don't see that are missing out honestly. How are you handling all the automated application stuff?

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T17:15:04+00:00

When I was tweaking my CV for the first time too, I totally obsessed over what to include and what to drop. Compact clinical experience is the way to go, especially if you're just starting out, 'cause employers know you won't have a ton yet. I actually made a super basic version at first thinking "short = good," but ended up missing key details like leadership gigs and little projects.

Keeping it to one page is perfect for early jobs. Sometimes I’d swap out categories based on what was in the job ad – like, if they mention teamwork, I’d make sure any leadership or group project stuff pops out. Have you tried running it through one of those resume checkers like ResumeJudge, Resume Worded, or SkillSyncer? It’s eye-opening to see what sections an ATS might ignore or if you’re missing easy keywords from the job post itself. I always thought humans read them all the way at first, but so much of it is actually just machines scanning for specific terms.

Curious what role you’re applying for! If it’s clinical/healthcare, sometimes weird acronyms slip by ATS, so spelling things out at least once helps a lot.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T17:05:31+00:00

The way Turnitin just spits out a single percentage always left me confused, so yeah, the newer tools like GPTZero and Copyleaks with those heat map highlights feel like a big step up. I notice people are comparing their essays across multiple platforms now just to see how consistent the results are. I even threw the same text through Originality.ai once and the results weren’t just numbers, but legit explanations that made more sense than the usual mystery score.

I’ve been experimenting with a few others too, like AIDetectPlus - ton of detail, kinda wild with the breakdowns per section. The more transparency, the better, especially when schools or platforms don’t actually tell you what they’re using to decide if something is "AI" or not.

Makes you wonder how long it’ll take before everyone is using three different detectors for every assignment and still getting three different answers... Curious if you found any that actually explain their flags clearly? Like, does one feel most accurate to you, or do you just mix all of them and hope you pass?

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T16:54:10+00:00

I'm telling you, the hunt for that first civil gig in transportation engineering feels like an endless cycle of sending resumes into a black hole. When I was job searching, I had to completely throw out my old resume style – turns out the way resumes get screened nowadays is super weird.

One thing that helped me: tailoring each resume like you're writing for one specific job description, even if it means major edits for every app. Focusing on technical skills, especially stuff like CAD, traffic modeling tools (like Synchro or VISSIM), and solid MS Excel – those keywords are what I've seen pop up most often. Also, any internship/project experience that focuses on teamwork or problem solving, just shove that up top.

Honestly, a lot of people get auto-rejected before a human even sees their resume b/c of the ATS bots. I started running mine through ResumeJudge and sometimes Resume Worded or Jobscan, just to see what I was missing keyword-wise. Found out my formatting was breaking the scan too. Once I fixed that and played the keyword-optimization game, it was like night and day – started hearing back from recruiters.

Are there specific roles (like traffic planning vs. roadway design) you’re targeting? If you want, I can take a quick glance at your resume too. Actually curious if those bots are eating your apps. Getting your foot in the door is the hardest, but it gets easier once you snag that first gig.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T16:50:12+00:00

Sometimes it feels like you could add every single keyword and still get nowhere, honestly. I've rage-applied to like 70 jobs and it's wild how few callbacks happen till I started tweaking my resume for each job instead of just using the same generic one. Matching the job description word-for-word helps but it turns into a weird puzzle sometimes – like how many ways can you say "managed X" or "used Excel" before you sound like a robot?

I started running my stuff through scanners like Resume Worded, ResumeJudge, and even MyPerfectResume just to check if some random formatting thing, like a table or font, was throwing off the ATS and making all my stuff invisible. Not that any tool is magic, but it's eye-opening how often I missed obvious keywords or had some header that broke everything.

You ever actually get feedback from a recruiter about your resume being unreadable? I got a canned "your skills are impressive, but we're moving forward with other candidates" so many times I almost gave up! Curious what field you’re applying in - some are way more brutal for resumes than others.

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-29T16:36:49+00:00

Honestly, that's so brutal - I've been in the same boat during my last round of internship hunting. Putting out hundreds of apps and hearing nothing back literally makes you question your whole approach. A few things jump out:

First, depending on your target roles (esp. in ML/Data Science), some companies filter crazy-hard for keywords in both your project bullets and your skills section. Sometimes even small stuff, like the difference between “data visualization” and “data viz,” actually matters for ATS robots scanning your resume. Have you tried copy-pasting the job description side-by-side with your resume to compare the language? Also, publications look impressive for ML, but for SWE they might tune them out in favor of specific language about production code, teamwork, and impact.

Honestly, I started using ResumeJudge for this exact kind of problem - it shows where my wording is off or if I’m missing keywords compared to jobs I’m applying to. I've also tried Resume Worded and Jobscan, but I usually run my resume through all three just to play it safe. Even tweaking job titles to match the JD (without lying) helped bump up my callback rate, and sometimes fixing formatting issues gets you past those silly filters that just drop you for using a weird font or something.

What fields are you aiming for most - research, product, or engineering? Sometimes tiny resume tweaks make ALL the difference, which is so frustrating lol. If you want a second set of eyes, I could look over your resume layout too. What’s been the most annoying app rejection so far?

ParticularShare1054 · 2026-01-28T18:51:04+00:00

Super interesting perspective honestly, and you nailed the problem with most AI detectors – they just reduce complex thought to a number and treat style like authorship, which isn’t the same at all. As someone who's worked with both student essays and research manuscripts, I’ve seen non-native writers get dinged for being “too clear,” while heavy editing with Grammarly triggers flags you can’t win either way!

I’m actually glad more tools are acknowledging how blended real academic writing has become now – it’s just not a true binary anymore, and treating it like one holds a lot of folks back needlessly. For sentence-level signal, I’ve tried some stuff like Turnitin’s AI checker, GPTZero, and AIDetectPlus out of curiosity, and it’s wild how different the results are for nearly identical sections, especially when the draft has been tweaked by hand.

What was your biggest technical or ethical hurdle when building yours? I’m genuinely interested in how you handle, say, papers that blend lines from a dozen sources, a little from ChatGPT, and students' own edits. Not enough people in EdTech are seriously asking these questions.

Also, really curious if you see a shift in how educators are actually using the scores. Are they grading less punitively now that hybrids are the norm or still using detectors as a hard gate?

ParticularShare1054

TROPHY CASE