Better to Have 10 Years' Experience Than 25

During the past month, I have been aggressively seeking work. Since Aug. 13, to be precise, I have applied for 63 positions. Not one of them has resulted in an interview or a call-back.

When I look at my resume and at my clips, I think, "What a catch!" More than 25 years of editing and writing experience for newspapers, magazines, newsletters, PR firms, ad agencies, and Web sites. Plenty of published clips. Managerial experience. Teaching experience. Public-speaking experience. Willing to travel and relocate. So what's the problem?

A few days ago, I asked a rep at a firm that places writers, proofreaders, Web masters, graphic designers, and other such "creative talent" in temp and temp-to-hire positions: Is it better to say I have 10 years of experience rather than 25? Does the latter signal "old," whereas the former is more attractive?

The rep responded with candor, for which I thanked her. Her answer: Yes, it's better to admit to 10 years, but don't go as high as 25. She said that "10" means fresh ideas and a forward-thinking nature.

Would that this were true! When I think of the students that I have at Cal State, for example, I hardly think of "fresh ideas" and "forward-thinking nature." They are always waiting for answers to be spoon-fed to them. Of course, there are amazing exceptions, but they are rare exceptions.

But if that's the prejudice against age and experience, so be it. From now on, my cover letters will read "As a writer-editor with more than 10 years of experience..."

Funny that people have often advised those who are starting out to fudge their resumes a bit, to show a bit more experience than they actually have. Well, for us in our 40s and 50s, the opposite now holds: Instead of stacking our resumes, we need to trim them a bit. Like with so much else in this society, we need to dumb it down.