The CV that got me my first university job [All the MISTAKES]

A PhD CV that lands a university postdoc isn’t about looking polished—it’s about putting the right evidence in the right order for the specific job. After finishing a PhD and spending a year in industry, Andy Stapleton says his first university role came from a curriculum vitae that matched the research focus of the position: transparent electrodes for solar cells. The core lesson is blunt: the most powerful section of a CV—career goals and how they connect to the target role—must be concrete and tailored, not generic or awkwardly broad.

Stapleton’s original academic CV is described as “ugly” but functional, and the details reveal where it worked and where it missed. He lists major sections such as personal details, career goals, qualifications, current employment, research experience, scholarships, publications, lab skills, computer skills, other skills, teaching experience, interests, and referees. The biggest weakness is the opening career-goals section: it begins with a vague line about having a “varied research history,” which he calls a bad first impression. He contrasts that with what should have been front-loaded instead—his specific background in colloid and surface chemistry and organic photovoltaic devices, plus a clear statement of how his chemical education and PhD work would help improve device performance and solve practical problems.

Beyond the opening, the CV’s structure follows a priority logic: qualifications and employment act as quick screening boxes, while research experience and publications do the heavy lifting for academic hiring. For research experience, he recommends keeping descriptions tight—typically a few sentences per project—naming what was done (e.g., refinement of a mini-emulsion process to yield colloidal nanoparticles, evaluation of morphology and surface interactions) and linking it to device improvement. For publications, he emphasizes that peer-reviewed journal articles and conference outputs matter most, and he notes a common temptation to include items that are “in press” or presentations that may not be strictly publication-grade. He also highlights that lab skills and technical tools (including software like Gaussian and Spartan, plus LaTeX and Microsoft Office) can strengthen credibility, especially when they map directly to the role.

Stapleton also argues that non-academic CVs require a different emphasis. When shifting toward science communication, the formatting becomes simpler and the content changes: professional experience and communication outputs move to the top, publications are summarized more broadly, and referees are chosen from relevant industry roles rather than academics. He cites science writing, video production, radio training, podcasting, and media appearances as the proof points that hiring managers in that space care about.

The closing guidance is practical for PhD students: track education, research interests, role-by-role responsibilities, awards, publications and talks, teaching, and a running list of skills (especially analytical, coding, and other transferable capabilities). He also advises preparing referees in advance and keeping them “warm” by notifying them after applying. The overall message is that a CV is a living document—tailor it to the job, lead with the most relevant evidence, and let everything else recede.