Should I check my CV myself or have someone check it?

Having a CV checked by software or by a person

We offer the automated check, and it cannot do the most important thing: judge whether your story convinces. The two examine different things — one finishes in seconds, the other actually reads.

The check only you can run

The most valuable check on a Swiss application is unglamorous: put your CV next to your Arbeitszeugnisse and read them against each other, line by line. Do the start and end months match? Is the job title in the CV the one written on the reference, or the one everyone used internally? Is the Pensum right — the workload stated as a percentage, which Swiss employers read as a fact, not a rounding? Did the company change its name after a merger? No outside reader can do this for you unless you hand over the references, and handing them over means giving a stranger your entire working life on paper.

It matters more here than in most countries because those documents travel with the application. An Arbeitszeugnis is not a US-style reference letter written on request: it is a document you are given when a job ends, describing your tasks and your performance, and arbeit.swiss expects the full set, complete and in chronological order. So the person deciding whether to invite you is holding your claims and the evidence for them at the same time. A contradiction between the two is not a detail that slips past. It is the one error that surfaces by itself while reading.

The same is true of the lines nobody can contradict you on, which is exactly why they are yours to get right: the full date of birth, nationality, and for foreign nationals the permit — B, C, G or L. And the language levels. Whether your German is B2 or C1 is not something a proofreader can judge from your CV; they read what you wrote. Overstate it and the error does not surface during the check, it surfaces in the interview.

Finally the mechanical layer, for which arbeit.swiss gives a short usable list: spelling and formatting errors, completeness of the documents, clear and correct file names. That is diligence, not judgement — and it is a poor use of somebody else's attention.

What you cannot see in your own text

Self-checking stops working at a specific point, for a reason no amount of care removes: you read your intention along with the words. You know what the abbreviation stands for, because everyone at your old employer used it. You know why there are eleven months between two jobs. You know that «project responsibility» meant a team of fourteen. None of that is in the document. Someone reading it without knowing you sees an abbreviation, a gap, and a phrase that could mean almost anything.

That position — not knowing what you meant — is the employer's position. A second reading is therefore not a verdict from above; it is a simulation of the reading your file will get anyway. Which also tells you whom to ask: not necessarily an expert, but someone who does not know your last job. A partner who has heard about that company every evening for three years is nearly as blind to it as you are.

It is worth steering the reading rather than handing it over. «Tell me what you think» produces politeness. Narrow questions produce information: after thirty seconds, what do you think I do for a living? What job would you believe I could hold, based on this? Which sentence is unclear? What did you expect to find and not find? Those answers are observations, not corrections — and observations are the thing you cannot generate about your own text.

Reading in a second language — on both sides

If you write in a language that is not your first, the question stops being a choice. You proofread with the same instinct you wrote with, so the mistakes you did not notice while writing you do not notice while reading either. A spell checker finds words, not tone, and in a Swiss cover letter tone carries a lot of the weight.

For English speakers in Switzerland the situation is usually the mirror image, and it is worth naming because it is easy to miss. English is a genuine working language of this market: among open adverts with a detectable language, 23.4 per cent in German-speaking Switzerland and 38.3 per cent in French-speaking Switzerland are written in English. But an English advert does not mean an English-first reader. Very often the person reading your application is reading in their second language — so long sentences, idiom, humour and cultural references do not land as intended, and a check by someone who reads English the way that reader does is worth more than a check by someone who writes it as elegantly as you do.

The other half of the picture sets the bar: 97.8 per cent of adverts that name a language requirement at all ask for at least one language at professional or native level. If that language is not English, a certificate in the attachments claims C1 while two pages of prose demonstrate it. In that situation a reading by someone who genuinely commands the language is not a comfort — it is the part of the work you cannot do yourself.

Who actually reads it, and who checks it regardless

The picture of a professional screening process is accurate for part of the market. The ten largest advertisers in our index together account for 21.4 per cent of open adverts, and they have HR departments, templates and routine. At the same time, 70.6 per cent of the employers advertising with us have at most three open adverts at once. There, the reader is often the person who will also do the job alongside you, comparing your file not against a standard but against their own picture of the role, in the gaps between meetings.

Two things follow. First, there is no authority holding your CV against a universal norm, so there is no check it can «pass». Second, being understood beats being complete, especially at the small employer reading between two appointments.

And your file gets one outside check you never ordered. Switzerland's federal data protection commissioner states that employers may only ask for information showing whether a candidate fits the company and meets the requirements of the position, and that they must obtain the applicant's consent before requesting information from third parties; former employers, for their part, may not grant access to personnel files. The reference call is precisely a comparison of your claims against a second source — checking the very things you could have checked at your kitchen table.

What you hand over when you have it checked

Having it checked has a cost that is not measured in francs. A Swiss application file contains more than a CV does in many countries: date of birth, address, usually a photo, the permit for foreign nationals — and the Arbeitszeugnisse, which name companies, supervisors and often carry their signature. You are passing on information about other people, who were not asked.

That is not an argument against a second reading. It is an argument for choosing the audience: one person you know rather than an open call in a group; the CV alone when the question is impression, rather than the full file with every reference attached. The standard the commissioner sets for employers — ask only what shows suitability for the job — is, by analogy, even narrower for a friend doing you a favour. They do not need your references to tell you whether your summary makes sense.

Where a second reading costs nothing in Switzerland

Three routes are free, or included in something you already have. First, your own circle, which the national careers service names before any paid option. Second, the RAV: arbeit.swiss states that «For professional and personal advice on applying for jobs, you can sign on with your local regional employment centre (RAV)» — if you are registered, that door is already open. Third, application courses and text agencies; for registered jobseekers a course is often a labour-market measure the RAV decides on.

What paid feedback costs on the Swiss market is a separate question with a separate answer. What matters here is sequence: almost everything a paid service does in its first hour, you can do beforehand — and the less of it is left, the more you get for the same hour.

The order that does not waste the second reading

Realistically, another person reads your file attentively once. On the second pass they know it, and they go as blind to it as you are. That single reading is the scarcest resource in the whole process, and it should not be spent hunting for missing months.

In practice: first the comparison against your references and the arbeit.swiss list, then a version you consider finished, then the outside reading, then the tailoring to the individual advert — which is yours again, because it recurs with every application. Reverse the order and you get feedback on a draft that will not exist in two days.

When checking it yourself is enough, and when it is not

Checking it yourself is enough when your file has already produced interviews and you are extending it: a new job added, dates updated, one more reference attached. It is also enough when you write in your first language and stay in the field you know. The check really is a comparison, and you are the best person to run it.

Have it read in four situations. First, your first Swiss application, however experienced you are — the expectations about references, photo, permit and page count differ from what you are used to. Second, when you write in a second language. Third, when you change field, because then no term is self-explanatory any more. Fourth, when you have been applying for weeks without interviews: the problem is rarely a typo, it is whether thirty seconds of reading make clear what you are applying as — and that is exactly the judgement you cannot make about your own text.

Between the two there is a third, repeatable check: comparing your CV against one specific advert is mechanical enough for a machine to do, and it comes up again with every application you send.