All The NewsEducationOpinion

Difference between a Resume and a CV

4 Mins read

By Dare Lasisi, United Kingdom

The primary differences between a resume and a curriculum vitae (CV) are length, what is included, and what each is used for. While both are used in job applications, a resume and a CV are not always interchangeable. That’s the universal truth not known to many job seekers and applicants.

A CV (Curriculum Vitae, which means a course of life in Latin) is an in-depth document that can be laid out over two or more pages and it contains a high level of detail about your achievements, a great deal more than just a career biography. The CV covers your education as well as any other accomplishments like publications, awards, honours etc.

The document tends to be organised chronologically and should make it easy to get an overview of an individual’s full working career. A CV is static and doesn’t change for different positions, the difference would be in the cover letter.

A resume, or résumé, is a concise document typically not longer than one page as the intended reader will not dwell on your document for very long. The goal of a resume is to make an individual stand out from the competition.

The job seeker should adapt and modify the resume to every position they apply for. It is in the applicant’s interest to change the resume from one job application to another and to tailor it to the needs of the specific post.

A resume doesn’t have to be ordered chronologically, doesn’t have to cover your whole career like and is a highly customisable document.

It is very important to know that most employers have no time to waste on any CV or resume with unpardonable typographical errors and distinctive grammatical blunders.

As a job seeker, you must cross-check your application and CV very well as if your life depends on it. You don’t need to be in a hurry to produce either CV or resume.

If you’re jobless, you need to engage in either voluntary works for your community, or charity, just to fill the gaps even if you’re not collecting salaries/allowances from those activities. If you leave too many gaps in your CV, your potential employers see you as unproductive and probably a lazy person.

In a nutshell, you cannot buy work experience in a supermarket. Let me give you my own personal experience with journalism.

I did not have any background in journalism but I love the profession. I am a self-trained journalist from my undergraduate days at the University of Ilorin in Nigeria.

Campus journalism was even one of the bogus reasons for my expulsion from the university during General Sani Abacha military dictatorship regime.

That’s another long story. I don’t wish to re-open an old wound in the new year.

I once worked with the Daily Times of Nigeria(DTN) in Lagos as a freelance reporter(not a staff!), just to gain work experience in journalism with well-trained journalists. I was paid N250 per published story and to earn N1000 per week, I must publish at least 4 good stories per week. I endured the stress shortly after my NYSC programme in Niger state, just to gain experience to add to my CV. No pain, no gain.

Time to apply for Commonwealth Media Internship in London, I knew I could be outrightly disqualified for not having a first degree in Journalism, Mass Comm, or English language. It was clearly stated in the advertisement.

I just took a bloody risk! That was original WABILAHI TAOFEEK.

I boldly stated in the 1-page resume(not a CV, you know why?) about my campus journalism experience plus DTN newsroom training, Habitat Communications(I was the General Editor of Shelter Watch journal for over 2 years), The Monitor and many others.

I also produced some of my published articles and news stories, just to impress the Commonwealth HQ panel members. I was asked to produce 5 articles/news stories, I sent them more than 10.(Over-Sabi dey worry me dat time?).

My mission was to impress them to overlook my Bsc Geography certificate and focus on my unique creative writing skills and years of work experience in the media industry. It worked for me like magic. I was the only applicant selected out of 65 applicants from other Commonwealth countries. That was how I travelled to England without paying one dollar. The rest is now history.

Another possible option is to look for companies or individuals to give you reference letters for your potential employers. I recently searched the web to really understand how to write a good CV and resume for employers and clients. I just shared the outcome with my friends on social media. Knowledge is light.

Many Nigerian graduates cannot write an acceptable corporate-tailored CV or resume to impress potential employers. This is a serious matter. The Internet is a reservoir of unlimited information and knowledge.

Your CV or resume is your selling point to your potential employers and clients. You just need to stand out from the crowd. Applicants and job seekers need to remember the contents of their CVs and resumes, employers are likely to ask many questions during the interviews.

Don’t cook up too many lies (you cannot smartly defend!) in your CV or resume. Don’t appear as a brainwashed fool before your future employers. Loan yourself a digital brain. The world is now a global village. As simple as ABC.

Don’t present forged documents/certificates, if discovered later, not good for your image. Be a good ambassador of your family. Thanks for reading.

*Dare Lasisi, former Commonwealth journalist, writes from the award-winning University of Strathclyde, FACULTY OF SCIENCE, Department of Computer & Information Sciences, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
Cover StoryDevelopmentOpinion

Pedestrian Bridges: Rising Symbols of Renewed Hope in Abuja

2 Mins read
  By Ogefila Bayo Adewale Every morning, parents watch their children leave for school along Abuja highways, their hearts race each time…
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com