13 Aug In addition to designing a resume, write a separate LinkedIn headline and summary of your general qualifications that would appeal to recruiters and hiring managers. Your headline should f
In addition to designing a resume, write a separate LinkedIn headline and summary of your general qualifications that would appeal to recruiters and hiring managers.
Your headline should function like the headline of an advertisement. It is designed to capture readers’ attention and make them want to know more. A LinkedIn headline can be up to 120 characters.
Your summary is not a restatement of your resume. It is styled and organized to appeal to recruiters and hiring managers. Write several paragraphs about yourself, your goals, the career you’re looking for, and your education (LinkedIn allows you to write up to 2,000 characters, including spaces). Employers want to know what you can do for them, so tell them in these paragraphs. Don’t be afraid of explaining what you’re capable of in your summary (See Palmer’s supplemental LinkedIn reading for more information (Links to an external site.)).
The headline and summary will be assessed on content and persuasiveness.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAudience
30 to >27.0 pts
Superior
Excellent match of document to intended audience needs. An ethical approach to the communication situation.
27 to >24.0 pts
Strong
Adequate match of document to intended audience needs. An ethical approach to the communication situation.
24 to >21.0 pts
Competent
Some mismatches of document to intended audience needs. An ethical approach to the communication situation
21 to >18.0 pts
Weak
Significant mismatches of document to intended audience needs. Questionable ethics.
18 to >0 pts
Failing
Failure to match intended audience needs. Unethical aspects.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose
15 to >14.0 pts
Superior
States the intended purpose clearly.
14 to >12.0 pts
Strong
States the intended purpose mostly clearly.
12 to >11.0 pts
Competent
States the intended purpose, but not clearly.
11 to >9.0 pts
Weak
States the intended purpose in a way that confuses the reader or is illogical.
9 to >0 pts
Failing
Does not state the intended purpose.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructure
15 to >14.0 pts
Superior
Follows structural conventions for the genre. Uses clear headings and transitions. Arranges parts logically.
14 to >12.0 pts
Strong
Follows structural conventions for the genre. Uses mostly clear headings and transitions. Arranges parts logically.
12 to >11.0 pts
Competent
Follows structural conventions for the genre. Uses a few unclear headings and transitions. Includes a few minor illogical arrangements.
11 to >9.0 pts
Weak
Fails to follow some structural conventions for the genre. Uses ambiguous or nondescriptive headings and transitions. Includes significant illogical arrangements that cause difficulty in reading.
9 to >0 pts
Failing
Fails to follow significant structural conventions for the genre. Fails to use headings and transitions successfully. Arranges parts illogically.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle
25 to >23.0 pts
Superior
Clear and succinct prose. Excellent matching of level of formality and technicality to audience. Gender- and culture-appropriate language.
23 to >20.0 pts
Strong
Almost always clear and succinct prose. Good matching of level of formality and technicality to audience. Gender- and culture-appropriate language.
20 to >18.0 pts
Competent
Somewhat unclear or wordy prose. Mostly good matching of level of formality and technicality to audience. Gender- and culture-appropriate language.
18 to >15.0 pts
Weak
Significantly unclear or wordy prose. Clear mismatches of level of formality and technicality to audience. Some problems with sexist or racist language.
15 to >0 pts
Failing
Unclear and wordy prose throughout. Extensive mismatches of level of formality and technicality to audience . Significant problems with sexist or racist language.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEditing
15 to >14.0 pts
Superior
No grammatical errors or 1-2 minor typographical errors that do not disrupt the document flow.
14 to >12.0 pts
Strong
Fewer than 2 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors per page. Errors do not affect usability.
12 to >11.0 pts
Competent
3-4 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors per page. Errors mildly affect usability
11 to >9.0 pts
Weak
5-6 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors per page. Errors affect usability.
9 to >0 pts
Failing
Over 8 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors per page. Errors make the document fail in its goals.
Objective: Motivated individual with a strong sense of purpose who is continuously looking for new ways to solve problems and lead others; well-versed in handling complex projects and meeting tight deadlines as an intern in administration in US Pixel.
Education: University of North Texas | Present 2021-2023 – Bachelor’s in mechanical engineering
Dallas County Community College | 2018-2020 – Associate in Science
Experience: Mechanics firm, TX | Intern August – December 2020 – Responsible in Creating mechanical designs for new items based on concept and planning. – Create and implement testing procedures and conduct tests.
Sodexo, VT | CashierJuly – December 2017 – Kept store operations efficient and tasks current by carrying out daily store opening, closing and shift change actions in full. – Worked closely with front-end staff to assist customers and maintain satisfaction levels.
Skills:
· Participated in the civic event's performance group.
· Participated in the development of numerous roadshows by organizing and directing the team.
· Ability to successfully prioritize work and manage time when to in order to produce value for the organization.
· Build customer relationship.
· Ability to communicate successfully with a wide range of people through written and spoken means.
· Can speak three languages (Nepali, English, Hindi)
