Do share same sentiment wholeheartedly.
Do you require the candidates to have written the resume themselves? Otherwise it's risky to read so much personality into it.
Resumes are usually required to be truthful, sometimes this is even verified, but I've never seen a requirement that I can't just have an agent write it for me; like how students write essays.
Especially problematic when recruiters are known for rejigging resumes into their own format, etc., before passing it onto the client.
It's not a magic stick allowing to make a perfect choice, more like an assessment option. That's being said, sometimes it worth to give a shot to someone whose CV is sub par.
Do you want good writers? Maybe, but not everyone. I honestly do think the importance towards grammar and "writing" in resumes are overstated.
We have to define "good writing". Good doesn't necessarily means CV written in a way for Shakespeare to become jealous to lucidity. It has to meet bare minimum - as in have zero grammar mistakes.
To make an example, you probably won't go to a first date in your pyjamas with stains on it but will dress nicely. The date (and whatever follows) may not be up to your expectations, but if you do use pyjamas, it most certainly will. Not because your pyjama is not magnificent but just because having negligence in dressing properly shows arrogance and disrespect to someone who joins you.
Mostly, hiring has a biased risk matrix. You don’t get hurt by missing a good candidate so much as hiring a bad one. So that makes you conservative in choices. Obviously 1 typo can happen but think about 5 to 10. If you have a lot of CVs to wade through, awful documents going to the bin is not a bad first step in the process.
When I see sloppy resumes or feel the interviewee is not interested/engaged during the interview process, I can imagine how they will be once I hire them.
As to being non-native English speaker, you may not be able to create perfect wording - that's fine, but if knowing this you're too lazy or entitled not to speel check it at least -it has nothing to do with knowledge but just plain negligence or ignorance.
This has to be intentional.
I would imagine that most of us non-native speakers would rather not bring attention to what is easily perceived as a weakness. We try to blend in.
Why is it so extraordinary to ask people to pay attention to what they are doing. Specially when going for something that supposedly interest them?
Imagine you are on your first date with that boy/girl that you DIE for. Would you take care of every detail ? Would you groom yourself, comb yourself even though you are not a barber or a stylist? Now THAT is showing interest.
Would you _go to_ a barber or stylist, or at least have a friend give you a once-over to make sure you look your best?
That's what you should do with your resume. First, second or twentieth language doesn't matter, care and attention to detail does.
Being on employers side, I give little-to-no attention to education. Seen MBAs with no critical thinking or skills whatsoever and dropouts with very diligent and knowledgeable approaches.
For me, resume is not just a boring list of what you did, but also the way it is written - lucidity, points emphasised, etc. It all speaks loudly of personality.
And yea, if there are grammar mistakes it most likely will go to bin. Not because I particularly value grammar (which I do not) but because resume is usually supposed to be diligently written/reread by the candidate. If he/she didn't bother to do that properly - the damn thing that potentially land him/her job - this negligence says for itself, further projects, had there been any, will not be cared properly.
That's my opinion which is in no way representative or absolute in it's truth. I'd like just to pinpoint that there may be few opinions on the matter.