A typical resume has none of that and is more like:
. BS from some un-ranked university
. 2 years at some company you've never heard of
.. Did things you have no way of verifying
. 2 years at another company you've never heard of
.. Did more things you have no way of verifying
I once had an interview with a scientist turned to industry who couldn't demonstrate how to load a text file after 30 minutes of trying. I mean, what should I have done with him? The position required lots of algorithms and data processing.
The fact is that there is such a thing as an "impressive resume". There seem to be people out there eager to dismiss the value of those. Frequently an explanation will be that they themselves don't have one and are engaging in cognitive dissonance reduction. In fact, one can say more generally that psychological forces will act powerfully in such a way as to make hiring managers want to hire people who are just like them, even when they themselves are worse than the best candidates they could hire.
That's the reason why having an analytically well-reflected hiring process, instead of just hiring who you like, is important, and resumes have an important role to play in that.
Sorry for being incendiary, but this hits me as a recent trend that is nothing short of insane. I went to a top-ranked university on the highest-paid scholarship I was eligible for, got a Ph. D. there, then got the job that all my peers wanted but only a handful actually got. Then I booked 10 years of industry experience. -- You wouldn't believe the life sacrifices I've made to be able to have all of that on my resume. If someone tells me that's all "worthless" and they'd rather ask some stupid puzzle questions and see some indication of how passionate I am about working for some no-name company, or whatever the latest hype is, then that's simply where the interview ends for me.