@jpb:
I've also been in industry for a few decades, and have seen lots of changes on both sides of the interview table. I've written job descriptions for, and help fill, positions in all of engineering, including technicians, EEs, MEs, systems engineers, software engineers, buyers, sales/marketing, and also for managers. I've even been offered a partnership in a technical recruiting firm, which I declined because I'm an engineer first, last and always.
Old jobs kept as separate entries on the resume can indicate over-attachment to the past (que Springsteen's "Glory Days"). They can also invite age discrimination (ask me how I know), even when the employer attempts to prevent it. Instead, I recommend summarizing early employers as a group, with a single time span, listed as "multiple employers, details available upon request", possibly with a synopsis of the responsibilities and accomplishments. This would apply for any set of jobs doing basically the same thing. In general, only the past decade needs to be covered in detail and the rest summarized, with exceptions only when experience exists that is directly relevant to the job description, and is not present in any more recent position. For example, I don't list anything close to the full record of my consulting clients (dozens of them): I give a date range and a list of the work performed. The same approach works for multiple jobs.
To be clear: Don't "cut out" anything - compactly summarize it instead.
About references: I always say "References Available Upon Request After Interview", even if the employer or recruiter requests otherwise. My reasons are: 1) My references are busy and important folks, 2) their contact information is very private, 3) they should be contacted only when it really matters, and 4) I want to give them a heads-up that they should expect a call. I have never had this become an issue, not even once.
I do a similar thing for salary history: As a contractor I have, on occasion, briefly made obscene amounts of money, something I choose not to reveal when applying for conventional employment. I merely ask for their target salary range, and let them know if my history is compatible with it.
Of course, the above may not be possible when applying to the government or a defense contractor, which is one reason I generally avoid them and stick with smaller, more independent companies (though I'll put up with anything for a job I really want: I have worked for both the government and defense contractors on some amazing projects).
I'd recommend using a professional (and reputable) resume service, and have them review your resume. I expect they will repeat my advice to the letter. A good resume service is a great investment. The better professional recruiters provide the service for free to their candidates.
Never exceed two pages: That goal should provide the incentive needed to eliminate the irrelevant, summarize the ancient, and emphasize the relevant. That is to say, no JOB requires more than a 2-page resume. Remember, the resume is not who you are: It is your highly targeted request for an interview for a specific job. Don't ask anyone to read anything that slows that process, not even the slightest bit, for they will simply move on to the clearer resumes.
If more detail is desired they will ask: there is no need to force-feed it to them. I always have my "Master" resume with me at every interview, just in case. While cramming all that information into the initial resume would be a huge mistake, pulling it out during an interview has caused some very positive reactions! After all, once I'm in the room there's no hiding my age: Backing it up with a book of experience can add "gravitas" at just the right moment.
And, yeah, compressing a resume to expand upon only the relevant can be a bit painful: I'm having a fantastic career that's been tons of fun and that I'm immensely proud of, and I love sharing everything about it. But a friend once put it into perspective: "If it were really that special, you'd tattoo it onto your ass."
Needless to say, I have no resume tattoos.
@tbscope:
That's what recruiters are for! But you still must process the candidates they forward to you, and check that they are not dropping good candidates because they don't fully understand the job description (or the job description is poorly written). Any given hire can make or break a group, so the process deserves the direct involvement of those affected by it. So, again, it is best that applicants don't waste our time: Respect our time instead, and make it as easy as possible for us to select YOU instead of someone else who has no clue how things get done.
Also, the fees recruiters charge (often equal to 50% of the first year's salary) comes out of the engineering budget: I'd much rather spend that money on debuggers, o'scopes, faster workstations, and attending technical conferences. Or even giving a bit more salary to the new hire.
Finally, butt-kissers never get the job, except when the entire team consists of butt-kissers. They're easy to weed out during the interview.
The most difficult interviews are new graduates. They have no experience, have no idea how the system works, and have little idea what a good interview is. We bend over backwards to help them, put them at ease, explain what's going on, and to get to who they are and what they have to offer.
There is an art to being a good interviewee, with lots of tips and tricks that can be applied to avoid pitfalls and problems. But being a good interviewer is a higher art, since we must also be able to achieve our goals even when presented with a weak interviewee. Those interviews we call "interrogation" or "wringing out the sponge". Some folks just don't do well in interviews, yet may be good team members: A good interviewer can tell, will take it into account, and will work around it.
The worst thing for an interviewee is to be faced with an incompetent or incapable interviewer. The interviewee must tactfully take over the interview and subtly direct it as needed, a very tough path to create and follow. Something I've had to do several times, especially with prospective consulting clients. The only way I've found to gain that skill is to do lots of interviews (each with a ton of preparation), even when you are content with your present job. Interviewing is a skill that requires experience to build and improve, the more the better.
-BobC