Is your CV scoring sheet rewarding accumulated time or actual ability?

7:34 pm 17/Aug/26

Is your CV scoring sheet rewarding accumulated time or actual ability?

Among candidates aged 22 to 24, CV scores rise steadily with age while test scores fall. VCO Group analyses how CV scoring weights go wrong.

Placing CV scores and aptitude test scores side by side for the same candidate pool, VCO Group finds a striking inversion: among candidates aged 22 to 24, CV scores rise steadily with age while test scores fall steadily. The scoring sheet is rewarding accumulated time more than ability.

Table of Contents

Why this is hard to spot from inside a company

A Young Talent Program's CV scoring sheet is usually built from several seasons of experience and from the profiles of people who succeeded in the past. That is a reasonable method and it produces a sheet that works in the right direction at an aggregate level.

But a scoring sheet can only be validated when there is an independent measurement for the same candidate. In most companies, candidates rejected at the CV round never sit an aptitude test, so there is no way to know whether that rejection was right. Data exists only for the group that progressed.

VCO Group operates both the application intake and the aptitude testing systems for a number of programmes, including some where every candidate sits the test before their CV is read. That produces an unusual dataset: CV score and ability score for the same person, including people who were rejected.

Three candidate groups scored out of line with measured ability

When rank by CV score is compared with rank by test score, most candidates sit in the same band on both scales. The three groups below diverge most clearly, and all three diverge in a way that can be corrected.

Three groups whose CV scores diverge from measured ability

Candidate group	Direction of divergence	Correction
Candidates aged 23 and 24	Scored higher on CV as age rises, while test scores decline with age across the same range	Standardise CV scores within age bands before ranking, so candidates are compared with their own cohort rather than on a single scale.
Candidates aged 19 to 21	Scored lower on CV than their measured ability warrants	Separate the weight given to experience and activities from the assessment of potential, since this group has not had time to accumulate.
Candidates who studied abroad	Scored higher on CV than their measured ability warrants	Demote the foreign university name to reference information, and confirm with a direct measurement before prioritising this group.

All three diverge through the same mechanism: the sheet rewards signals that accumulate with time and circumstance, while the purpose of a young talent programme is to select on potential.

One mechanism sits behind all three groups

The three groups look like three separate problems but share a single cause. Most line items on a CV scoring sheet measure things that require time and circumstance to accumulate: number of internships, extracurricular activities, awards, international experience, projects completed.

For a 24-year-old candidate, the two years' difference from a 22-year-old is two more years to accumulate those signals. For a candidate who studied abroad, family circumstances have already generated signals the sheet records. There is nothing wrong with valuing these signals, but it is worth recognising that they measure something other than what the programme is looking for.

A Young Talent Program or Management Trainee scheme selects on potential, on the assumption that most professional capability will be built inside the programme itself. If the sheet rewards what has already accumulated, the programme is selecting against the criteria of an experienced hire, only on a lower scale.

This also explains why the 19 to 21 group loses out. They have not had time to accumulate, but their measured ability is no lower. For programmes open to final-year students, this group is being systematically overlooked.

Standardising by age band: a small step that changes outcomes

The cleanest correction is not rewriting the whole sheet. It is adding one processing step after scoring and before ranking.

Instead of ranking all candidates on a single scale, split them into age bands or graduation-year cohorts, calculate each person's relative position within their own band, then rank overall on that relative position. Technically this is a spreadsheet formula or a calculated field in the ATS, not a project.

The effect is immediate: the 19 to 21 group is no longer compared directly against someone with two years of work on the same experience line item, and the 23 to 24 group no longer collects points for the time difference.

A second correction worth making at the same time is splitting the sheet into two separate scores rather than one total. One score for what the candidate has done, one for signals of potential. The two are reported separately, and the weighting between them is set per role. This preserves all the information the reviewer sees while making explicit which direction the programme is prioritising.

The CV round still creates value

This needs saying clearly to avoid the wrong conclusion. At an aggregate level the CV round in the data works: candidates rejected at this stage score materially lower on the aptitude test than those who progress, and the gap is large. Reviewers are seeing a real signal.

The correlation between CV score and ability score is positive and moderate. That is enough to confirm the CV round has value, and also enough to say it does not replace a direct measurement.

Selection research points the same way. Sackett and colleagues' 2022 analysis in the Journal of Applied Psychology, after correcting a flaw in how range restriction had been handled, showed indirect criteria carry lower predictive validity than had been believed for decades, while direct measures of behaviour and ability hold their position. In their 2023 follow-up, the same authors stress that the weighting between components in a selection system matters more than the presence of any single component.

The practical conclusion for a running programme is that no round needs removing. What needs doing is standardising scores by age band, splitting the two score types, and validating each line item against your own data after every season.

Three things to do

Standardise CV scores within age bands or graduation-year cohorts before ranking overall, rather than ranking all candidates on a single scale.
Split the scoring sheet into two separately reported scores - one for what the candidate has done, one for signals of potential - with weighting set per role.
After each season, compare every line item on the sheet against aptitude results for the same candidate pool, and drop items that fail to distinguish passers from non-passers.

Frequently asked questions

Why do older candidates usually score higher on CV screening?

Because most line items measure things that take time to accumulate, such as internships, extracurricular activities and awards. In VCO Group data, among candidates aged 22 to 24, CV scores rise steadily with age while aptitude test scores fall steadily across the same range.

How do you score final-year students fairly against people already working?

Standardise scores within age bands or graduation-year cohorts before ranking overall, so each candidate is compared with their own cohort rather than on a single scale. Alongside that, separate the score for what has been done from the score for signals of potential.

Should the CV round be dropped in favour of testing everyone?

Not necessarily. In VCO Group data, candidates rejected at the CV round score materially lower on the test than those who progress, so the round is creating value. What needs adjusting is the weighting of individual line items, not the existence of the round.

About VCO Group

VCO Group operates the assessment infrastructure behind Young Talent Programmes and Management Trainee schemes in Vietnam, covering application intake, aptitude testing, automated interviewing and Assessment Centres. VCO Group serves young talent and candidates with under three years of experience, working with large enterprises and multinationals in Vietnam. Its assessment and candidate management platform is called Testalents. Head office in Ho Chi Minh City.

If you would like to benchmark your own selection data against the market, or discuss the Young Talent Program Insight Report, contact Mr. Dung on 0334 889 068 or visit vcogroup.com.vn.