I'm curious about the common practices. I'm compiling an (academic) cv. Should I order items chronologically or place the most recent first? What are the considerations?

Edit: And does the recommendation extend to publications and presentations too?


1 Answer 1


In the UK I've always seen it done in reverse chronological order (most recent first). This may vary from country to country.

A few links seem to indicate that reverse chronological CVs are the norm. The last link there seems to break it down well, element by element.

And for the record, mine is also reverse chronological.

Publications: a reverse chronological list is a prerequisite, best presented as an appendix. Include journal articles, books or chapters of books, reports and patents Research experience: in reverse chronological order. Emphasise specialist/technical expertise, IT skills, plus any skills required for the job. including project and people management Education: in reverse chronological order. Focus on higher education onwards. Include awards and scholarships. Include the name of your doctoral supervisor and funding body, if appropriate

  • +1 Ditto for my field (Philosophy, US). The reverse chronology standard lets people see what you've been up to recently, as opposed to the stuff you first published as a grad student maybe 15 years or more ago.
    – user10636
    Jan 28, 2016 at 19:15
  • It makes perfect sense! I've gladly reordered my cv to reverse chronological. Many thanks!
    – puslet88
    Jan 29, 2016 at 9:09
  • Of course! And if you can, ask a friend or colleague to show you theirs. Academic CVs can be confusing (especially if you've accomplished a lot of stuff), and comparing your CV to somebody else's can be very reassuring. Jan 29, 2016 at 9:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .