I've always been taught to put references on a separate document, and the resume, to say that they are "available upon request.  Why do they teach that?  Why not just either include them as part of the resume, or send the list of references in the same letter (or email) as the resume and cover letter?  Why make the potential employer wait for the references?  

I've always been taught to put references on a separate document, and the resume, to say that they are "available upon request.

That is kind of an old fashion way of doing it.  Most resumes make no mention as to references.

The references now go on the company's official application, when they ask for it.   It is just understood that references will be made "availabe upon request" now.

Hi sjnaz,

Great question! Sameoldsong and JohnGalt gave you excellent advice -- it's best to omit references from the resume. Unless references are specifically requested, employers probably won't be interested in seeing the information or contacting your references before interviewing you. It's also not a good idea for your references' personal contact information to be widely distributed if you are actively circulating your resume.

Some employers ask for references upfront. Most don't. Furthermore, it is no longer necessary, and shows you haven't updated your resume skills in several years, to put 'available on request' on your resume--if you have them, of coursevtheyre available, and if you don't don't advertise you don'thave any! An employer for the most part won't bothervwith references if they don't like you in interview, and if they do will only then violate implied privacy of your refs, whondont wan to receive calls from everybody you sednd a resume to, which could b hundreds. Presumably if you decide in interview this job isn't for you, you withhold your refs again heir time and privacy, and say, no thanks.

Great advice, authorjln -- thanks for posting!