Why is an academic CV not the place to sell? In a comment, ff524 said this (and got confirmed by scaahu, Nate Eldredge below (not to mention the number of votes)):


  Actually, academic CVs are typically not as sales-pitch-y as non-academic CVs. They are usually a very formulaic listing of all the academic things the candidate has done, with no editorializing or embellishment [...]. The "sell" is reserved for other parts of the application.


Why? I know that there are some differences in academia than other environments, but I can't think of a reason why a CV shouldn't be a sale pitch. Sure, we have other metrics to evaluate that, like h-index, but what is so wrong that putting other things (like about me, objectives, other courses, English certification, class standing, etc)? I am asking this question in general, but I also ask it from the new young student standing point in specifically. I know that if you are a novice, LOR are very important. You can say that a CV should be concise and into the point, but a half-page long CV may show that beside that point, you have nothing. 

I just wonder what is the harm of making the CV like a sales pitch?
In academia, the traditional CV format is exactly what people care about, i.e. it already is the sell. Other academics care about stuff like your papers, presentations, and teaching experiences. In general, very little weight is given to the other topics that you mentioned, so including them is a waste of space. The few places that they do have weight (primarily graduate admissions), the relevant parts are better suited to other areas of the application (e.g. official transcripts, TOEFL and GRE score reports) where they are more likely to be seen when needed.

Note that graduate admissions are slightly different from the rest of academia. CVs that are submitted here are often more of a hybrid between traditional resumes and academic CVs, in large part because prospective graduate students don't have the academic experiences and achievements to fill up the latter (somewhat field-dependent). But many of the same cultural norms apply. By and large, academics are not interested or swayed by unverifiable "fluff," so you should limit what you include to specific, concrete, verifiable achievements.