71–80 of 214 posts
This opinion is from someone who's been in charge of hiring a few times and will likely do so again: If you can actually do the job described, I don't give a damn about your credentials. I would not fire an employee who I found out fabricated credentials, if they had been working well for a while.
If a CEO has fabricated experience they have questionable integrity - and their ability to lead is impaired.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>I have a B.S. in Computer Science and B.S. in Mathematics (a double degree). Had I taken fewer courses, I could have had a combined B.S. Computer Science and Mathematics (a double major). What is the difference between having them separate as opposed to saying it was a double major? You still have to meet the same requirements don't you?
My double degree required completing 150 credits, rather than 120 credits for a single degree with double major (the equivalent of an addition year of courses). I can't recall at this point if there were any additional course requirements, but I don't think there were.
Yahoo is going through a dark time and to have something like this brought to light is so low.
It's such a stupid lie as well. He already has a degree in accounting and has loads of relevant experience. Why lie about an additional degree? What's happening here is liar's debt. Early in his career he must have made a decision to lie about his education, when no one was looking and when the chances of someone verifying the claim were low. He reused the lie on every subsequent job and it's stuck with him. It becam…
It's such a stupid lie as well. He already has a degree in accounting and has loads of relevant experience. Why lie about an additional degree? What's happening here is liar's debt. Early in his career he must have made a decision to lie about his education, when no one was looking and when the chances of someone verifying the claim were low. He reused the lie on every subsequent job and it's stuck with him. It becam…
Cutting him some slack, its possible that his accounting degree had a significant computing component and he decided to bring this significant aspect out. My degree is in Biological Sciences, but in my third year I specialised almost entirely in molecular biology. Informally I'm sure I've said 'I did molecular biology at university' - although on my CV I've always listed Biological Sciences.
I'm amazed that anybody gives a shit about this. It's a line on a résumé about a degree he earned 33 years ago. If he was 2 years out of college then lying about his degree would be material to his qualifications and compensation. After 30 years, what possible difference does it make? He is clearly qualified.
These are not the situations you want a CEO creating, no matter how they do it. That it's all from a relatively petty lie makes it all the more aggravating I'm sure.
The issue here is not whether or not he's qualified for the CEO spot. It's whether he has been signing off on SEC filings that he knows contain falsehoods. In particular, there's information in the proxy statements that shareholders are supposed to use as the basis of their voting and their support for executive compensation. If he's lying about this, how are shareholders supposed to trust the rest of the SEC filings…
> If he's lying about this, how are shareholders supposed to trust the rest of the SEC filings he signs off on as CEO? I'm not sure how I feel about statements like this. On the one hand, yes, you probably do not want such a brazen liar leading your company. But on the other hand, we as a society tend to believe in a dangerously inaccurate theory of character. Namely, that people are either inherently moral or they a…
There is, a system that removes incentives for lying - as CEO he has to certify the contents of these documents, with specific penalties. Obviously, those penalties aren't sufficient motivation for him, so you can't expect they were more effective elsewhere in the doc in spots that that have even more incentive for him to lie than his college degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, the head of admissions at MIT: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-04-26-mit-admiss... No question she was good at her job, but it's a real problem when you're in charge of any kind of hiring to ask your applicants to be honest if you're not honest yourself.
Maybe it isn't a problem, but actually something that makes her good at her job? I'd trust a long-time liar to recognize other liars better than an honest person, any day.
I'm amazed that anybody gives a shit about this. It's a line on a résumé about a degree he earned 33 years ago. If he was 2 years out of college then lying about his degree would be material to his qualifications and compensation. After 30 years, what possible difference does it make? He is clearly qualified.
Its a sign of poor character. Lying on your resume is inexcusable for CEO of any public company.
Otherwise we would just let the engineers run the company!
..... cue the downvotes ....