Groups
Legal issues in Recruiting Discussions « back to group
-
Today, I read a sad story of a woman who was highly admired, greatly respected, and loved by many. Her work had been honored, and revered by all of her community, school, peers, and students.
Quoted - Ms. Jones had received the institute?s highest honor for administrators, the M.I.T. Excellence Award for Leading Change, and many college admissions officers and high school college counselors said yesterday that whatever her personal shortcomings, her efforts deserved respect.
Alas, the great work she did will be forgotten, because of having to lie on a resume about her lack of degree.
Would she have been hired into the position had she not lied? probably not. Yet, they thought she had the ability for the job - She proved it well. They thought she had the Knowledge for the job - She also proved that she did. She proved that she was able, capable, and wise.
Today, her ability will be questioned, as we forget about the Good she did for the School, as this is now considered a "scandal" - because of believing she had to lie to get to where she was today.... Unfortunately she DID have to lie to get where she was!
So I ask the following - When will companies start looking at what REALLY is important - Accomplishments, proven abilities, hands on skills, experience and knowledge and quit using Degree necessary as an excuse?
Education as a desirable qualification - wow - Companies, ask yourself this - How many Desirable qualified Candidates did You miss yesterday because this was your Biggest Requirement? Ask yourself is this a need, or a want?
Ask yourself, is this why there is a "war for talent"?
Read more about Dean Marilee Jones and ask yourself, yes, she lied, and there is the ethical dilema here.. but why did she find that she needed to in the first place? And should her work be remembered, not the lie?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/27mit.html?bl&ex=1177819200&en=bf88142bc6884a95&ei=5087%0A
I think the Supreme Court has one of the BEST responses to this question in one of its earliest interpretations of Title VII: ?History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees. Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the commonsense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality.?
13 replies
Log in or register to post a reply.
-
From my own experience, knowledge is one part of the degree; how a person learns to think as a result of the process of learning what they do in the program is the other part.
I am asomeone with a BA in Political Science and an MSW; I have down institute training ata pschoanalytic institute. Each of those priograms contribuited to evolution in knowledge and thinking process taht helped me succeed to different levels in my development. The person I was when I obtained my Bachelors helped shape the person I was in the recruiting business in 1971 and on and on.
Each fed on the other to where I am now.
And the chicken was before the egg. :-)
-
I am not sure it's the actual "degree" that is as important to the hiring manager as the "this candidate was actually doing the same thing for 4 years in a row without quitting" is.
In the industry that I source for (IT), there are many consultants, many "full time consultants" (what I call candidates that hop from FTE to FTE) and others that just can't hold a job.
For most entry to mid level positions.. it's nice to see someone that stuck with something for 4 or more years.
-
We donot give that much importance to paper degrees, which are just that. So many of the applicants come from so many different countries in the World, its practically not feasible to check. If someone is born in North America and studied here, then we get a realistic shot at verifying the degree. Experience trumps everything, one time we ended up hiring a person who had done just upto 12th grade for a software architect position, that person worked just fine for us.
-
I?m rather surprised in these strings of late on this subject about ?college degrees: are they necessary or not? that the pro-degree folks aren?t chiming in with their sides to this thorny issue. We?ve had these discussions before here on ERE, hearing heartily from both sides. I did a search in the archives here on the words ?college degree? alas with no results ? I know the discussions are in here I just can?t find them. I find it alarming that the ?other? side seems to have been silenced.
I guess I don?t find the anti-degree sentiment surprising when you consider that about 20% of the U.S. population is degreed with there maybe being a much smaller representation in the HR industry. But to ignore the dedication, temerity and persistence getting a college degree entails is just wrong, in my opine.
There?s a discussion over on LinkedIn that addresses this question as well. You can read all 19 (so far) responses here: http://www.linkedin.com/answers/hiring-human-resources/staffing-recruiting/HRH_SFF/39530-5845899?browseIdx=39&sik=1177710258405&goback=%2Each_HRH*4SFF%2Eavq_39821_4140858_4_1177710258404%2Each_HRH*4SFF%2Eabq_4_1177710258405
I guess the remark that seemed to make the most sense to me over there was, ?In sum, it depends on the position. Assuming the person got the interview because the degree was not so much required as preferred, then a solid interview and good work experience will make up for any degree deficiency.?
Watch for the upcoming first release of the ?Book of Scripticals? ? actual telephone names sourcing scripts that WORK!
It took 3.6 million years to make a Project Manager. You have until Wednesday to find him. Call us.
Our goal is to save you time and help you succeed.
-
Yes, 28 years will be forgotten becuase of a lie.
Our applicants are fired when they are caught lying on their employment applications. The President of radio Shack was fired for the same reason.
And what I also notice is that the university did not performa background check as simple as writing to the schools in question and attempting to verify the accuracy of what was on the application (or if they did, several of the respondents were EXTREMELY slow).
So, this looks like another organization witha broken practice. Yes, they hired someone who did a good job. But a core value we teach young people is honesty matters and in her job she is a symbol of the university's values, no differntly than an athlete who uses "the cream" is or a stock broker who lies about their suspensions.
From the organization's perspective, in addition to the moral requirements, there is also a legal/insurance problem. If the employee who they know lied commits a crime (bilking grandma's life savings as in the case of the broker), you can be sure that the insurance company wouldn't pay off and that even an incom,petent attorney would say, "Mr. Major Securities Firm, you knew wo and so was a liar and did nothing about it and Ms. Gonazalez, an 87 year old woman with oinly the proceeds of her husband's insurance policy has had it stolen by your lying employee."
Ya get the problem?
-
Honestly, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy here. What people are forgetting is that this woman chose to lie and say she had 3 degrees! Ironically, the job she initially applied for, an admin position, did not require a degree at all.
And she still lied.
And as someone else said, she had 28 years to catch up and get the degrees.
She didn't bother.
Yes, she did her job well, but she lied when she didn't even have to. That is the most important piece of this story, and the saddest one. She didn't need the degree to get that first job. And she had plenty of time to continue with her education and still could have ended up in the job she eventually had...maybe even taken advantage of working at MIT by getting her education there.
It's unfortunate that she lost her job, but that's a consequence of lying, especially when it's not even necessesary.
-
Karen, I agree with your assertion that a degree is a meaningless want and, based on my own experience, most employers understand that and will look at the totality of a candidate's background and experience when making a hiring decision. However, that being said, assuming that all things are equal or close to being equal, the candidate with the degree will most likely get the job.
On the other hand, a superstar without a degree stands more of a chance to get a job than a mediocre or just qualified candidate. The problem is, can not having the degree cloud the judgment of the recruiter or hiring manager before they even have a chance to determine whether or not they have a superstar candidate on hand?
I believe that's one of the points that Karen might be addressing - that is, a lot of superstar candidates may never get a chance to surface and get noticed because they are automatically swept under the rug strictly on the basis of the degree requirement.
I am almost sure this is NOT happening at Microsoft and other enlightened companies because they understand that too well. In fact, when I had Microsoft as a client eons ago, their requirement for almost every single position was a degree and x number of years of experience or equivalent experience.
Again, a good wake up call for staffing to take a closer look at their own practices in order to insure that great candidates like the ex-Dean of Admissions at MIT will not have to lie in order to gain a position for which they are clearly qualified.
-
Sorry! I'll address your points:
"Today, her ability will be questioned, as we forget about the Good she did for the School"
I don't think this is accurate. Her ability is not questioned at all. Simply her ethics are. She apparently did the job very well.
" as this is now considered a "scandal" - because of believing she had to lie to get to where she was today.... Unfortunately she DID have to lie to get where she was!"
I think a "language & reasoning" expert here would do better than I would in answering the nuances of phrasing it like this. Yes, she had to lie to get in just like a jewel theif would have to break plate glass window to get her hands of jewelry and run. But the supposition is "she shouldnt have to lie" to get in. The jewelry theif should not have to break the glass to get that loot. They should just hand the theif the goods... Remember ( correct me if I'm wrong ) she became a known quantity-- a performer and do-gooder AFTER she was hired, and during her MIT career, not before. So, her abilities were anything but obvious. And there are plenty of degreed people who are fired for nonperformance.
"So I ask the following - When will companies start looking at what REALLY is important - Accomplishments, proven abilities"
Again, she grew into the job it seems, and proved her abilities largely on-the-job.
But remember, this example may not be the best for this arguement: universities are diploma factories-- they exist to sell the concept that you need one and you need to pay for one. Why would they wish to hire a slew of people that disprove their logic ( nondegreed )....?
Many if not most people in the country ( hundred(s) million? ) believe that you need a degree to get ahead, to learn, to grow, to enter the next level. Why would you expect companies to then consider lightly? If that were the case, would the diploma industry be dethroned from its perch as the creator of a talented wortkforce?
I think it's a bit more complicated than "power to the people"...
-
I just rushed through the responses a bit and wasn't sure of this was pointed out, but she wasn't "the dean of MIT", she was dean of admissions at MIT, a perhaps tangetial but nevertheless important note. But it does make the pointof passing judgement over college applicants even more salient.
Makes me remember the illegal immigration debate, right? Nice, hardworking, paying taxes, but lied/broke the rules to get in. How many others would love to break the rules to get in!
And then it boils down to the centuries-old dilemma, the ends justifying the means. Because she was courageous, and and effctive champion...
Tough. I think we are at the ever-present slippery slope again. How can you not sadly, with head hanging regretfully low-- like Tim Selek at the end middle of a Magnum PI episode-- join in condeming and censuring her, regardless of "performance"?
She'll get picked up somewhere for even more money. Maybe talk radio? alright, that joke was pretty bad...
-
Although I generally agree with you, I believe that she made a conscious decision to lie and therefore should gracefully accept the consequences. She benefited from that lie for 28 years.
Why she felt the need to lie is an entirely separate matter. I can sympathize with her on that, however, it still does not relieve her of her obligations to tell the truth when she applied for the position. If the lie was out of necessity and a matter of survival, this would have been of a temporary nature and therefore she would have had ample time to "hurry up and obtain the degree while working full-time" even if it meant putting in a combined 14 hours of work on a daily basis until she would have obtained her degree. I work an average of 16-18 hours a day, have been doing it for the past 4 years, and hopefully will not have to do it much longer. The point being that it's possible to make the necessary sacrifice when one is called upon to do so.
A lie for a few years can be forvigen given the circumstances, however, 28 years is somewhat of a stretch. She had plenty of time to atone, get it right byt finally getting the degree, and then go apply to another school - this time with the required credentials.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the point that the degree carries much less importance than the experience and qualifications.
I should know because I've spent a lifetime teaching and training undergraduates, graduates and advanced graduates who fall far short of the mark. The degree only indicates a certain amount of commitment on the part of an invidividual to acquire specialized knowledge regarding a subject matter. It can be a good starting point - a factor - but not a requirement for a position.
-
This is a highly charged subject that has led to some pretty heated discussion on the boards - it seems people who vote in on this feel strongly one way or the other. In fact, there's a discussion over on LinkedIn on just this subject:
Would you hire a person that had the experience but not the degree level required?
If the person had a good interview, good references but the degree they had was an AS vs a BS, or a BS vs a Masters, or a Masters vs a PhD. Would you still hire the person? Would you have given the candidate an interview in the first place?
You can read all 18 (so far) responses here: http://www.linkedin.com/answers/hiring-human-resources/staffing-recruiting/HRH_SFF/39530-5845899?browseIdx=39&sik=1177710258405&goback=%2Each_HRH*4SFF%2Eavq_39821_4140858_4_1177710258404%2Each_HRH*4SFF%2Eabq_4_1177710258405
Watch for the upcoming first release of the ?Book of Scripticals? ? actual telephone names sourcing scripts that WORK!
It took 3.6 million years to make a Project Manager. You have until Wednesday to find him. Call us.
Our goal is to save you time and help you succeed.
-
I completely agree. Given her role at MIT, notably the work she was doing, she was in a position to pass judgement on the validity and honesty of applications for admissions. Therefore, her decision to be dishonest about her degree(s) puts her in a position where she is unable execute her role effectively or with credibility.
The question for us as recruiters and as a corporate community is what do we value? Is it more important to have the paper or the results? More important to have pedigree or high performance? More important...well, you get the idea.
Performance, results, outcomes, success, increased revenue, decreased costs etc. should be the measure by which we hire people for MOST roles. Unless you are a doctor, lawyer, engineer, scientist etc the degree issue should be moot.
-
Excellent post Karen! I am on my feet an applauding your comments and for bringing this to the discussion here on ERE. Performance, results, achievement and so many other criteria are what really matter and so many companies are missing the boat when they narrowly focus on degress and certifications.
Again, excellent post. I can add nothing more to what you said becuase you said it so well.
Back to the craft!
-
