The fact is that Jim made a good point when he said that it’s ludicrous for these companies to require basic and advanced degrees for jobs that obviously don’t require it. No one, of course, is outraged about this. In fact, the majority of jobs (paying a decent salary) require an undergrad degree of some kind (associates’, batchelors’)

Our parents and grandparents were working at these same jobs, for the most part, and with an high school education as their major educational achievement.

I believe that there are two reasons why this situation has become the norm. One, corporations can minimize the amount of applicants for various positions by simply raising the degree requirements (see Google for an example). Two, because, somehow we’ve made a degree equal with education. There are many people graduating with degrees who don’t know their heads from a hole in the ground. However, they borrowed, begged or were given enough money to buy a degree and so are rewarded with better pay and perks.

I do not have a degree and, I’m not sure if I’ll ever get one. I am sick of the lousy time trap designed to keep people out of the workforce and in debt. If corporations were really concerned about the education level of their applicants and employees, they would take education out of the hands of tenured, degree-laden educrats and train people for the work they require.

Thanks….

To me, the resume never was a make-or-break thing anyhow. It just verified the “floor,” i.e., the minimum requirements to get you an interview. To be considered for a position, you needed a degree and a couple years of relevant experience. The actual hiring decision came down to work samples, results of some light testing, and one or two rounds of interviews.

At the executive level, I would think padding the resume would carry an unacceptably high risk of getting caught, since much of what’s on it would be more easily verifiable than for some mid-level person. I understand we want executives to be risk-takers, but sheesh, is honesty too much to expect?

Are these executives so insecure about what they’ve accomplished that they don’t think it’s enough? Apparently so.

What about the regular positions that applicants gloss over the facts on their resumes.

Too many times I’ve seen resumes that claim a great skill set but when the applicant is hired they can’t do the work or have no idea what to do.

What do you do about these people lying or when it seems that everyone that has applied is lying, how do you select an applicant?