Malcolm this was a problem with government recruitment for a while but now it is almost impossible with many departments/agencies requiring consent to perform a security clearance even for base grade roles. This includes verification of academic qualifications.

In part this was due to the heightened security arrangements for national security but also because of the exposure of a number of government staff whom it was revealed had 'invented' their qualifications.

Those private sector organisations who perform outsourced work on behalf of government also have access to these clearances if their staff will be exposed to sensitive and confidential information. Candidates are advised that appointment is dependent on the security clearance.

"There are lies and there are lies." It's the thin edge of the wedge with CV's. I've told a few 'porkies' but they were in the order of venal rather than cardinal sins.

I find it hard to believe that an agency/HR department cannot be given access to univerisity qualifications to check their veracity.

If an applicant says 'No, you can't check my academic record' then as an employer I'd say 'see ya later'.

Great article.
Regarding skills, experience, and abilities etc.
The Curriculum Vitae (CV) or resume at the end of the day is just words on paper and is written to get the interview. It is the recruiter's or employer's responsibility to determine what it these words actually mean. I am not saying that the job candidate maybe "lying" on the CV, but the reader's interpretation of skills, experience, abilities etc. communicated may not be the same as the candidate's. http://www.cv-service.org

Now the boot's on the other foot.

The engineer case in the article was a dangerous fraud, but its difficult to be sympathetic to the recruiter or employer. Recruiters cultivate their own culture as being one of 'the end justifies the means' and certainly do lots more than just 'embellish'. Many recruiters, including Hudson when it was formerly named something else, I had been to in my search for work as a young person. Despite a booming market and me having manifestly marketable skills, they blackballed me because of my lifestyle. They concocted various lies and mistruths, from questioning my experience employment gaps etc, despite many similar individuals but not of my lifestyle, getting similar jobs through them.

Karma.

'The consequences of falsifying qualifications are not only litigious, morally or ethically reprehensible but also potentially dangerous.'

Amazing how everyone really does believe in absolutes. They just pick and choose which ones.

In a previous life I had cause to want to hire some people,with Bachelors Degrees in engineering and specified it as such to the head hunter.

It subsequently transpired that the person selected with the head hunters assistance had no such quals. When I pressed the matter with the HH they slid behind the fact that I had also negotiated a reduction in their outrageous fees, and they said that because of the discount, they didnt check the candidate quals. However the principal of the firm knew the candidate personally,and would have known his academic quals were false.

So it seems when it comes to ethics and competence there are several players in the room.

I suppose I'm somewhat lucky really. I've no real need to falsify or inflate my CV in any way.

As I've never actually possessed qualifications of a kind that would necessarily sustain any amount of embellishment or enhancement.

In my particular vocational circumstances, it's a matter of my starting at 'the bottom' and regrettably...'staying at the bottom' !

Cheers folks.

Apropos, I was working for a large financial organisation in the late 90s and for some reason they had me on the interview panel (gender equity me thinks) to hire a senior IT specialist.

We needed someone with specialist knowledge of C++ (or something like that). I didn't have a clue and I don't think our IT or HR managers did either. In the end we picked someone who sounded and looked confident. Had an excellent CV.

The only problem was, he didn't know anything about C++ or whatever. He winged it for six months and learnt on the job. We didn't know enough to know that he didn't know enough. ce la vie.

Thank you for raising this issue on online forum. The vexed issue of people gaining emplyment can sometimes take two to create the "whatever it takes". I refer here to the recruiting of health "professionals" under the two way "whatever it takes" programmes which offer special entry programmes to overseas doctors whose qualifications are not recognised in Australia, some of whom go on to qualify as Fellows of the relevant College of Specialisation under the condition that they practice only in their area of specialisation. I feel for those doctors who have come in through the front door, retrained, undertaken English language proficiency exams,only to find themselves working alongside others who have bypassed such rigorous criteria.

Employer lies and fakes.

It works both ways, I come across people who have been promised careers, benefits, salary etc. when the company is just around the liquidation corner. Some have moved families and homes, just to find out that they are out of a job a month later. This also applies to large multi-national companies - who can afford to take them to court?

Charles Rahim, investigator (Private) says that perhaps polygraph lie detector testing should be introduced for pre employment testing.
The polygraph results should just be used as part of the process as an investiagtive tool.

For example, if the person fails the question: have you taken illegal drugs in the last 12 months then perhaps a urine test should be introduced.

All this should be subject to review and further discussion anyway.

I think you must be the best you can be, But I also think, what ever it takes,( with telling lies) is bull-crap and you know it.

THE TRUE PERSON WILL BE WHAT HE OR SHE IS, AND THATS TRUE FACT!.

All the best with your thoughts.

Evolution.

Well done Malcolm. I've enjoyed your previous articles too. I couldn't find Republic Media in Australia ( only in UK).

Maybe this problem with CVs [ or should we say telling the truth] explains a lot.
ABC news bulletins written by people who haven't learned English properly, and thus use supposed verbs like 'to task" or "to gift"
People in executive positions with enormous problems of competence- try the public transport heads in New South Wales. Incompetent- because they weren't properly evaluated and cvs checked?

If CVs can't be checked up on, what kind of people are running so many firms and organisations??

Thanks again- nice piece

Surely a employer can ask for orginal evidence of results for a qualification along with references. Universities will suppy these for a small fee.

Should an applicant genuinely want a postion, this would not be an imposition.

In some areas of employment it would be unsafe, indeed could be dangerous, to employ
a person who is not qualified for the job, as indeed other posters have pointed out.

The employer has an obligation to ensure that the applicant has the necessary qualifications to fulfil the job brief.

I wrote on one of my CV's that I was a nookclear fishycyst.

I never got the job.

I considered my application valid, simply because I showed enthusiasm in taking the trouble to apply!