The recent story concerning former MIT Dean of Admissions, Marilee Jones, who was asked to resign after 28 years because she had lied about (misrepresented might be more generous, if less accurate) her educational background, got me thinking about credentials, experience, and lying on your resume.
While it's not clear exactly how many people lie on their resumes --I found numbers ranging from 25% to around 50% to over 70% -- the basic assumption of most recruiters is that resumes are "subjective" rather than "objective" representations of a candidate's work experience. The general sentiment is, "Nobody's perfect - except on their resume."
The tenuous connection between the resume and reality was made eminently clear in the case of Miss Jones. Having started out as an administrative assistant in the admissions department at MIT, a position which, and here's the Hardy-esque irony, did not require a college degree, she steadily rose through the ranks to become dean. Her actual job performance qualified her for the latter post, not her credentials. The veracity of her resume had no bearing whatsoever on her ability to rise to the top of her profession.
Aside from raising the question of why she subsequently had to resign (Barbara Ehrenreich, among others, believes it's because higher education and the veneer of professionalism bestowed by degrees is a farce), this situation also raises the question: Why do hiring managers rely on resumes?
The obvious reason is that they provide us with a filter. Requiring a college degree, or a certain number of years experience, allows you to sort piles of resumes, cutting them down to a manageable number. Names of universities or companies serve as further filters as we rely on the power of these brands - Yale, MIT, Microsoft, etc.- to vouch for candidates. Time intervals express levels or lack of commitment. And so on.
Which is just to say that the resume serves a purely mechanical function in the process of weeding out. Ultimately it is a two-dimensional substitute for what we really want: a person who we trust telling us that this person is right for the job. While this explains the superior power of networking in a job search, as well as the existence of recruiting and staffing firms, I think it also explains why Ms. Jones had to go.
The chaotic and not-a-little arbitrary work of hiring people relies on the mutually agreed upon illusion that resumes are "trustworthy." Ms. Jones had to resign not because she was unqualified, she was really good at what she did, but because she showed that the process of selecting candidates based on their resumes, or applications for that matter, is a house of cards based on the value and currency of names. By demonstrating rather spectacularly that the chain of trust generated by these names is more imputed than real, she not only threatened the integrity of academia, she called into question the entire contemporary system of employment.
And that's why she had to go.
Boy, did you ever nail it! Thank you.