College Grads on GH

[bavman]

Losing your job or not getting one is minimal? Here in the USA they DO verify all that information and, doing that at one employer would surely NOT look good if you tried to get a job there later in life. They call your references, previous employers and schools where you got your degrees from. Not only is it idiotic to lie, it's dishonest and unethical. Your work should speak for itself.

Morality is subjective

[cwang1004]

Losing your job or not getting one is minimal? Here in the USA they DO verify all that information and, doing that at one employer would surely NOT look good if you tried to get a job there later in life. They call your references, previous employers and schools where you got your degrees from. Not only is it idiotic to lie, it's dishonest and unethical. Your work should speak for itself.

Morality is subjective

I agree. And according to my source of information, they only check when they are impressed by your resume but not the interview. So, have some swag, don't be a puss, nail the interview, bull**** your resume. Have some fun in life for Christ's sake

[keyboardlover]

Couldn't disagree more, but, whatever. Make your own choices. Just don't say I didn't warn you when you make the wrong ones and they cost you the job.

[Malphas]

I just don't see where the logical risk is coming from in your mind with this. I mean, you apply for a job for which you are technically underqualified or underqualified compared to the other potential candidates, you either:

A) Are honest and don't get the job.

Or

B) Lie successfully and potentially get the job, or lie unsuccessfully and don't get the job, or get the job and then get fired at a later date.

I don't see how outcome B is significantly worse than outcome A in any end scenario, whilst there's the chance the outcome will be significantly better.

[keyboardlover]

That's because you obviously have a very perverted sense of ethics and have no understanding of the potential negative effects of lying.

[Malphas]

That's a moral issue rather than a practical one though, which wasn't your original assertion. I have no argument with you stating you think it's immoral or "wrong" (since morals are subjective and personal by nature anyway). It was you saying it was "dumb" that I question, since that implies there's some inherent problem with its effectiveness.

[WhiteFireDragon]

I never needed to worry about a job. Actually, I never wanted to work for others. If I were to employ some CS grad, I ain't gonna look at his GPA at all. If you pass the interview, you get the job.

And according to my source of information, they only check when they are impressed by your resume but not the interview. So, have some swag, don't be a puss, nail the interview, bull**** your resume. Have some fun in life for Christ's sake

You may not worry about a job, but others do. You don't like working for others, but most jobs will require you to. A lower percentage of people are self-employed. If you were to employ a grad, you won't look at his GPA, except you're not the one hiring all the grads.

So basically you're telling everyone to not get a degree, lie on the resume, and depend on swag. And all this is called fun in life. Can't wait to hear more advice from you.

[BoxWithADot]

Degree is over rated. GPA is over rated.

Especially if you are a science major, those bull**** won't matter as long as you know your stuff.

If you can implement something like a max-flow algorithm to some rl problem on a whiteboard with within a few bugs on the fly, you are ****ing hired. bam, like that.

Be honest with this dude here alright? CS ain't about going to classes listening to some synchronization lecture/network theories/NP ****. It's about love. If you don't love the stuff, you won't skip classes and writeyour own multi threaded calculator for fun, and you won't write your own mini java library for string manipulations because you think the built in is trash, and of course you won't think about a feasible strategy for a better factoring algorithm at night. And guess what, those are the things that make you a great one in the field.

Honestly, who cares if you have a bull**** degree or a 3.9 GPA if you've been doing all the above for the years in college.

If you are not very interested, possibly steeped into the field because you thought "oh hey i like computer games, and watch porns, let me study CS!" Well, too bad, you are not going to be very good at this **** if you don't like the ****s. So, if you are just hoping to stay medioker and hopefully fool some stupid **** to employ you, it's fine, it will happen before you are no longer counted in the workforce. But...that's the kind of bull**** life you wanna give to your children? I've no problem with that. just sayin

Yeah man, I'm definitely in computer science because I like vidya games and porn! It's uncanny how well you know me! Why the hate? I love my CS classes, they're the just about the only ones I do well in and enjoy going to. Only problem is that I only get to take 1 or 2 per semester, the rest of my classes are usually "filler" that I have a hard time seeing the practicality of taking. I must not be as "steeped" in the field as you though. Guess I'll just have to go work on my swag and write a fake resume..


Seriously though, I'm not lying on my resume haha. Seems like you could get in legal trouble if they hired you and found out you lied after the fact too.

[alaricljs]

Relevant

[Malphas]

Relevant

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=38156.msg736875#msg736875

Here in the USA they DO verify all that information

lol http://www.cracked.com/article_19145_the-6-most-impressive-resume-liars.html

It's always the case that for every one that got caught like those examples there'll be an order of magnitude more that got away with it.

[keyboardlover]

Relevant

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=38156.msg736875#msg736875

Here in the USA they DO verify all that information

lol http://www.cracked.com/article_19145_the-6-most-impressive-resume-liars.html

It's always the case that for every one that got caught like those examples there'll be an order of magnitude more that got away with it.

I don't get how you think the fact that people can get away with it negates the fact that you shouldn't do it, but whatever, it explains all your other awful arguments.

[Malphas]

Relevant

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=38156.msg736875#msg736875

Here in the USA they DO verify all that information

lol http://www.cracked.com/article_19145_the-6-most-impressive-resume-liars.html

It's always the case that for every one that got caught like those examples there'll be an order of magnitude more that got away with it.

I don't get how you think the fact that people can get away with it negates the fact that you shouldn't do it, but whatever, it explains all your other awful arguments.

What do you mean? It negates your original argument that it's a dumb idea completely. If you were arguing from a moral standpoint originally (which is what you're trying to turn it into now) then fair enough. But you weren't.

[keyboardlover]

I said that it's both dumb because it's un-ethical (never used the term moral, you did) and can cost you the job, which can have all kinds of negative consequences.

[Malphas]

Again unethical (semantics) isn't the same as dumb. Also, it costs you a job you most likely wouldn't otherwise have, which kind of negates the losing it part.

[keyboardlover]

Again unethical (semantics) isn't the same as dumb.

Dude, are you freaking kidding me at this point?

unethical 
Web definitions
not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices".

im·mor·al 
/iˈmôrəl/
Adjective
Not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
Synonyms
dissolute - vicious - amoral

Did I say it's dumb BECAUSE it's unethical? Nope, I said it's dumb because of all the possible negative consequences!

[Malphas]

And as I pointed out, that's a ridiculous argument to make based on the low negative consequences (losing/not getting a job you wouldn't get anyway), the low risk (most people don't get caught) and the high reward (getting jobs you otherwise couldn't). You can make your own risk/reward assessment, fine, but to assert that anyone who has one that differs from yours is "dumb" is laughable, especially when it works out in that person's favour nine times out of ten (or more).

[keyboardlover]

And as I pointed out, that's a ridiculous argument to make based on the low negative consequences (losing/not getting a job you wouldn't get anyway), the low risk (most people don't get caught) and the high reward (getting jobs you otherwise couldn't). You can make your own risk/reward assessment, fine, but to assert that anyone who has one that differs from yours is "dumb" is laughable, especially when it works out in that person's favour nine times out of ten (or more).

That's about as terrible an argument as it gets. First off, there isn't a low risk; as I stated, both my previous and current employer perform reference and school checks. Second, the consequences are terrible; the fact that you will utterly make yourself look undeserving of any trust from a potential would-be employer, at least in this country, will make it highly unlikely you could ever even possibly get hired there again. Your argument isn't dumb because it's different from mine - it's dumb because it makes no sense.

[precarious]

It's pretty interesting how modern society is structured such that there can exist a variety of "mindless repeaters," those who could never subsist solely of their own efforts, and whose existence is mostly reducible to a persistent paranoid fear state, bound in unconscious subjugation to a perceived, yet not actual, set of arbitrary rules.

The employee: and they will defend their procession through the rank and file at all costs.

[keyboardlover]

It's pretty interesting how modern society is structured such that there can exist a variety of "mindless repeaters," those who could never subsist solely of their own efforts, and whose existence is mostly reducible to a persistent paranoid fear state, bound in unconscious subjugation to a perceived, yet not actual, set of arbitrary rules.

The employee: and they will defend their procession through the rank and file at all costs.

Yeah but entering into a work relationship is a voluntary interaction. No one is forcing you to work or try to get a job there, so whether the rules seem arbitrary to you or not is beside the point. You can try to get a job somewhere else if you want. I mean, if you want to get into all the issues of a working capitalistic society in which government regulates and manipulates markets, I think that's a topic for another thread

[Malphas]

And as I pointed out, that's a ridiculous argument to make based on the low negative consequences (losing/not getting a job you wouldn't get anyway), the low risk (most people don't get caught) and the high reward (getting jobs you otherwise couldn't). You can make your own risk/reward assessment, fine, but to assert that anyone who has one that differs from yours is "dumb" is laughable, especially when it works out in that person's favour nine times out of ten (or more).

That's about as terrible an argument as it gets. First off, there isn't a low risk; as I stated, both my previous and current employer perform reference and school checks. Second, the consequences are terrible; the fact that you will utterly make yourself look undeserving of any trust from a potential would-be employer, at least in this country, will make it highly unlikely you could ever even possibly get hired there again. Your argument isn't dumb because it's different from mine - it's dumb because it makes no sense.

Your assessments are just wrong though. The fact your employer checks references proves nothing (as well as the fact some lies can't be checked and references can be faked). The consequences are not terrible, as I already said. If you think one employer not hiring you qualifies as "terrible" then you have a massively distorted worldview.

[keyboardlover]

Let's ask the peanut gallery: who do you think is correct? Malphas (lying is in your best interest) or myself (lying is NOT in your best interest)?

[alaricljs]

lol http://www.cracked.com/article_19145_the-6-most-impressive-resume-liars.html

It's always the case that for every one that got caught like those examples there'll be an order of magnitude more that got away with it.

This is what happens when I browse GH during a meeting.

[metalliqaz]

I have never lied even the slightest bit on a resume (because I'm just that awesome, jk)  I think that lots of people get away with it all over the place.  However, for some jobs it can really backfire.   For example, when you have to get security clearance.  They definitely DO call.

[iri]

those who could never subsist solely of their own efforts, and whose existence is mostly reducible to a persistent paranoid fear state, bound in unconscious subjugation to a perceived, yet not actual, set of arbitrary rules.

i like how beautiful this sentence is.

I have never lied even the slightest bit on a resume (because I'm just that awesome

seconded