I don't know if his shaving a year impacted his getting the job. Probably no one alive really knows, though my father thought it would help his chances. Obviously he prospered in the company. I don't know, but I suspect that his age was presented on more than one occasion (e.g. conferences or press releases). I don't know what age he used in such situations. I know from my business experience dealing with Europe and Asia, that especially in Asia being a bit older doesn't hurt. So if he used the younger age, he would have marginally lost a tad bit of respect.

In a way, he was not claiming credit (one more year of life experience) than he was due. Given the life experiences he had, that was not a low point in his resume. The reason the company would want a younger person was to get a longer useful career, but it would be hard to say that my father short changed them after 36 years.

But the argument could be made that he, like Jones perpetuated the lie every day he went to work. The argument could also be made that both showed they could do the job. Maybe it's my natural bias, but I see the claiming of degrees as more important than the shaving of a year though the principle is the same for both. By claiming a bachelors, masters and doctorate, you are making a claim about 7 to 9 years of your life. You are saying you have done what you are admitting students to do. Further, by claiming to have achieved these degrees in a time when women getting advanced scientific degrees was rarer, you have a special insight into the what she was initially asked to focus on (recruitment of women).

In the end, I think her being dismissed was because she had promoted her false degrees to often and it struck at the heart of the diploma mill business. If she had never claimed a college degree past her job interview, they might have been able to just look at her record in the job. No one would have known whether she had or didn't have a degree. Assumptions on their part would have been their issue unless she led them on.

The idea that resume or credential fudging or padding is somehow justified because, after all, "the Director did it" does not seem to be the kind of thing that MIT should implicitly encourage by keeping her in that slot.

OTOH, it wouldn't offend me if she were removed from her current position and considered for some out-of-the-public-eye staff position until she reaches retirement age.

The end of the academy is the search for knowledge and truth. Ms. Jones is a willful liar and a charlatan, and like others who subvert truth and the search for knowledge, she has no place in the academy.

But she represented herself as having a BA, MA, and PhD she didn't have. Granted, I have no idea why a biology PhD would work in an admissions office, let alone why it would be useful. Still, she's a liar.

It seems to me that Ms. Jones' error merited a reprimand and maybe a chastising letter that would be placed on her permanent record (shudder), but clearly she knew how to do her job and that should have triumphed not actually having a degree. Unless, of course, she was forced to resign for being the type of liar who is really only sorry they got caught, in which case her dismissal might well be warranted. Has there ever been a more appropriate situation for the application of double secret probation than this?

This is becoming increasingly rare every day, in may last job search two months ago I was not even allowed to apply for jobs I was clearly qualified simply because I did not have a degree in the field in which I have 15 years of experience. Somehow I am a much worse bet because I didn't study IT technologies in collage 25 years ago that are all antiquated today.

In todays job market credentialing trumps common sense all the time because people don't actually look at resumes anymore, computers do.

But those are awfully expensive and inefficient processes for employers to go through. Credentialing provides an easy pre-screen.

And, again, I think a college degree is mostly useful in distinguishing 25-year-olds from one another. Once you've got a pretty substantial resume, it becomes pointless.

Indeed, I find it amusing that, for some jobs, they want copies of my nearly-20-year-old college transcripts. This, despite two subsequent graduate degrees and a lifetime of experience.

For that matter, I have lost out on college teaching jobs because another candidate had more direct coursework than I did in some minor area the position called upon us to teach. That, even though I'd been out of school for several years and, frankly, would have had to re-teach myself most of the material if I hadn't kept up-to-date by having taught the course.

I'm not arguing for credentialing to override common sense, just that it's useful in its place.

There are many, many more direct ways of assessing ompetence than academic degrees. Competitive examination. Prior job experience. Life experience. And so on.

Additionally, in fields that are diversifying very rapidly credentialling puts a possibly imprudent premium on something that of speculative value (e.g. a newly-minted credential in a brand-new field) over something that's of proven value (e.g. hands-on experience).