Cheating in life?

leggo

If I had it didn’t work, I work a relatively low paid job that pays enough to pay my bills and gives me time and space to run the business I employ myself in, which upon interview I determined myself sufficiently qualified, on top. :pac:

You can catastrophise and invent these really specific scenarios all you want, but your scenario is infinitely more likely to occur with someone qualified than unqualified...simply on the basis that I doubt many people can successfully lie their way into cushy jobs they have zero qualifications for. And what you’re describing is actually just a ‘bad employee’. They can be qualified too because no college course I know of has a work ethic module.

sbsquarepants

jmayo wrote: »

The big problem I have with it is that you may end up in a team with the liar and when they fook up or when they can't even do the job other people have to carry them.
.

Surely you can understand though, that your first responsibility is to yourself. You need your bills paid, food, shelter and so - you can't waste your time worrying about other people you work with!

Personally speaking, I'd say mass to get the job, i'll have whatever qualifications and experience are required - but, and this is the important part, I wouldn't waffle my way in to a job I couldn't do and would likely get sacked from. Who benefits from doing something like that?

For a lot of jobs, once you can actually do it, no one gives a rats arse if you're qualified or not, it's just a way of cutting the numbers at the start of the hiring process.

You'd better not draw attention to yourself by fúcking it up though!

lawred2

jmayo wrote: »

The big problem I have with it is that you may end up in a team with the liar and when they fook up or when they can't even do the job other people have to carry them.
Also if they fook up it can have negative consequences for the team and for the business because clients more often than not take a bit of a dislike to companies that provide shoddy work.

?

how is that the candidate's problem?

if he/she passed the recruitment process - it's the company's problem.

jmayo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Surely you can understand though, that your first responsibility is to yourself. You need your bills paid, food, shelter and so - you can't waste your time worrying about other people you work with!

Personally speaking, I'd say mass to get the job, i'll have whatever qualifications and experience are required - but, and this is the important part, I wouldn't waffle my way in to a job I couldn't do and would likely get sacked from. Who benefits from doing something like that?

For a lot of jobs, once you can actually do it, no one gives a rats arse if you're qualified or not, it's just a way of cutting the numbers at the start of the hiring process.

You'd better not draw attention to yourself by fúcking it up though!

I am not just talking about qualifications as in degrees, unless of course it has a bearing like an understanding of say mathematical processes, statistics, that may be involved in working on a project.

I am talking about knowledge and experience of a particular area for instance.

If you are on a team developing an application and someone claims they have two years of Java or VB development behind them and suddenly you find out that they know shag all the rest of the team are left carrying the slack.
If they are a complete eejit they might never be able to get up to speed and until they are replaced the rest of the team are carrying them.

lawred2 wrote: »

?

how is that the candidate's problem?

if he/she passed the recruitment process - it's the company's problem.

It is not the candidates problem, well unless they are out the door.

It can be the problem of the other people in a team/project/dept who rely on them to carry their weight.

For instance what happens if you have say an operations team and there is a missing body because someone has left.
Someone new is hired and suddenly during training it is found out their knowledge is all a fabrication and instead of them quickly coming on stream as another team member, it will take much longer to train them or they have to be let go because it would just take too long to train them to a level where they can do their job.

In the meantime the rest of the team have to cover the slots the newbie is supposed to cover.

"Sorry lads you have to do another weekend slot because the newbie is a fraud and we are on the hiring trail again."

FFS the fact I have to explain this to people is really rather surprising.

jmayo

leggo wrote: »

If I had it didn’t work, I work a relatively low paid job that pays enough to pay my bills and gives me time and space to run the business I employ myself in, which upon interview I determined myself sufficiently qualified, on top. :pac:

You can catastrophise and invent these really specific scenarios all you want, but your scenario is infinitely more likely to occur with someone qualified than unqualified...simply on the basis that I doubt many people can successfully lie their way into cushy jobs they have zero qualifications for. And what you’re describing is actually just a ‘bad employee’. They can be qualified too because no college course I know of has a work ethic module.

Oh don't worry I have met some well qualified people that are more adept at ar**likcing than actually doing their job.

The thing is moral suffers and the people that actually contribute to the organisation start leaving or worst still not giving a rat's ass.

lawred2

jmayo wrote: »

It is not the candidates problem, well unless they are out the door.

It can be the problem of the other people in a team/project/dept who rely on them to carry their weight.

For instance what happens if you have say an operations team and there is a missing body because someone has left.
Someone new is hired and suddenly during training it is found out their knowledge is all a fabrication and instead of them quickly coming on stream as another team member, it will take much longer to train them or they have to be let go because it would just take too long to train them to a level where they can do their job.

In the meantime the rest of the team have to cover the slots the newbie is supposed to cover.

"Sorry lads you have to do another weekend slot because the newbie is a fraud and we are on the hiring trail again."

FFS the fact I have to explain this to people is really rather surprising.

Still don't get how you place the blame for this at the candidate's door and not the recruitment process?

sbsquarepants

jmayo wrote: »

If you are on a team developing an application and someone claims they have two years of Java or VB development behind them and suddenly you find out that they know shag all the rest of the team are left carrying the slack...

It's just the luck of the draw really. In all fields you need an innate ability for the task and also a decent work ethic. Experience is great but is generally the poorer cousin of ability and enthusiasm. You could get someone who is brilliant but just lacks experience, they waffle their way in and take to it like a duck to water, or you could get someone who actually has 2 years or 5 years experience but was never particularly good at it to begin with.

Possibly doesn't apply all that much to programming but you see it in things like trades all the time. Someone newly qualified or even an apprentice who is head and shoulders above the 20 year veteran who just can't be arsed anymore.

jmayo wrote: »

FFS the fact I have to explain this to people is really rather surprising.

I think the mistake you're making is assuming that new people who come to work with you and don't know you from a hole in the ground, should in some way care about you or what you have to do. They are there for their reasons, not yours.

If I change jobs and you have to carry the slack while I get my head around the task at hand - so be it, suck it up and get on with it, why the hell should I care?

Swings and roundabouts, it all evens out over time, you weren't always as good at your job as you are now I'm sure?

jmayo

lawred2 wrote: »

Still don't get how you place the blame for this at the candidate's door and not the recruitment process?

I would blame the candidate for being a chancer that I may now have to cover for and I blame the recruitment process for lumping me with a chancer.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's just the luck of the draw really. In all fields you need an innate ability for the task and also a decent work ethic. Experience is great but is generally the poorer cousin of ability and enthusiasm. You could get someone who is brilliant but just lacks experience, they waffle their way in and take to it like a duck to water, or you could get someone who actually has 2 years or 5 years experience but was never particularly good at it to begin with.

Possibly doesn't apply all that much to programming but you see it in things like trades all the time. Someone newly qualified or even an apprentice who is head and shoulders above the 20 year veteran who just can't be arsed anymore.

For instance how would you like to get stuck with a supposed plumber/carpenter/joiner who doesn't know his ar** from his elbow, yet you have to get the job done.
Do you have the luxury to train him up, babysit him all the while someone is screaming at you to get the job done?

No one wants a narrowback in their team or their gang because it costs the rest in time and effort.
And yes sometimes the narrowbacks are the well qualified, well experienced feckers, but that is another discussion :mad:

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think the mistake you're making is assuming that new people who come to work with you and don't know you from a hole in the ground, should in some way care about you or what you have to do. They are there for their reasons, not yours.

If I change jobs and you have to carry the slack while I get my head around the task at hand - so be it, suck it up and get on with it, why the hell should I care?

I know they don't have to care, but I and I would bet you would care if you have to totally hold their hand because they basically haven't a fooking clue.

I bet you would care if you are the one carrying the slack for the newbie who hasn't a bogs notion of what they are doing.

It is one thing to carry the slack whilst someone gets up to speed, but what about when that is going to take much longer than anticipated because the hiree was spoofing ?

Everyone expects there may be a bit of bedding in but when it is made worse by totally unsuited people then it is a p**stake.

BTW you usually find that those that are chancing their arm with regards to saying what they know or are able to do, are probably the very ones that will always try and find an easy way out of doing a job, even one they know how to to do.

People here seem to be looking at this from the unqualified candidates perspective not from the perspective of those who may be stuck with them.

Anyway this is going round in circles so I am off.

Wildcard7

pemay wrote: »

know one girl who literally pretended she had such and such a degree. Got her a fairly nice job and springboarded her into her current life.

Another few people I know just pretended they had years of experience (job required 10 years senior experience, they had NONE!) All worked out grand.

In other words: They were actually qualified for the jobs they applied for, otherwise they wouldn't have made it in that job for long and prospered like you describe.

They knew they had what it took to succeed in those jobs, and they worked around the unrealistic barriers put up by HR to get the jobs.

pemay wrote: »

Seriously demotivating. You break your balls and pay hefty fees and live like a schmuck to get a degree, or spend years grinding in crappy jobs.......another person spends 1 minute typing it on a c.v.

I don't see your problem, I really don't. The other person didn't just spend one minute to type it up in a CV. They also worked on their skills, they just didn't fulfill the ridiculous theoretical standards that were set.

sbsquarepants

jmayo wrote: »

.

Anyway this is going round in circles so I am off.

I think your problem is clearly with incompetent staff, rather than cheaters or chancers or whatever you want to call us them:D
The two are not necessarily one and the same.

Look at the oft repeated tales of Bill Gates selling an operating system he didn't own. Or Steve Jobs debuting, by good old fashioned trickery and slight of hand, a functionally useless I-phone to an awestruck room of tech journos.

Out and out chancers both, but you'd hardly say either of them were a burden to their companies would you?

Lux23

Anyone can put lies on a CV, but if you manage to do well in the interview, get the job and then keep the job then perhaps the lie on the CV is only covering up for a lack in formal qualifications, rather than lacking the skills. Plus if someone lies about being able to do something but gets a job in it anyway and excels then they must be relatively competent.

seamus

mariaalice wrote: »

If all of that is true its got to be one of the most amazing stories ever could be a film a company raised 23 million with the promise of developing a free energy system thus denying the laws of basic physics!!

There's always been a popular perception pushed by movies and media, that the people who play the stock market and those who invest in companies are canny people. These are the movers and shakers, the ones we should look to for inspiration, the people we should follow if we want to keep up with the future.

However, then you look at things like the amount of investment pumped into Steorn, a company which sold something that anyone with the slightest bit of scientific knowledge would know was vapourware.

When Snapchat floated on the stock market, other companies with "Snap" in their name saw a stock price boost from people buying the wrong shares.

When Twitter floated, it was public knowledge that the company had massive costs (like in the hundred of millions), very little income and no real roadmap for monetising it. And yet the stock price still rose to 150% of its value after floating. Now it's half of its original float price.

Along with lots of other ridiculous stories (Bitcoin, anyone), it now seems plainly clear that the vast majority of investors haven't a clue what they're doing. They're just throwing money around the place and seeing what sticks.

Which, is basically the topic of this thread. They're absolute frauds - believing that because they have money to throw at companies, they must be really clever. Even though the vast majority of startup business investments actually fail.

mikhail

seamus wrote: »

... it now seems plainly clear that the vast majority of investors haven't a clue what they're doing. They're just throwing money around the place and seeing what sticks.

Which, is basically the topic of this thread. They're absolute frauds - believing that because they have money to throw at companies, they must be really clever. Even though the vast majority of startup business investments actually fail.

They barely outperform random chance. It's basically gambling, but in a sphere where your odds are reasonably good to begin with. It's well documented, e.g. https://www.automaticfinances.com/monkey-stock-picking/

scamalert

my friend when he was young got a small loan of his father to buy properties and other crap, anyway importing steel from china etc using foregin workers, now hes leader of strongest nation in his country.Also think he went to academy and got award for being most tidy or smth :pac: makes him totally qualified dude in all aspects of military and finance none the less to rule the country beat that for someone getting role in 10yr job.

think standards applied to those in power/money dont count only if its your friend or neighbor that does well, put a chip on peoples shoulder.

ifElseThen

Ireland is full of chancers, particularly at management, director levels...

DEFTLEFTHAND

You'll get no luck for it in the end.

Better to go through life straightup. At least you'll always be able to hold your head up as an honourable person.

pemay

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You'll get no luck for it in the end.

Better to go through life straightup. At least you'll always be able to hold your head up as an honourable person.

If honour was a tradable commodity that could improve the life of you, your family and maybe even friends, youd be laughing.

job seeker

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You'll get no luck for it in the end.

This I've never understood. I think that it's all just superstition at the end of the day..

the purple tin

Look at Trump's business dealings over the years. He cheated and blagged his way into a fortune. His speciality was letting his financiers get stung when a deal went south while he slipped out scot free with a profit.
His phoney-baloney Trump university was another brassneck stunt.
He has managed to BS his way into the world's most powerful job, despite having zero experience in politics, with promises of mexican walls and swamp drainage and a return to the golden age. He even managed to make money from his campaign.
He's a very poor advert for being a straight arrow.

dxhound2005

Tigger wrote: »

i handed my maths paper 1 to he guy behind me and i sat the leaving externally for someone one, id say its commomnplsace

There must be thousands of cases like this, judging from what I am reading on the thread. It makes me think that all those clever students with 600 points who are paraded on TV on results day are probably frauds.

But I wonder what are the exam superintendents doing. They must be away for a cup of tea or out at the shops. Or even worse that they are turning a blind eye to the cheats who are paying them off.

It's not too late for those who feel cheated in life themselves by the nefarious activities of these fraudsters. Since they are happy to share their crimes with all and sundry, just engage them in a conversation to elicit as much detail as possible. Then e mail their alma mater and/or employer with a report of what you found out.

KyussB

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A guy I know worked for a couple of years in Oz checking and approving drawings of steel roofing structures, despite having no technical training of any sort. He is normally not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I have to admit he had a fairly ingeniously simple theory - the guys drawing it up most likely knew what they were doing, every now and again he'd tell them it was wrong and had to be made stronger, and you can't go too far wrong, use 10mm instead of 8mm steel, or use M16 instead of M14 bolts and so on. It might cost a few quid more but you aren't going to kill anyone!
He never got rumbled and eventually moved on of his own accord.

Uhm, no it sounds like it's quite possible that he could kill someone - he was supposed to be the guy to rely on, as the final step, in making sure there are no dangerous design faults that could - you know...bring the roof down...

sbsquarepants

KyussB wrote: »

Uhm, no it sounds like it's quite possible that he could kill someone - he was supposed to be the guy to rely on, as the final step, in making sure there are no dangerous design faults that could - you know...bring the roof down...

Most likely sounds a lot more dangerous than it actually is in practice - the safety factor designed into these things is enormous. Odds are you could cut corners left right and centre and still be fine, bulking things up you'd really need to be very unlucky to come undone.

It is taking a chance alright, but then if he wasn't taking chances, he wouldn't be a chancer!:D

seamus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Most likely sounds a lot more dangerous than it actually is in practice - the safety factor designed into these things is enormous. Odds are you could cut corners left right and centre and still be fine, bulking things up you'd really need to be very unlucky to come undone.

It is taking a chance alright, but then if he wasn't taking chances, he wouldn't be a chancer!:D

Bulking things up is also dangerous - 10mm steel is heavier than 8mm steel, so simply "adding more" may make part of the structure heavier than the supporting structures were designed to allow, making it less safe overall.

dxhound2005

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I don't know anyone who cheated in exams. I would have thought it was the sort of thing they would keep to themselves. How many do you know and how did you find out about them? And what is the etc?

When we were young, there was a story going around that a girl had been caught cheating in her LC, and was barred from sitting it ever again. For some reason, her only alternative was to take an equivalent exam in South Africa. May or may not have been true but it certainly seemed believable to us

donegaLroad

a few years ago a girl from Romania presented herself as a qualified doctor at a local hospital here. Staff soon began to notice competency issues with her work, and after a nurse spotted her trying to take someone's pulse from the back of their wrist, she was cross examined by senior doctors then let go when they found out she had no idea what she was doing. She lasted 6 weeks in the hospital and failed to show up at her fitness to practice inquiry.

mumo3

fergus1001 wrote: »

I once knew this guy in New York who was working at one of the big law firms he blagged his way in claiming he had a degree from Harvard law but he really didn't, think he got busted in the end but got out on some bull**** deal

I followed that case and if I'm not mistaken he did serve some time in prison