I applaud that you give this comment. Your comment seems indeed controversial, but you gave it in a thoughtful manner and you dared to give it. This is what I like about HN: thoughtful comments that may be controversial but are relevant even at the risk of one's own reputation.

From my own limited interview experience: companies reject you for the silliest things, in my opinion and I have decided that I need to deceive in order for my value to be seen in the right manner. It might be the case I'm arrogant, but I also notice that people who had a computer science education at the same uni as I went to are the only ones to actually evaluate in the right way. Whenever I get interviewed by non CS people at startups they just evaluate it as I did some rote learning psychology-esque degree[1], which is next to useless according to them.

So yes, I should deceive those people in that I have more working experience than I do, because uni gave me part of that working experience but there is no chance in hell that they would believe that. I know this to be true because the jobs that I did get, I performed well at, according to the people who hired me.

And somehow people always seem to be a bit surprised. People always seem to be a bit surprised when a CS graduate in general works out. I just find it silly, CS in Amsterdam is not that math heavy and it is programming heavy, what do you expect?

[1] 50% of my psych. degree (2nd bachelor, I'm Dutch) required a lot of rote learning. One third of the degree was statistics / academic writing, the rest were electives.

That seems like a misreading of the question. The bar is high, and he cleared it, but was invited to try because of his fraudulent credential.

I'm not misreading it at all.

The two parent comments fall under the general umbrella of complaining about job listings requiring too much experience which is a standard point of contention against employers on HN. Leaving "20 years required low latency python experience with executive level leadership experience to manage our old undocumented report writing application" listings written by incompetent HR people out of the picture, there is plenty of valid monetary reasoning why a company would try to minimize its Type I error (that is hard to do, and nobody complaining seems to have any cogent solution). There are more than plenty of jobs an overconfident new grad who is good at interviewing and fibbing on his resume will fail at where a developer with several years of experience bringing projects into production is a much safer option. That is not disproved by singular anecdotal evidence of "I lied on my resume but I did do a good job so their hiring bar filtered out most of the good candidates and it isn't fair!".

However, most people reading this are employees, not employers, and have been burned by this in some way or another, so I'm going to get downvoted.

And then we also hear entreaties from employers that there is a shortage of programmers and policy changes are needed, a position that looks less sympathetic in light of a tendency to only hire experienced candidates.

There are no doubt hypocrisies and fallacies on both sides, employers included. I am certainly not arguing against that. That's a different debate, though.

Employees want to get rich, employers want free work from overqualified candidates so they get rich. People usually try to pick what they think at the time is the best option available to them, job or candidate.

His knowledge is solid, sure, but would you really want to work with someone who has such a strong inclination to cheat and deceive? I certainly wouldn't.

I think OPs point is, or maybe that's just my point, that in general and broader terms there should not be such a pressure to begin with. OP gave an example that even the best felt/feel it.

So, on an individual basis, no, I would not want to hire that person out of an abundance of caution, but on a broader basis I would not like the pressure to do such a thing to exist to begin with. It's like crime: You want to punish each individual crimes, but you also want policies that lower crime rates, and that does not mean that you "reward crime" or that you "give in to criminals".

We all know the hiring process has some seriously broken elements, so a desperate candidate may feel pressured and justified to do so because the other side does not play nice or rational either - plus pressure from society "it's all your own fault" (if you don't succeed, and you won't get any help from anyone unless you happen to be lucky enough to have the right parents). Here in Germany we just had another (it's a regular thing) headline about "skilled labor shortage in IT" in all major German newspapers. Strange thing is, salaries for skilled workers (engineers, CS) have not risen significantly in a loooong time. Since salaries are not regulated by law that means the companies are lying. Of course, I still would prefer people who don't use a wider development as justification for lying themselves (mismatch of scale/perspective), but I can see and would expect a broader (downward) trend from there.

Or back to (and finishing) the crime example, if you create an environment of immense pressure, bad chances for improvement, etc. and then you compensate for the increase in crimes by punishing people harder (and harder)... sure, some might say it's all justified, why did they commit a crime? That is an interesting example why looking at each case individually may lead to a very different conclusion compared to looking at a broader picture.

Another example is cheating at universities. Individually every student who does it may deserve punishment, but it would be a good idea to look at the reasons for why it's so widespread. You create pressure, something is going to happen on the other end.

So what's your solution? UBI? Because when a person's ability to make money and take care of themselves is on the line, in competing for a job against other candidates, there will ALWAYS be high levels of pressure.

The guy mentioned in the OP wasn't experiencing any additional pressure beyond "I need a job"; he wasn't in some high stress boiler style interview (the interview actually sounds like just casual conversation), it was just that his resume, that he sent everywhere prior to any interview, was filled with lies.

It's not the interview process that was messed up here, it's that in response to the basic competitive nature of "there is one job opening and multiple applicants, and, oh, yeah, we need someone who knows their stuff", he decided to lie about his experience. If that basic arrangement is somehow at fault, rather than this one guy who lied, then you're questioning not the nature of interviews, but the nature of jobs in a free market.

> there will ALWAYS be high levels of pressure.

The pressure exists because the opportunities to do anything are scarce. We force people into the hands of BAD practices and even psychopaths, and because this is so one-sided there won't be a turn for the better in practices and behavior. The mechanism that is supposed to lead to better outcomes overall is broken.

Strangely enough, we actually have plenty to do! From social work or just cleaning up, stuff that anyone can do, to "scientific stuff".

You may say that people don't want to do the low-level jobs because status, income etc. - but I think that this is an excuse:

In ALL discussions the TOOL - finance, money - is seen as the thing to optimize. The tool has taken over the workshop! In ANY discussion about anything wrong people immediately start talking about "money". Which is very strange, because

1) money is purely an idea, for the society as a whole just inventing new "money" if there really should be scarcity somewhere that prevents work from being done is as easy as snipping fingers (we have done that in the trillions not long ago). (Don't point to "inflation!", because a) that's again talking about the tool, and b) as I said, if shortage of money that prevents work from being done.)

2) we have completely forgotten the whole purpose! The the tool has to serve humanity, not the other way around! If we find places where there are issues that need to be solved, how can the tool be the limiting factor? If we find it to be we need to do use a different tool for THAT SPECIFIC thing (Note: I'm not black/white, "Oh I found A problem, let's throw everything out. Of course, keep the tool for the places where it does work well.)

For example: Copyright, patents. Those things don't serve humanity, they serve the TOOL! Humanity would be better off if you say "Oh my god we are sooo lucky - copying stuff is free" (as in "real costs", not money). So let everybody use any knowledge they want, read, watch, listen to anything they want. YES the tool "money" does not allow that, "How would creators get paid?!" If the tool does not do the job we need a different tool! It is obvious that apart from "money" considerations the world would indeed be better off with free stuff being free. We have a HUGE amount of effort to limit the distribution of stuff that's actually free, completely artificially. Because we take care of the tool, the "money", pretending that it is the end-all.

.

To add a very quick and therefore necessarily even more incomplete proposal than it really is in my head (which is incomplete enough):

First, I'm against a UBI. Doing nothing at all may work in a different context, with different culture, maybe we'll get there some day. If we did it right now it would not work.

On the other hand, when we use the tool "money" we ignore the HUGE cost of SPENDING: Maybe because of inequality (I don't know the reason), but people are very, very reluctant to spend. That means other people have a hard time making money. I think money circulation, the flow, is far less than it should be, maybe not globally (huge company problems are not my concern), but for the vast majority of the world population. If you are concerned that more spending is not possible because there is not enough money, well, a) see above, b) it's a circle! As I just wrote, when people have it easier to spend others will get more.

As one concrete example, imagine a lot of huge companies got together and instead of each building their own, they build ONE big subscription service, for everything available in "binary". Everybody can get a subscription - and gains access to everything. What is "everything": Every website, from news websites to blogs to Github(!!!) can sign up and offer access only to those who have a subscription. Github, for example, can offer all those maintainers of free packages (I was one of them, a PITA) money. Distribution of money is according to use. The more people read a blog, a new site, or download/use Github packages the more they get.

This solves the problem of the spending threshold: People already pay, now they don't need to think each and every time "Do I want to pay another dollar for this or that?" (in the case of Github packages and many others that's not even an option!). On the other hand, by bundling it all, they also don't need to be concerned if a certain payment is worth it.

Obviously there are LOTS of "details" such as how do you track usage and protect against people using download bots to increase there numbers. However, we already have all those problems, and more! All that anti-copyright, anti-ad-blocking, anti-this-or-that effort, from software, hardware (Blueray encryption as example), to legal efforts.

Just one suggestion. I do NOT think or propose THE ONE solution for everything. That is exactly the problem! Humans find something that works in some cases, now they start using it everywhere unthinkingly! "Money" for example. It works very well in some cases! But very badly in others. We need many solutions, tailored to the specific problem.

Forget "money", solve the actual problem instead! If "money" looks useful, then use it. Yes today it's used for everything. That's a huge part of the problem! At the very least, maybe we should have many "moneys" and not just one. Too many completely different and independent things are artificially coupled.

Also, the state should fulfill it's role as a "guardian of last resort". People should not be afraid all the time. I know I am, and I'm well educated and work in IT in a rich country that actually even still has a social network (Germany; I worked in the US for almost a decade though, Silicon Valley). Also, don't force people into "finance" (e.g. "you have to save for retirement, you need to invest"). This is completely against how humanity works: Specialization! This "investment" stuff is a smart idea of people making a living in the monetary sector itself, to have the government force people to send more income their way.

.

Something similar - a fund - for everybody else!

Anyone doing anything useful, like sweeping the street, gets money. But everybody is free to decide what it is. There must be a usefulness measure, "I cleaned my teeth" or "I walked through my garden"... hmmm. So let's add a provision that a number of people have to sign off on the activity as useful, then you get paid.

This lowers the threshold: Nobody needs to decide "I pay for this street to be swept clean" (which is very high!), and nobody needs to sign up to work for others who themselves sell your services for much more money and get rich ("entrepreneurs" employing cleaners, for example).

I think THIS would be a lot more "capitalistic" than what we have: People deciding for themselves not just what they want to offer, but also what they find useful, instead of letting a very small handful of "entrepreneurs" do it for everybody. Yes yes, "the market", but the market does not work! We have a bottleneck.

There could (should!) be a bonus when people self-organize and do something together instead of doing something on their own. Entire "virtual temporary companies" are possible! Give people the ability and necessity to make decisions, which for most people in what is called "market" is not the case at all. My proposal has more "market" in it than the current one, while lowering the transaction costs significantly, and taking out middle men.

He adapted to an unfavourable situation, studied hard, did his research well and passed multiple tests - I'd gladly work with someone like that

And when the solution to the next unfavorable situation he faces involves railroading you? Liars lie and cheaters cheat. You might be fine if you're never their target, but you never know when you will be.

Well said. These types of people are driven by an extreme arrogance that manifests itself as the justification for any bad behavior. Ultimately they believe they are always right, so if they have to lie in order to get you fired, that's fine, because clearly your crazy ideas are a threat to everyone's livelihood, and it would just be better for everyone if you were gone from the office, they just don't know it yet, but I have a knack for these things that others seem to lack, so I'll take it upon myself to engineer your firing.

The companies they're applying to are engaged in behavior that is just as bad, so these "catfishers" are just creatively adapting to the unfavorable situation that employers have collectively created.

You're right. Still wouldn't hire them.

Exactly this. You have to be very naive and sheltered to not recognize this as being the case.

Such people make the homework, research well and then user result to blame you for their fault exactly when you cant defend yourself or claim your achievements for themselves.

That sort of behavior can be pretty poisonous for whole team.

You are either trolling or incredibly naive. Nothing good will come of working with someone like this.

EDIT: someone that spends that much effort lying has a good chance of being a sociopath.

I don't know. And given his ability I'd like to know. So if it were up to me I'd call him back in, confront him, and ask why he did it. I'd make my decision after that.

I thought for sure the story was going to be an Aesops Fable moral story along the lines of discrimination against trans people is illegal and wrong and the "rest of the story" is Susan's first name was Jack until six months ago, therefore no one has any idea who Susan is.

Also this is a sales position; not being overly detailed about the product's occasional quirk is not an on the job problem... if the applicant can talk a good talk and behave in a professional manner there doesn't seem to be an issue. Classic philosophical religious debate for centuries, is it more important to have right behavior or right thoughts?

Dude, no. Someone who would lie this much to get what he wants will lie when you're working with him.

If he makes a big mistake he will lie about it to avoid getting fired just as surely as he lied to get the job.

Citing Neil Gaiman -- or some other celebrity -- doesn't do anything to make this less true.

He was applying to a sales position. Sales is fundamentally about lying to potential customers to sell them stuff.

It's very sad that you believe that. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be in my opinion. That's a tactic immoral people resort to and make excuses like "Everybody does it." for their behavior.

You don't think it has to be? Honestly, I don't know; I'm not in sales at all so this is my off-the-cuff opinion from outside, but it sure seems to me that the entire profession of sales is all about dishonesty. Whether it has to be or not, I don't know: how successful would honest salespeople be really? If the dishonest ones are more successful long-term, then that means that companies that use dishonest salespeople will outcompete companies that don't. I don't know if it's really like this (a scientific study would be difficult, plus it could vary a lot by industry; what works for Best Buy or used car salespeople might not be the case for enterprise software or medical device sales), but I do suspect that, thanks to human nature and short-sightedness, dishonesty in sales probably does correlate with long-term success. Maybe the internet with all the online reviews will change this, as it gives people more information in evaluating merchants ("John at this store totally lied to me when he sold me Widget X!! Don't shop here!").

To get what he wants? Would that be a job?

So are you saying that in all your interviews you've had in the past you've been absolutely, positively 100% truthful about your experience and knowledge? That you've never inflated your abilities whatsoever?

Yes, absolutely. If anything I err on the side of playing things down. I never want to promise something I can't deliver or tell someone I'm more than I am.

Besides, that's not even the issue. This guy just flat out lied. Not exaggerated, he told lies and built upon them. There's no excuse for that.

Yes. Exaggeration and puffing yourself up, while tacky, is par for the course, and to be honest, it's likely to get good candidates closer to an accurate representation than not, since better people tend to underplay their abilities, often subconsciously (cf. Dunning-Kruger Effect). But falsifying references with fake phone numbers and email addresses, and then actually operating those numbers and emails and impersonating someone else, that's a whole 'nother ballpark and it likely crosses into fraud.

While one can sympathize if they choose to work from the presupposition that our candidate is in the unlikely-but-not-totally-unrealistic circumstance of being capable but "steal bread to eat" desperate, it's a pretty hard sell to expect someone without a pre-existing relationship to excuse that type of behavior when it gets caught out like this.

I got the impression from the article that this was for a sales position - "AE role" - account executive. A good tech sales rep must have a solid understanding of the product and its place in the tech environment, but they also need to be trustworthy, to the benefit of both their employer and customer.

But if that's judged by the companies you've worked for, how do you get in if you didn't study at the right university or come from the right background?

I thought it was an After Effects role.

You only get once chance at a first impression. This applicant took the chance that a lie was a good first impression. Lying on an application is just a non-starter.

Indeed. But the guy did some fraud. Not stealing or something criminal (like poisoning a human). Then the guy should have been a good hire for the company? Well, it is complicated. Let's say you need an alpha male for a certain position. Do you pick someone with a sexual harassment history? I mean he might be alpha but then you are exposing your company to risks of this guy harassing other employees.

Same in this situation. He might lie, fabricate, and make facts to push his agenda. This might work depending on what your line of work is doing (ie: maybe you are shady call center anyway). But this might be dangerous if you require complete discipline and this might blow up later (see Uber).

But here is the issue: The guy was rejected based on an emotional response from the hiring guy. He just felt defeated by the skillfulness of the guy. We don't know where the OP operates, so that is that.

Are you saying it's good to hire people who lie to get through the interview? What would they lie about on the job?

This kind of thing can end badly. I worked with a guy who was kicked out of two companies (first for fiddling expenses and second for faking his CV on a grand scale) and ended up sentenced to 64 months in prison for fraud. [0] He fooled a lot of very smart people along the way. I still don't fully understand why he did it--he was a smart guy and didn't need to cut corners to be very successful.

[0] http://fraudtalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/former-california-soft...

Yeah but he did it to get the job not to defraud anyone. That's dedication not deceit. He wasn't pretending to be anybody else. He was probably rejected from a million jobs before this one despite presumably being extremely well prepared and qualified. So other options are there? Fudge the references, perform well and ask for forgiveness later. I say hire him. Not everybody has the luxury of a fancy education and the connections that come with it. Not everybody comes from an environment where they have the privilege of interaction with others in the field. Some of us come from nothing and educate ourselves independently. It's a shame that its nearly impossible to get one's foot in the door despite having ostensibly worked harder than many of those who were given a fair shot. Check your privilege.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. For me honesty ranks way higher up the scale for hiring than technical credentials. You can teach people technical skills. Good character not so much.

p.s. I don't have a CS degree and finished my BA/History going to extension school part-time while serving in the US military.

p.p.s, If you have a less-than-honorable discharge you'll also have a tough time getting through the interview process with me.

Well, there's a big difference between a hiring manager and a company. A company wants to hire the best developer they can get; the hiring manager wants to get praised for making a "good hire" and avoid getting blamed for making a "bad hire".

The glowing references doesn't do anything that skill and personality screening doesn't in terms of assessing actual candidate skill. They do, however, provide a ton of ass-covering for the hiring manager.

I guess it is because nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.