

If a hire is open about their credentials I would not care.
Typically, any job that gets filled at my company has to have a competitive candidate to consider. I’ve seen them fudge this a few times (bringing in someone they know isn’t qualified just to balance against), but it’s a hiring standard that you have to consider at least two (preferably three or four) candidates for any position.
If you show up and you don’t have the credentials for the position, you’re simply not getting the job.
I’ve witnessed what happens when people are ok with liars.
Sure. The Enron offices are spitting distance from where I work.
But I also see a lot of people fudging resumes to get feet in the door. And I don’t see people who were honest, but got screened out by a filter. So I’m the victim of selection bias, in many regards.







I will happily spot you “Don’t hire child rapists” as a rule of thumb. I think “fudging your resume is a slippery slope to sexually assaulting a minor” is a stretch of logic.
I know employers who use “college degree” as a proxy for “capable of following instructions” and won’t hire anyone without a bachelors.
I know employers who are much more fast and loose, bringing in anyone with “potential” as they broadly define it.
Idk exactly what the right answer is. But “powers through a MOOC in a few weeks to get a certificate that says I can competently execute a job” doesn’t strike me as a moral failing.