Friday

How B-Schools Catch Résumé Liars

0 comments

Complete Article here:

With résumé puffing almost a national sport, business schools keep a sharp eye for inventive applicants -by Dan Macsai

Watch out, would-be fibbers. In the wake of last year's cheating expulsions at Duke's Fuqua School of Business (BusinessWeek.com, 4/30/07) and May's scandal over alleged cheating on the GMAT (BusinessWeek.com, 7/1/08), business schools are scrutinizing applications harder than ever. And so-called résumé puffing, or exaggerating your work experience and qualifications—even slightly—to appear more desirable, could cost you an acceptance letter.

In recent years, admission officials at several top business schools, including the University of California at Los Angeles' Anderson School of Management and Duke, have found a growing number of lies and half-truths in the résumés they review. To be fair, it's hardly an epidemic: Administrators contacted by BusinessWeek estimated that, annually, just under 1% of business school applicants are caught faking it (though the actual number of fibbers could be much higher).

But as applicant pools widen and competition intensifies, résumé puffing is becoming a serious issue, says Mae Jennifer Shores, assistant dean and director of MBA admissions at Anderson. "These candidates are going to great lengths—sometimes too great—to differentiate themselves," she explains. "We [the admissions staff] have essentially become watchdogs."

A SHARPER EDGE

Unlike buying live GMAT questions or plagiarizing an entrance essay, résumé puffing is something of a national sport. In fact, of 8,700 job applicants recently polled online by CareerBuilder.com, nearly 10% admitted to stretching the truth. During a separate survey of 3,700 hiring managers, roughly half said they had caught a lie on a résumé (BusinessWeek.com, 7/25/07). Of those, 28% considered the applicant anyway.

These numbers are "understandable," says Stan Walters, a leading lie-detection expert and author of The Truth About Lying, a layman's guide to lie-detection. When you're applying for a competitive position, he explains, "you naturally want to pump up your image." Late comedian W.C. Fields was more direct: "Anything worth winning is worth cheating for."

For less confident applicants, this edge is especially enticing. Top MBA programs attract premium prospects, most with sky-high GMAT scores and several years of experience. Accordingly, people with fewer credentials and personal insecurities "don't feel they're good enough," says Liz Riley Hargrove, associate dean for admissions at Fuqua. Albeit risky, résumé puffing is a quick fix: The difference between a "junior" and "senior" title, for example, is just two keystrokes.

INFLATING AND INVENTING

During her 15 years at Fuqua, Hargrove has encountered a variety of embellishments. Some applicants inflate their job responsibilities. Others invent extracurricular activities. A few even write their own letters of recommendation and forge a professor's signature. "They're willing to gain an advantage by any means possible," she says. "And that includes making something up."

If caught, these prospects face harsh penalties. Options are school-specific, but most include: a phone call from the admissions department (asking for an explanation), a harsher examination of other application elements (GMAT scores, transcript, interview answers, etc.), and/or application dismissal. Adds Bruce DelMonico, director of admissions at Yale School of Management: "We take these things very seriously."

And with good cause. Part of the role of a business school, says DelMonico, is to train Corporate America's next wave of talent. Accepting people who have knowingly lied—in any capacity—is a dangerous investment. Just ask Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose own dean of admissions, Marilee Jones, was forced to resign last year after officials exposed her doctored education credentials. For weeks, the MIT brand was sullied by embarrassing press coverage.

CRACKING DOWN

Fuqua's Hargrove calls résumé puffing "unfortunate," and Anderson's Shores agrees. Yet both confirm it's tough to track. Who's to say, for example, that an applicant was treasurer, not secretary, of his business fraternity? Or that he spent five hours assisting a professor each week, and not 20? Short of calling every source, on every application, from every candidate, "we can't make sure information is 100% accurate," says Yale's DelMonico.

But they're getting close. At Duke, recommendation letters are now cross-checked at random, via personal phone calls. At UCLA, candidates submit contact information for all (alleged) extracurricular and volunteer activities. At Yale, applications pass through Kroll, a third-party verifier. After running a full background check, the service confirms each applicant's employment and education history, and résumé discrepancies are flagged for staff review. (Michigan State's Broad College of Business employs similar software.)

The goal, says Yale's DelMonico, is to "encourage veracity." If you haven't graduated summa cum laude or logged three years at a top-tier investment bank, be honest about it: According to Fuqua's Hargrove, most applicants who are caught embellishing "could have been accepted on their own merits." After all, a résumé alone won't get you into business school. But puffing one could shut you out.

Source: BusinessWeek

Wednesday

Update on GMAT Cheating Scandal

0 comments

Read on for the information directly from GMAC. Nice initiative taken by Business Week. - Sana

The Graduate Management Admission Council's Peg Jöbst fields questions about whose test scores will be canceled

Recent MBA students and applicants have had lots of questions since the Graduate Management Admission Council won a lawsuit against Scoretop.com (BusinessWeek.com, 7/1/08), a Web site that was allegedly providing live General Management Admission Test questions to VIP subscribers. The students want to know why GMAC never warned them that this service was against the rules. They also want to know whose scores will be canceled and what their ultimate punishment will be (BusinessWeek.com, 7/13/08)>.

Peg Jöbst, senior vice-president of GMAC, recently responded to such questions from the public and from BusinessWeek reporter Francesca Di Meglio during a live chat event. Here are edited excerpts from their conversation:

FrancescaBW: Peg, I thought you could first give us a brief overview of what has happened and the role GMAC is playing in this cheating scandal.

GMACPegJ: Certainly, Francesca. The Graduate Management Admission Council was awarded a $2.35 million judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in a copyright infringement case against the operator of Scoretop.com, a U.S.-based Web site that sold access to questions used on the GMAT exam. GMAC seized the site's domain name on June 20, shut down the site, and obtained a hard drive containing subscriber information.

GMAC goes after those who try to cheat on the GMAT exam, because the council has an ethical responsibility to business schools and students to protect the integrity of the application process. GMAC sued Lei Shi and others who operated Scoretop.com, which offered forums where visitors could share information about the GMAT. The site promoted VIP memberships—$30 for 30 days of access—in which users were encouraged to read and post "JJs," for "jungle juice," the Web site's jargon for live GMAT questions.

FrancescaBW: What can subscribers and users of Scoretop expect to happen next?

GMACPegJ: GMAC is limiting its investigation to those individuals who a) posted GMAT questions they saw on their GMAT exam, and b) posted a message on Scoretop confirming that they saw items from the Scoretop Web site on their GMAT exam. In these instances, GMAC will cancel GMAT scores and notify schools to which those scores were sent.

saurabh_iiita: I have registered as a VIP member, but I never used or saw live questions, etc. What are the implications for me?

GMACPegJ: Based on what you have described, you would not fall into the category of those individuals we are investigating.

sarithababu: Do you have any comments about the pre-September 2006 version of the site and its users, vs. post-September 2006?

GMACPegJ: Our investigation criteria are not tied to versions of the site.

sarithababu: I got that dreaded e-mail. I was a VIP member. I discussed a few questions with no knowledge (still) of whether I am in violation. I am starting school this fall. I have left my job and planned my move. Should I put everything on hold and wait for your verdict on my case? Or go through the ordeal hoping GMAC will clear my name? In a way. it is none of GMAC's business. but this is what is on the minds of numerous students caught up in this mess, so if you can humanely provide response to this, it will be [appreciated].

GMACPegJ: GMAC is limiting its investigation to those individuals who a) posted GMAT questions they saw on their GMAT exam, and b) posted a message on Scoretop confirming that they saw items from the Scoretop Web site on their GMAT exam.

We realize candidates take the process of admissions and preparation for the GMAT very seriously. It is hard work.

For complete transcript, visit http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/jul2008/bs20080727_833217.htm