<p>no, because anyone with money can do HES. true, you must maintain some GPA, but it's definitely nowhere near as hard to do HES than to get INTO harvard AND graduate</p>
<p>
[quote]
What that means is that practically anybody in the country can afford to drive a Lexus.
[/quote]
didn't know that lexuses were viewed as high-class...considering about 50% of the ppl in our school have brand new lexuses or equivalent/more expensive cars. <em>groans at my school's preppiness</em></p>
<p>am01: What you put on the resume is fine. However, Harvard College is the one that is elite and hard to get into. It is important that you do not leave someone with the mistaken impression that you went to Harvard College. It is important that you clarify this distinction yourself to an employer. It doesn't have to be on the resume, but you should definitely make it clear at the beginning of an interview. </p>
<p>Let me be clear. I need to be able to trust people who work for me. I expect people to be completely honest with me if they want to work for me. If I spent my time to interview you, by phone or in person, and was left with the impression that you went to Harvard College, and you did nothing to dissuade me from thinking that, and then I found out when we got your transcript that you went to Harvard Extension, then I would have enough doubts about your ethics that I would not trust you and thus would not make you an offer. I don't need proof, I just need doubts.</p>
<p>Well, to be honest, this is what i envision any interview as going:</p>
<p>*Employer looks at resume
Employer: "Oh, so you went to Harvard?"
You(should say): "Actually, HES, which is part of Harvard but not the College. It's a school for those who want to continue education and couldn't previously because of other circumstances".</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, I'll be honest, but if I had a job candidate who tried to pass himself off as attending Harvard College and when I get the transcript it's Harvard Extension, and that candidate made me figure that out for myself, I'd show the ethically challenged individual the door. If you want to go there to try and fool people into thinking that you went to Harvard College, it's a very bad idea. If you put Harvard Extension School on your resume, and then impress people with your brilliance, that's much more ethical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that that situation you describe is unethical, although perhaps this stems from a difference in the way that we treat the job hunting process.</p>
<p>The way I see it is, a resume is a marketing document. Nothing more, nothing less. While you can't outright lie on a resume (for that would indeed be unethical), you're not obliged to tell the whole truth either. You are free to list only the attributes that you think will look good to an employer, and not list anything else. That's perfectly legitimate hard-nosed self-marketing.</p>
<p>It's like advertising. Companies are going to advertise their products in a manner that makes them look as desirable as possible. That's why you see beer commercials that show cool guys and beautiful girls in bikinis all drinking beer. Are those beer companies telling you the whole truth in those ads? No, of course not, nor are they obliged to. A resume is basically an ad. It's an ad for your human capital. It is entirely right and proper for you to treat it like an ad. </p>
<p>Besides, look at it this way. Employers don't tell the whole truth to prospective employees, nor are they obliged to. I used to be on the hiring side, and I often times had information regarding the company that the applicant probably would have wanted to know, but I wouldn't tell him as a matter of company policy. For example, one time, I was conducting interviews for a position for which I had strong suspicions was going to be soon eliminated (as part of a pending sale of the division to another company). But I couldn't tell any of the candidates that. I was specifically instructed not to say anything at all as it was insider information, and these candidates were not hired yet and hence were not yet "insiders". So here were all these candidates all talking about how they wanted to have a long career with the company, and I couldn't tell them that if they took the job, it is likely they'd be spun off to some other employer (or laid off) in a short period of time. I could only tell them that once they officially joined, but of course by that time, it's rather late in the game. </p>
<p>The point is, employers are under no obligation to tell you the whole truth and many (probably most) of them won't. So why are you obligated to tell the employers the whole truth?</p>
<p>am01 & sakky</p>
<p>I think RockerDad and yourself have very different perception of ethics. From your post, I would gather that you define something as acceptable and ethical if it is 'allowed' under regulations. RockerDad came from a very practical point of view of employers most probably feeling 'deceived' if they were to find out that their potential employees have not reported the 'extension' (though it is allowed by Harvard admins), a very possible scenerio. What is 'allowed' by Harvard will not be seen as 'acceptable' by employers. I myself also do not equate 'no obligation' = ethical. In this sense, I also see lying employers as unethical. The question is: Is withholding information desired by the other party ethical...It's a grey area....</p>
<p>And Harvard (as with all prestigious universities) have very self-serving reasons to allow extension students not to mention the extension in their resume. It will be seen as a plus by potential students to their extension programs, a desirable affiliation to entice more paying students.</p>
<p>However, I would suggest that any employers worth their salt will know the difference between an extension program, and the actual Harvard curriculum. Meaning they will continue with a prompt: Is it an extension or Harvard College? With which, a lie would definitely be unethical. I'm not commenting on the comparability of the extension program to the actual Harvard program, but I am saying that it is a fact that employers do differentiate, and would want to know, and base their decision on this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is important that you clarify this distinction yourself to an employer. It doesn't have to be on the resume, but you should definitely make it clear at the beginning of an interview.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, why? I don't think you need to clarify it unless specifically asked. Just like beer companies don't exactly "clarify" in their commercials that drinking beer won't automatically result in lots of girls in bikinis wanting to party with you. </p>
<p>I don't think it's your job to provide full information to prospective employers, because, frankly, those employers aren't providing full information to you. The act of hiring is a business transaction, nothing more, nothing less. When one company engages in a transaction with another company, they don't necessarily tell each the whole truth. For example, take Microsoft's first product, which was a BASIC interpreter for the MITS Altair. Bill Gates called MITS and told them that his company was ready to demo their new interpreter for the newly launched Altair and that they should set up a meeting. In reality, not only did Microsoft not even have the interpreter ready (heck, they hadn't even started making it), they didn't even have an Altair to test the interpreter. But Bill Gates didn't tell MITS that. Similarly, when Bill Gates offered to license MS-DOS to IBM for the PC in what became the Deal of the Century, Gates didn't tell IBM that he didn't even have an OS ready and that all he was going to do is just buy an OS from somebody else (Tim Paterson), modify it, and then resell as MS-DOS. If IBM knew that, they probably would have just gone directly to Tim Paterson. </p>
<p>Yet I think we can all agree that Gates is a brilliant businessman. Part of what makes him brilliant is that he knows what to say and what not to say when conducting a transaction. He's not going to tell you the whole truth, nor should he. Business is business. </p>
<p>Hence, if it's perfectly fine and proper for businesses to not reveal the whole truth when conducting transactions, why is it not OK for prospective employees to not reveal the whole truth? Like I said, the act of hiring is a business transaction, nothing more, nothing less. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me be clear. I need to be able to trust people who work for me. I expect people to be completely honest with me if they want to work for me. If I spent my time to interview you, by phone or in person, and was left with the impression that you went to Harvard College, and you did nothing to dissuade me from thinking that, and then I found out when we got your transcript that you went to Harvard Extension, then I would have enough doubts about your ethics that I would not trust you and thus would not make you an offer. I don't need proof, I just need doubts
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if it's just a simple matter of your own personal ethics, then that's one thing. But like I've been saying, a lot of what determines success in business negotiation and strategy has to do with information uncertainty. Honestly, what is corporate marketing if it's not just a fancy way of manipulating information emphasizing that which is favorable to you and downplaying that which is unfavorable to you? Similarly, corporate sales is basically all about convincing others to buy your products.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Similarly, corporate sales is basically all about convincing others to buy your products.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seriously, not if you rely on repeat business. Corporate sales is about helping customers figure out what they want and then selling them what they want. It's about relationships. </p>
<p>Think about it, you can only lose your reputation for honesty. Once lost, it's gone never to return.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think RockerDad and yourself have very different perception of ethics. From your post, I would gather that you define something as acceptable and ethical if it is 'allowed' under regulations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, the way I see it is that there is an important difference between being ethical and just being a foolish patsy. It gets to a philosophical point: ethics is defined by the standards of the in which you are participating. If it is generally understood that the participants in a community are going to tell you the whole truth, then fine, I will do the same, even if there is no official rule that obliges me to do so. But if I know that the community itself accepts lying and subterfuge as standard 'rules of the game', then I would be a fool not to do the same. I'm not going to be screwed over for being the only one revealing the whole truth when others in the community are not doing the same. There's no glory in that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
RockerDad came from a very practical point of view of employers most probably feeling 'deceived' if they were to find out that their potential employees have not reported the 'extension' (though it is allowed by Harvard admins), a very possible scenerio.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And to continue my story, that guy we eventually hired did in fact feel very deceived when he found out later, after taking the job, that he was likely to be shipped off. But what can I say? I was following the direct orders of my superiors not to tell him anything until he had already signed on. That's business. </p>
<p>Besides, I'll give you another scenario. I know a woman who is in her 40's but doesn't look like she is. When she interviews for jobs, she deliberately puts on a style of makeup and clothes, and does her hair in a way to look as young as possible because she reasons (with much justification) that employers will probably discriminate against her if they knew her real age. Is that unethical? I don't know. All I know is that she's certainly giving a very false impression about her age. {When she gets all dolled up, I swear she looks like she could be in her 20's.} And I'm quite certain she doesn't try to "correct" this impression by telling employers her real age. Not at all. </p>
<p>So what's the difference between that and just saying that you "went to Harvard" with no mention of Harvard Extension. The way I see it is, you're trying to make yourself look as good as possible in order to get the job. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I would suggest that any employers worth their salt will know the difference between an extension program, and the actual Harvard curriculum. Meaning they will continue with a prompt: Is it an extension or Harvard College? With which, a lie would definitely be unethical. I'm not commenting on the comparability of the extension program to the actual Harvard program, but I am saying that it is a fact that employers do differentiate, and would want to know, and base their decision on this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, then I would say that there are a LOT of employers not worth their salt. A LOT. Heck, I've met professors at Harvard who did not even know about the Harvard Extension School.</p>
<p>I think practically, that's why a transcript is needed in a application....so the real question for zebrastripe is, does the transcipt from the extension explicitly states that the degree is from the extension? Sakky by advocating that you do not need to reveal the extension connection, implicitly also agrees that employers in general will differentiate, and this is not a good information to reveal.</p>
<p>And if the transcipt does reveal a extension affliation, employers will definitely act upon that information. And if you didn't volunteer that information from the beginning.....yes, I would agree with RockerDad, you would look doubly bad.</p>
<p>What can I say....It's a employers' world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seriously, not if you rely on repeat business. Corporate sales is about helping customers figure out what they want and then selling them what they want. It's about relationships.</p>
<p>Think about it, you can only lose your reputation for honesty. Once lost, it's gone never to return.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but maybe it doesn't matter. Microsoft clearly got the better part of the deal in the MS-DOS license sale. Yet IBM came back to Microsoft again to work on OS-2. I think IBM should have realized the second time around that Microsoft may not have been negotiating in entirely good faith (and indeed, they had already started the MSWindows project in secret). But it apparently didn't matter. For whatever reason, IBM got the worse of the MS-DOS deal yet decided to come back for seconds. </p>
<p>And it's not just IBM that's been victimized. Microsoft has engaged in this sort of behavior again and again. They made deals with Apple only to break them. They made deals with Netscape only to break them. Microsoft has exhibited great mastery of the 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' strategy of first purporting to support certain technologies and certain business partners only later to destroy them. </p>
<p>Nor do I mean to single out Microsoft. IBM, Intel, Apple, Sun, Oracle, Dell, Cisco - these guys are also no angels. That's just how it is, at least in that industry. It's a rough industry.</p>
<p>But let's put the high-tech industry aside. Sure, you can lose your reputation, but only if customers realize that they've been screwed and they have to care. The truth is, many (probably most) customers don't realize it, or if they do realize it, they don't care. As a case in point, I would point to bottled water as the triumphant pinnacle of corporate marketing. To convince people to consistently pay $3.99 for water that they can get free from the tap (and which in many cases is indeed just water from the tap as demonstrated by numerous news reports), that's just ingenious, for after all, water is water. What that tells me is that customers either don't know they are being screwed, or if they do know, they don't care.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So what's the difference between that and just saying that you "went to Harvard" with no mention of Harvard Extension. The way I see it is, you're trying to make yourself look as good as possible in order to get the job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I said, you WOULDN'T get the job :-)</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I said, you WOULDN'T get the job :-)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, sure you would. Depends on how scrutinizing the employer is, and believe me, there are a lot of employers out there that are careless about their employment practices.</p>
<p>Take the infamous case of James Baughman. He was a former Director of Recruiting at Lucent, when it was later found that he had himself lied on his resume. That's right - the guy who was in charge of vetting and selecting applicants had himself lied to get the job. It wasn't a small lie either. It was revealed that he used to work as a high school principal who had been *convicted of embezzling funds from his school district and was sent to a year in prison. * This story reminds me of the case of Marilee Jones, former Dean of Admissions at MIT, who last year was discovered to have herself lied about the degrees she had, claiming that she had graduated from RPI, Union College, and Albany Medical College when in fact she never had. Shen then had a successful career at MIT that spanned almost 30 years when the fact is, she may not have even gotten an offer at all if she had actually told the truth.</p>
<p>Now, of course, I know what you're thinking - these people all eventually got caught for lying. But, firstly, that illustrates 2 key points: that many employers not only don't check their employee backgrounds very carefully, but also that, frankly, many of the qualifications you need to get a job are not truly required to actually do the job. In the case of Jones, she had a highly successful and widely lauded career at MIT despite not having the "proper" educational background. The only "problem" in her case is that what she did introduces an element of unfairness as one could say that she took away a job that could have gone to somebody else who had the "proper" educational background. But I don't think anybody has ever seriously alleged that she wasn't an exemplary employee, having won numerous employee awards. In fact, I would say that she probably would have outperformed most other people who did have the proper educational backgrounds. </p>
<p>But more importantly - these people actually lied. Jones specifically submitted a resume that included degrees that she did not have. Baughman specifically claimed to have a clean criminal record when he did not.. These are actually lies. I am not advocating lying. But I am advocating putting your best foot forward. Saying that you "studied at Harvard" (when you actually went to Harvard Extension) is not a lie, because you did in fact study at Harvard. True, you didn't study at Harvard College, but you never claimed that you did. Hence, it's not a lie. Again, it's like advertising. A beer company will show a guy drinking beer surrounded by all these beautiful women in bikinis. Now, the beer company doesn't actually specifically claim that if you drink beer, beautiful women in bikinis will want to party with you. So they're not lying. That's business.</p>
<p>For those who still disagree, I would again point to the example of the woman I know who is actually rather old (but doesn't look like it), and who makes herself up to look much younger. Basically, she's doing it to avoid age discrimination. She's afraid - and justifiably so - that if employers knew her real age, they wouldn't hire her. Of course they won't say that they aren't hiring her because of her age. They'll make up some other reason or give her no reason at all. But age is undoubtedly a factor. Hence, to take the issue off the table, she dolls herself up to look like a much younger woman. Note, she isn't actually lying. She doesn't actually say that she is in her 20's. She'll just give the strong impression that she is young in order to avoid potential age discrimination. I don't see anything wrong with that whatsoever. {And in fact, to generalize, one could say that the entire beauty and fashion industry is predicated on false impressions, in that the whole point of using beauty products is to look more beautiful and younger than you really are.)</p>
<p>This leads to a more encompassing point. Employers are not your friends, and you should never mistake them as such. They're your business partners, nothing more. Employment is a business transaction. I can certainly understand that friends should enjoy complete honesty with each other. But these guys are not your friends. Again, keep in mind that employers lie (or at provide misleading impressions) to their employees all the time. Some of my friends have worked at companies where management was assuring them that everything was going fine when, secretly, management had actually been contemplating mass layoffs and/or a shutdown/sale of the division for months. You don't owe employers any more honesty than they are willing to give to you (which, frankly, isn't much).</p>
<p>Sakky, we disagree at such a fundamental level.</p>
<p>I think integrity means everything. I don't think it's a tool; it's a way of conducting one's life, in business and otherwise. I have happy customers, happy employees, happy management and do quite nicely for myself. You seem to think integrity is a tool to be used for tactical gain. You sound young, well educated but still quite naive; but I think that you will learn. You can spew all the gibberish that you want, but I assure you that most successful business people put integrity first.</p>
<p>Perhaps my youth is obscuring my reason, but I would think that you, RockerDad, would be considered the naive one for placing a high value on integrity in a field where competition supersedes everything, and tactical thinking are laudable traits. 'Integrity' is a tool to augment image. In business, image is everything. If people want to buy from the business that has the most 'integrity'(which is used loosely in business) then get some or fake it -- whichever is cheapest. From my experience, successful business people put their profits first.</p>
<p>
but I assure you that most successful business people put integrity first.
oh, like Bill Gates? or Dick Cheney?</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I assure you that most successful business people put integrity first.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cough cough, Bill Gates, cough cough. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. Gates's philanthropic activities are nothing but admirable and he seems to operate them with great integrity. But come on, Gates has been arguably the most rapacious force in the business world for the last 25 years. Entire stacks of books have been written about the questionable, and in some cases arguably illegal, business tactics of Microsoft. There is a reason why Microsoft has attracted so much attention from the Department of Justice. Yet nobody can dispute Gates's business success.</p>
<p>Nor do I mean to single out Gates. Steve Jobs? He basically screwed over his original partner at Apple, Steve Wozniak. He also engaged in shenanigans to screw over the original founders of Pixar to take the lion's share of the gains for himself. Larry Ellison? I seem to recall him having to admit to the media that he had hired private investigators to sift through the garbage of his competitors to look for evidence to use against them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think integrity means everything. I don't think it's a tool; it's a way of conducting one's life, in business and otherwise. I have happy customers, happy employees, happy management and do quite nicely for myself. You seem to think integrity is a tool to be used for tactical gain. You sound young, well educated but still quite naive; but I think that you will learn
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me, I have learned quite a lot. </p>
<p>All you have to do is consider the history. You talk about integrity? John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould, other robber barons engaged in activities that would now be considered not only highly unethical, but also downright illegal. In fact, most of our antitrust statutes were written in response to the activities of these guys. </p>
<p>Or I would invoke what Adam Smith (yes THE Adam Smith) actually wrote in The Wealth of Nations:</p>
<p>"people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment or diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"</p>
<p>The reason why Smith likes capitalism is not because he liked businessmen (he actually despised them). He just simply realized that individual the greed of businessmen, when properly harnessed, produces economic growth. In other words, he fully accepts the base nature of businessmen and proposes to turn lemons into lemonade. </p>
<p>Or, if you want an even more explicit example, consider the history of the company we now know as Chiquita (the banana company) but which used to be known as the infamous United Fruit Company that engaged in vast political corruption and repression in Central America. One can also consider the activities of the large agricultural operations that comprised the "King Cotton" economy in the US South which derived their basis from slavery. (Many of today's tobacco companies in the US were similarly involved in slavery). One can also consider the long and dreadful history of slavery in building the sugar industries in Brazil and the Caribbean, a type of slavery that was apparently far harsher than that practiced in the US South (with Brazil becoming the largest sugar producer in the world in the early 1800's off the backs of millions of slaves). One can also ponder the activities of the British East India Company in politically controlling vast swathes of lands and millions of people in Asia with its own military. For example, when China tried to curb opium smuggling to prevent its people from becoming drug addicts, the British East India Company instigated the Opium Wars to force China to allow opium to legalize drug smuggling (and also taking Hong Kong as a fillip). Imagine how Americans would feel if Colombian drug lords and the Colombia government were to militarily defeat the US in order to force the US to legalize cocaine, and Colombia also decided to take Hawaii. </p>
<p>Look, I don't want to sound like a Marxist because I certainly am not. I appreciate the power of capitalism. Indeed, even Marx grudgingly conceded the great power of capitalism to produce immense economic growth, to the point that even he stated that the traditional peasant-dominated agricultural societies of his contemporary time (which were most such societies of his time) were probably better off if they converted to capitalism. </p>
<p>But what I am saying is that businessmen are no angels. They haven't been throughout history, and they probably never will be. The sooner that people realize that, the better off they will be. Business is business.</p>
<p>The real question is about what we mean by integrity. Integrity doesn't mean that you have to tell everybody the whole truth, and particularly not in the context of business. If you were to try to complete a business transaction with somebody like Bill Gates, and you told him the whole truth, there can be no doubt that he would use that information against you. After all, he's not revealing all of his information to you. So if you choose to reveal yourself to him, you are just going to get screwed. And again, I'm not trying to single out Gates. Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison - these guys would also screw you over without even blinking. That's business. Whether we like it or not, that's how it is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that many employers not only don't check their employee backgrounds very carefully, but also that, frankly, many of the qualifications you need to get a job are not truly required to actually do the job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sakky, that must be a long time ago, because many employers do check now. Especially after 9/11. I agree with your second point though.</p>
<p>I have a 12 year old cousin who is home-schooled and takes classes at Harvard Extension School (and his father constantly boasts about this), so I've sometimes wondered about the weight of a Harvard Extension School degree as well. But he's an honest kid, so I think that come job application time, he will put down HES, not Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, that must be a long time ago, because many employers do check now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure that many do now. But the point is, many still do not. Especially small companies (which represent the vast majority of companies out there). </p>
<p>But anyway, I think that's a tangential subject. I have never advocated that anybody actually lie on the resume. The guy with a HES degree can indeed claim to have a Harvard degree. That's not a lie. So a background check will reveal that he does in fact have what he said. Sure, it won't come back saying the he has a Harvard College degree, but he never claimed to have a Harvard College degree. Hence, it's not a lie. Sure, it may be misleading, but it's no more misleading than a woman who dolls herself up to look much younger so as to avoid age discrimination.</p>
<p>I have to agree with RockerDad. I have had the good fortune to know some owners of Fortune whatevernumber companies personally, and most of them do operate mostly with integrity. There may be the occasional business deal that is a bit rough or heartless, but there is no shade of deception there. And seriously, quoting Adam Smith? Yeah a philosopher who, while influential, has been partially discredited and besides that lived hundreds of years ago can totally give a modern perspective on business transactions. Right. </p>
<p>If you mislead an employer on a resume, you will lose your job. There is a difference between omitting information (like not mentioning a DUI if they don't ask for criminal history) and putting down a college you didn't go to.</p>