Can anyone point me to a good source for credential fraud statistics? Basically, in a given population, what % would be a baseline to expect false credentials? I don't think there is anything this detailed out there, but really looking in 3 categories: 1. % that are degree mill credentials 2. % that are real universities, but the student never attended. 3. Actual school, actually attended, but modified date
Since you are supposedly in the process of reviewing the credentials of employees within your organization why not undertake this statistical analysis yourself? I am sure you would find the entire process interesting and enlightening; statical analysis is not a trivial endeavour. As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." As far as modifying the graduation date of an earned credential I am not sure whether you are referring to backdating a date or simply leaving the graduation/attendance dates off of the curriculum vitae, resume, and/or employment application. Due to age discrimination and other factors there is no legal requirement to include graduation dates on curriculum vitae or resume, although on the employment application, if it specifically asks for these dates, the actual dates must be provided. Some employers even request the original diploma or degree at time of interview or prior to officially hiring the candidate. You might be able to use this research to earn a PhD.
In South Africa the figure is currently around 15% If you want more info, you'll have to read my PhD thesis!!! Cheers, George
Not yet Russ - I still have a way to go yet. I am trying, ever so hard, to try and meet my own deadline of June 30 next year. The way I'm feeling at the moment, I'm not gonna make it (PhD blues which you have no doubt been through). Working day and night at it though, so light is coming, but its dim at the moment! Cheers, George
I have a bad habit of being too brief. "Since you are supposedly in the process of reviewing the credentials of employees within your organization why not undertake this statistical analysis yourself?" I would absolutely love to, but currently... Our data for all relevant employees/applicants: *36 years of paper files in HR, 1 manilla folder per employee. No electronic summary of any sort maintained by employee or total. Records kept in 4 locations. *4 years of pseudo-electronic files for new applicants, but inconsistent entry of applicant info has made about 85% of them useless. Instead of a University name, it will say "see attached resume", blank, or "college graduate". The remaining ones still need to be compared to the paper file, due to other data errors. Very slow and manual. *We've never required official transcripts. *No graduation dates to see if the U was accredited at the time. *No school locations (Is it LaSalle or LASALLE?!?) Nobody is in disagreement that this is a major systematic problem and needs to be fixed going forward. Next topic is existing employees who were never verified. I'm just looking for a ballpark on what a benchmark would be. I read Dr. Bear's Degree Mill book where they had access to Monster.com, and thought there might be something quantified. I've been able to get some statistics from the Certified Fraud Examiners, but not specific enough. For graduation date, I am referring to a person who says they got a bachelors degree in 1998 for a promotion, but actually finished it later. This is probably specific to us, due to lack of transcript checking, but I have seen it happen a couple times here.
Research the topic on the Internet, or visit a local college to see how many validation requests are denied. Here are a couple of references on the topic from reputable sources: http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/colleges/dv/pdfs/OrangeCoReg_070505.pdf http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/colleges/dv/pdfs/WSJ_CareerJournal_050404.pdf
In all my years of working my educational experience has never been verified, and that includes verification of my graduation from high school. I think only one employer actually required proof of graduation from high school but did not request proof I had graduated from college. In hindsight, the lack of verification is worrisome given the relative ease with which diplomas and/or transcripts can be duplicated/forged.
You could add Previous employers who were never verified It is sometime extremely difficult and time consuming to verify a candidates prior employment. Companies merge, move, split, go out of business, or are just too bureaucratic. I notice that some companies order background checks and look at credit ratings before offering a job
Verifying employment history is essentially a waste of time and of limited value considering the nomadic employment patterns of a significant proportion of the work force these days. As an employer, would you want to spend weeks verifying that the short-listed 10 candidates, from an applicant pool of say 500, actually worked for the organizations they claim plus confirm the actual job activities stated on the curriculum vitae or resume?
What is done at my company and I'd have to assume is most common is that only the final candidate goes through the verification process. As a matter of fact, this is only done after they accept the position. They are told that they can't start earlier than the two weeks that it usually takes to go through the verification process.
"In all my years of working my educational experience has never been verified, and that includes verification of my graduation from high school. I think only one employer actually required proof of graduation from high school but did not request proof I had graduated from college." 2 local colleges I have taught for have hired me based on my resume. No interview, no transcripts. "You could add Previous employers who were never verified. I notice that some companies order background checks and look at credit ratings before offering a job." It's laughable the amount of info you have to go on as far as previous employers/responsibilities is concerned. Good thing reference checks are useless too. Credit checks can be useful for financially sensitive positions, but you never know when you will have to convince a judge that it substantially relates to the position. Testing helps somewhat. One of the entry-level positions here required that the applicant be "proficient in Excel". 2 in 10 that called themselves proficient could pass a 10 minute test of very basic tasks. "What is done at my company and I'd have to assume is most common is that only the final candidate goes through the verification process. As a matter of fact, this is only done after they accept the position. They are told that they can't start earlier than the two weeks that it usually takes to go through the verification process." Exactly the case.
Here's another take. I've interviewed "my share" of candidates. Looked them in the eye while asking questions, observed body language. Et cetera. Each one I eventually recommended for hire turned out to be exactly whom I figured -- good people and great for the team. Now, had it turned out they were not whom I figured, rather than go back and whine and moan about deception -- I would have simply said, "I erred in my judgment." I never recommended for hire anyone based solely on past experience, past glory as reported, or past education. I recommended for hire largely based upon what my judgment told me they could do for the company I represented as the interviewer. If that judgment was in error -- I was to blame. Simple. Not their fault if I screwed up -- and why butress up one's hind end with a long series of quantifiable mumbo jumbo should one's judgment show to be flawed? Fortunately for me -- my judgment wasn't in error on the ones I recommended for hire. Had it been, I'd have gladly resigned over it. People have to know when to stop passing the buck onto the candidate's past. (Past achievements, past education, past failures, et cetera and whatever, and say, "I looked him/her in the eye, made a judgment call -- and was wrong.") 93.793% of people make up statistics on the spot to suit their purposes.
