Yahoo CEO Wrongly Claimed To Have Degree In Computer Science

jmcbain writes "Scott Thompson, Yahoo!'s CEO who was hired on January 4 of this year, was found to have lied about his CS degree from Stone Hill College. Investigation from an activist shareholder revealed that his degree was actually in accounting, and apparently Thompson had been going with this lie since the time he served as president of PayPal's payments unit."

Comments

I would've went with accounting

[outsider007]

Yahoo needs an accounting CEO more than a cs one lately.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[slartibartfastatp]

An accounting and liar CEO - that's gonna work.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[narcc]

That's the current standard, isn't it?

Re:I would've went with accounting

[Kenja]

Yea... an accountant. He already said that.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's redundant.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[MiG82au]

Your usage couldn't be more wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

Re:I would've went with accounting

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, a lying accountant would be an oxymoron, as an accountant is usually known to be truthful, due to certifications taken to become an accountant. while he may not have actively passed his cpa certification etc, if you were to be an accountant, you wouldn't be a liar, as that isn't in the code of conduct, in the sense of the word. it's like an unfaithful lawyer, as a lawyer must be faithful to his client, else he would lose his own bar certification.

however, you calling it on usage, is saying that a shrimp couldn't be jumbo, because shrimp CAN be large, however, by the meaning of shrimp, an association with "jumbo" would be oxymoronic.

it's cool if i'm wrong, i'm knee deep in vodka, but hell, I'm pretty sure we all got his joke.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[Black Parrot]

Yea... an accountant. He already said that.

To retread an old joke about politicians:

Q: How do you know an accountant is lying?

A: His pencil is moving.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[Greyfox]

Obviously not a very good one. He seems to be having trouble accounting for a CS degree...

Re:I would've went with accounting

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Wait... if a CEO lies, does that mean he's telling the truth?

Re:I would've went with accounting

[Billly Gates]

Sadly that is the problem with Corporate America today.

You laugh it off, but why do you think corporate America still prefers IE 6 & XP and only looks at IT as a cost center and sales as profit centers and everything else as a un necessary cost?

The reason why is accountants run the show and follow GAAP rules and know little about the business. Wall Street just wants someone to fudge numbers so they can pump and then short the stock within a 6 - 9 week window.

Accountants make the claim I made x amount of money therefore I can raise your stock price etc.

Is there any CEOs who were former engineers or designers left? A CEO with an IT background would be actually nice for an IT company! Who would ahve thought!

Re:I would've went with accounting

[cowboy76Spain]

From what I have read, they don't need an accountig CEO neither. You would use him if there was something to count...

Re:I would've went with accounting

[schroedingers_hat]

Mu.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[TheRaven64]

Aren't people supposed to provide a copy of their degrees when they get a job in USA?

Not sure about the USA, but I've only ever been asked to prove my qualifications once, and that was when I got a short-term job at my old university. Apparently the data protection act means that they need my explicit permission for the HR department to ask academic records for a copy of my degree certificate. Everywhere else has just accepted it without any evidence. Presumably if I lied and then couldn't do the job, they'd check and prosecute me for fraud and then use that as an excuse for firing me.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[flyneye]

Never underestimate the ability to convince others of fabricated facts, padded with fiction in order to improve your image.
Meet women, be the life of the party, impress a boardroom full of stockholders.
You could enter politics, sell cars, write ads, chair an activist cause, profess a field at a university, practice law, practice medicine, adjust insurance,preside over a bank. Most people are so busy with life they just take whatever you tell them as fact, so it is super UBER easy to sucker them.

Just close your eyes, imagine yourself in the situation you want, make up the background you would've had, enlist everything you know about the situation you want,put it in your resume' and pretend it is real. VIOLA! It's your story now stick to it. Be sure to discredit any detractors.

See it's easy and profitable to lie. So many people do it now, we are a planet of experts,authorities,doctors,astronauts and race car drivers.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[Bigby]

How can you both miss the CEO of Google, Larry Page. BS Computer Engineering from Michigan and a Masters/PhD in Computer Science from Stanford.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[SecurityGuy]

My question is that, how dare someone at a top position tell such a big lie?

Seriously. It's appalling. He should be fired. Every company I've worked for has had a policy that falsifying your employment application information is grounds for termination. That should be even more so for high ranking positions. Who can do more harm to you by lying, the guy in the mail room, or the guy who runs the company?

Aren't people supposed to provide a copy of their degrees when they get a job in USA?

You mean like a copy of your diploma or something? No. I've never been asked to, anyway. I've never been asked to submit anything I'd call proof, but I assume companies can check on it. Actually, if I were the company doing the vetting, I don't want the employee providing the evidence. I'd just want you to sign a form that lets me request proof from your university directly. You might fake something up. They probably won't, unless you know someone in the academic records office.

Re:I would've went with accounting

[b4dc0d3r]

Sadly, there are few people who have the luxury of completing two master's level degrees and optionally a doctorate.

What, no, that's just plain silly. In order for advanced degrees to have value, you have to work in the field, then either get the degree while working, or take time off work. Not right out of undergrad.

Your hypothetical monster combo is going to be 40 years old at a minimum in order to be of any value. You can get the degrees quickly, and then spend 5 years working before you really understand how it works.

Only your last line makes sense. Get the IT based degree, and partner with someone who has the business sense. The difference is, you are equal partners. Not the IT guy in the dungeon being told what to do. That is a powerful combination, two people who can complement each other. Not a single monstrosity who thinks he knows everything and has to consult no one.

Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[JoeMerchant]

Pathological disregard for others makes a more ruthless and efficient leader, isn't that what shareholders want?

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[siddesu]

Also, what is a computer scientist if not a bit and byte accountant? A virtual bean counter, so to speak. And considering the mess that is the tax law, the algorithms an accountant knows and uses may be more complex than anything Knuth can teach you.

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[Concerned Onlooker]

Yeah, but the only pattern he knows is producer-consumer.

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[sg_oneill]

Yeah, but the only pattern he knows is producer-consumer.

The problem for yahoo though, is that google is the singleton.

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[rtb61]

Well no really because of course that ruthless and efficient leader is all about ruthless and efficient salary, bonuses and of course golden parachute.

Ruthless and efficient thinking ie psychopathic thinking demands that those with the greatest resources make the most profitable victims, in this case it is the investors.

The pattern should be pretty obvious by now. Fudge the books to create the false illusion of high profits, ramp up salary and bonuses, make it look like you are doing something through acquisitions, mergers and, mass sackings. Make it all last as long as possible and try to avoid jail when you bail with your golden parachute just before the company goes belly up.

Modern CEO no qualifications required beyond excellence in PR=B$ (lies for profit).

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[lightknight]

There is some cross-over between accounting and computing. However, the main, and troubling difference, is that a SE / CS / IT person would know, almost instinctively, whether or not the vision he is pursuing is even remotely feasible, at least with regards to technological matters. That is, for those who are not SE / CS / IT people, an understatement. Especially for a technology company, which like or not, has its foundations sunk in technology.

The problem with someone who is not this experienced, unfortunately, is the pursuant of a vision that may be nothing more than a pipe-dream, even if you had the combined resources of MS, IBM, Google, and Intel / AMD all working as one. As such, a company may waste valuable resources on something which simply cannot be done at the moment. Like building a flying submarine, these ideas may eventually be possible, but the people involved will be instantly demoralized with the leadership taking such a, hmmm, difficult position.

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[lightknight]

Hmm. And there in lies the problem.

An IT department may be viewed as stocking multiple redundancies, such RAID, backup servers, and let's be honest, a large inventory of computers parts that are not currently being used. Management, classically trained, will look at all those DVI and HDMI cables, and wonder why IT needs to many of them. So what do they do? Play the fools game by trying to measure the 'real' needs of IT, by cutting their budget, and making the manager of said vision beg for parts. They are not aware that those extra parts are kept on hand because it's more efficient, in the 'we are paying our employees an impressive hourly wage / salary, and it does us no good for them to continue to be paid for twiddling their thumbs while we wait a day or two for the parts they need to come in.' Someone will then offer to pick up said items from a local supplier who will, of course, noticing their immediate need, have the company paying good money for shite product. And when you factor in shipping costs, as well as the (very often) lower costs of ordering from an online supplier, it makes sense to order in bulk.

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[Magada]

Interestingly enough, what you describe is a case of shitty cost accounting.

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

If you surround yourself with people who are honest, understand Greek, and can speak in English, you can run a Greek company. Presidents don't know everything the government does, Deans don't know everything a university does, CEOs don't know everything a large company does. If you don't understand something about one proposed direction for the company, and you're smart, you learn as much as you can even though it's a different field, but more importantly you surround yourself with good people who DO understand it.

Lying to the shareholders should get him fired. But just not having a CS degree should not.

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[Amouth]

From what i have seen of what you described, that mostly happens because IT departments don't operate like they should, how many do you know have a storeroom? how many of them have actually do formal MRO? very very few.

If that Manager can show min/max, inventory levels, turns, and value for it then the bean counters are less likely to blindly cut it. How many IT departments have a budget? Most, out of them how many of them have a signed a up a Budget for maintaining vs operating vs improving? Very Few.

Play the game and do it right, and things will be easier with the bean counters, at the same time they will be easier inside your organization with the added structure. To often IT is viewed as a money pit rather than a cost/profit center. IT produces capacity for other customers to work, if you can't track that and show it and give an actual cost over Maintenance, Repair, and Operations for it then the people who give you the money are less likely to keep giving it. they only know they paid "X" and IT functioned, but they don't actually know what they paid for.

Re:Doesn't that make him a better CEO?

[CAIMLAS]

If that Manager can show min/max, inventory levels, turns, and value for it then the bean counters are less likely to blindly cut it. How many IT departments have a budget? Most, out of them how many of them have a signed a up a Budget for maintaining vs operating vs improving? Very Few.

We're at the point now where the "IT department" is 1 or 2 guys where it was previously 5-6, in many cases, or many IT groups have been outsourced to managed services. "Virtualization makes it easy", to a degree. At least that's the mindset.

Sorry, but when you're one person maintaining a fleet of aging equipment (say, for 200 users) which will maybe or maybe not need a new $15 video card, a $10 ethernet card, $50 in RAM, or a $30 power supply, the cost justification isn't there. We're basically talking about someone getting anal about how many legal pads and pencils a person has on their desk. And in this sort of organization, my experience is that no amount of justification and explanation of cost/benefit analysis will cause the powers-that-be realize "yes, it's a good idea to have spare parts" (aside from fully-functional systems sitting around).

This is a concept quite easily understood in other industries. Surveying companies, road crews, etc. which need a fleet of vehicles keep spare filters, oil, and other commonly worn out parts/pieces (assuming they do their own work); very few actually account for these things short of "we're running out" because it's not worth the time, and they realize they need those parts to keep things running.

Granted, with a larger shop I can see this not being the case, but by "larger" I think you'd need an IT staff of at least 15 people to justify it (or, say, around 1500 employees).

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was he able to do the job well? Does it REALLY matter? If he got away with it that long I say good for him, if his employers aren't smart enough or care enough to verify they weren't really that concerned about his credentials.

Re:So?

[J Story]

Was he able to do the job well? Does it REALLY matter? If he got away with it that long I say good for him, if his employers aren't smart enough or care enough to verify they weren't really that concerned about his credentials.

Maybe this is an indication that degrees are over-rated. Or to be charitable, that it isn't particularly important exactly what you learn.

Re:So?

[Black Parrot]

Was he able to do the job well? Does it REALLY matter? If he got away with it that long I say good for him, if his employers aren't smart enough or care enough to verify they weren't really that concerned about his credentials.

Maybe this is an indication that degrees are over-rated. Or to be charitable, that it isn't particularly important exactly what you learn.

Perhaps. Though it's not obvious that a CS degree would contribute much to your skills as a CEO.

Re:So?

[houstonbofh]

Every time it comes up, lots of people (myself included) always say that you just need a degree, it doesn't matter what in. This just proves it... Not in the way I intended what I said the above, but still...

Re:So?

[wvmarle]

Depending on the job at hand, it's certainly true. One of the major things of having a degree is that it proves you have a certain learning capability, and self discipline to get it done. And after a few years, degrees count less and less, as actual job experience takes over.

Though especially the more technical fields where the actual background/scientific knowledge counts it's not "just any" degree that will land you such a job.

Besides, I'm used to employers taking a resume for granted, and not doing much of checking (as long as the whole thing makes sense). Yet for a CEO function I'd expect a bit more of background checks being done. A simple call to the university the person says to have graduated from would suffice to confirm he actually has that degree. Or not, in this case.

Re:So?

[Mitreya]

Was he able to do the job well? Does it REALLY matter? If he got away with it that long I say good for him, if his employers aren't smart enough or care enough

They are now saying (in TFA) that this does not diminish his wonderful abilities to lead the company. They are not firing him! Is Yahoo HR informed that a relevant degree is now optional when they filter resumes?
I am happy with either direction:
a) Fire him and apologize for oversight
b) Keep him and announce that Yahoo believes that degrees don't mean much

But you can't have it both ways.

Re:So?

[SteveFoerster]

Yes, because it means you'd understand your firm's financial statements, which is more important for a CEO than understanding the code its programmers write.

Re:So?

[Sir_Sri]

Depends on the job. If you start into project management rather than being a product developer or programmer it's easier to hide that you don't have a CS degree, or even demonstrate that it doesn't. He's also from an agegroup where a lot of people migrated into computer science work from other completely unrelated fields. One of our profs here who is a CS instructor has all of his formal training in business, but that was as close as his school came to CS in the 1980's. Seriously.

A degree doesn't just show you posses basic group skills, nor are those skills necessarily useful in business. In fact, to the contrary, a lot of degrees don't teach you useful skills to business, and that's why they are paid less than college/tradeschool diplomas. A degree makes you an inexperienced professional in your area. If you need to work in a different area (for example of you have a degree in psychology, english or art history, which are the most oversupplied graduates around here) you haven't demonstrated an aptitude in computer science or any of the more technical programmes.

Remember, this is a guy born in 58. That means he probably went to school around 76 -80. Back then a LOT of places didn't have CS degrees, and what they did offer grew out of another department. Technically my MSc which in practice was CS (thesis on GPU ray tracing) is the same degree as people in geology, physics, chemistry, maths, and psychology from my school, because some idiot put them all in the same programme and degree name. In 1980 your degree and your ability to do CS means a lot less than a degree in CS would represent today. It's not that the training is necessarily a whole lot better, just that you simply couldn't supply enough, so someone who took the only 2 CS courses offered would be the most CS trained person available. Which is why we had two decades of clusterfucks in technology of security problems left and right, massively inefficient implementations that hung around long past their lifetimes etc.

Re:So?

[TapeCutter]

"Look! I can sit in a classroom and waste my money! Doesn't this automatically mean I'm good enough to do the job!?"

As opposed to; "To be blunt I'm special, you'll just have to trust me on that because I can't be bothered jumping through your hoops just to convince you that your own degree is worthless. When do I start?"

Re:So?

[lightknight]

And as the Chief Executive Officer, what happens when he asks the programmers to execute his vision, with no idea whether it's even possible?

Let's be honest, asking programmers to do something they know is idiotic is an easy way to convert them all to saboteurs.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was he able to do the job well? Does it REALLY matter? If he got away with it that long I say good for him, if his employers aren't smart enough or care enough to verify they weren't really that concerned about his credentials.

Yes it matters. He committed fraud. Whether or not it worked out he denied the people who chose him the right to consider him based on his actual qualifications. There is a lot of money at stake.

Do you think a society in which everyone is permitted to lie on their resume without consequences is a good idea. Leaving aside for a moment jobs where practicing without a qualification is strictly illegal and a criminal offence (doctor, pilot etc) consider what would happen if everyone started lying. Imagine the cost of verifying every qualification, not to mention the privacy issues.

Re:So?

[solarissmoke]

I have worked with accounting graduates who haven't the first clue about drawing real-world conclusions from financial statements. And I've worked with psychology graduates who do. The point is that it's not the degree, but the character and intelligence of the person holding it that determines whether they make a competent CEO.

Re:So?

[Fzz]

Or maybe it's an indication that 28 years of experience post-degree is more relevant than the degree itself.

The same may not be true if you've recently graduated.

Re:So?

[E_Ron.Eous]

In other words, being a fraud is OK as long as you don't get caught?

Re:So?

[DarkOx]

House is right but its not the "rule".

I suspect if your recorded all of your personal interactions for a week, and verified the truthfulness of each statement made by those where were strangers to you when the statement was made; you'd see most people are honest. The number would probably even be more favorable toward honesty if you include statements made by people you know.

At least here in American *most* of what people tell me is either true or correct to the best of their understanding. I am not naive, I know *much* of what I hear does contain lies and omissions. Still most of us are able to safely navigate day to day life using the "unless I have some reason to think otherwise, or the risk is high, default trust" algorithm.

When someone tells you the road is closed three miles ahead, I'd like to be able to take them at their word rather than do a 6 mile round trip to confirm for myself.

Re:So?

[AngryDeuce]

Well, of course; I'll parse any statement through a motivation filter before I decide on whether or not I take it at face value or not. A perfect stranger telling me the road is out 3 miles ahead has no discernible reason to lie to me at all, unless he just feels like being a jerk-off (an extremely remote possibility). When it comes to something like a resume, however, there is a shit load of motivation to try and pad that as much as possible and come as close as possible to the point of incredulity without going over.

Honestly, the way I look at it, the harder someone is trying to sell me on something, be it an idea, a product, whatever, the more I distrust what they're telling me and more likely I am to discount it until I can independently verify their claims. I admit, it's led to arguments in my personal life (especially as regards political ideology, which is all but impossible to discuss without one person trying to "sell" the idea to the other) but at the same time, the fact that I don't take much at face value has garnered respect from my peers as well. The difficulty lies in the implications of my distrust...all too often, people look at it as a negative reflection on them as a person, but I don't necessarily see it that way. I don't doubt that they may believe whatever it is they're telling me, but beliefs != facts. The problem is making someone understand that just because I may not totally believe what they're telling me, I don't think they're a lying asshole. All too often, people equate one with the other, and that's not true at all in my estimation of a person. I mean, if that was enough to immediately write someone off, I wouldn't associate with any religious people whatsoever.

Of course, there's the argument that in order to "keep the peace", we should all just smile and nod and accept the white lies and exaggerations of others so that we can safely tell our own white lies and exaggerations, but I've never subscribed to that idea, either, because honestly, I think we have enough Emperor's New Clothes bullshit going on in the world today that a little extra scrutiny at the expense of harmony would go a long way towards keeping the most egregious purveyors of this nonsense honest (or deservedly ostracized).

Re:So?

[SteveFoerster]

Jobs did that too, I suppose. But I wouldn't do that. A CEO is extremely expensive and only has only so many hours in a day. There are managers whose job it is to oversee software development. A CEO shouldn't waste his own valuable time undermining those managers' authority by doing their job for them without having complete information, not to mention that if programmers are working on the wrong thing it's probably not their fault in the first place.

I'm not saying it's irrelevant whether the CEO of a tech company has a tech background, I agree that's a good thing. But at that level, that's not his job any more. Either he can trust the people whose job it really is, or else the company has bigger problems that a tech background won't help solve.

firstly

[NemoinSpace]

Now that everyone realizes he's not an IT guy, he'll probably ask for a raise.

Re:firstly

[lightknight]

This may be too early, but didn't you hear? He has a law degree -> it's say so right there on his resume.

Reminds me of Disney

[Grayhand]

"Investigation from an activist shareholder revealed that his degree was actually in accounting" Back when I worked for Disney we called Eisner that guy from accounting, it's actually a Berke Breathed quote we borrowed. It's amazing how many of these supposed CEOs are glorified accountants. Kind of explains the whole lack of imagination in big business.

Re:Reminds me of Disney

[hey!]

Actually, my experience with actual CPA's has been that they're a pleasure to work with. For one thing they file kick-ass bug reports. A good accountant knows how difficult it is to track a problem down, because a lot of what they do amounts to financial debugging.

The *really* good accountants I've known also understand something important, which is the limitations of their discipline. That's probably a prerequisite for being really good at any profession, but accountants generally are more aware of the limitations of their profession than, say, lawyers are. So I think the problem is more likely managers thinking they're accountants than vice versa.

It's understandable, because management is an interdisciplinary field in which the only guarantee of success would be a working time machine. Managers out of their depth tend to grasp at straws (like anyone would); sometimes its accounting, other times it is marketing, other times it is quality control. I think a great manager would know the limits of the management discipline, and focus on hiring great people and keeping them working together.

Anyhow, the accountants I've worked with have been terrific, and I've learned a lot from them; so whenever I hear "accountant" casually used as a pejorative, I like to speak up.

One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[caywen]

If you can get to the top ranks of a tech company without a CS degree, it's almost like a big FU to all of us that do hold CS degrees. I've always was kind of awed by people I work with that understand everything I do about technology and even CS concepts but don't have a degree. It's humbling and enlightening. Despite being 10x harder, a BSCS is kind of treated like a liberal arts degree these days. It's something to be personally proud of, but it seems to hold no real weight on ones resume. At least, that's how it seems.

So, IMO that makes it an even bigger red flag when someone claims to have such a degree when they don't. It speaks to me of true cluelessness.

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[Black Parrot]

If you can get to the top ranks of a tech company without a CS degree, it's almost like a big FU to all of us that do hold CS degrees.

Not really. It has long been known that there's a glass ceiling for *any* technical skill (programmer, chemist, etc.), and that the only way to rise above a certain level is to switch to management.

If you want to rise to the top, any degree that gets your foot in the door will suffice. Then switch to management as soon as you can.

Study CS if you want to do technical stuff instead of climb the company ladder.

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[xQx]

I did an MBA rather than a CS degree because an MBA doesn't have a math requirement.

true story.

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[luis_a_espinal]

Because of the degree or because of your skills?

Most likely both, and the later being (to a great degree) a function of the former. Skills do not occur in a vacuum but in a educational context (be it ad hoc or academic).

Difficult to know.

No. It is not.

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[ArsonSmith]

This is true of any technical ability. You can only increase your productivity so much as an individual. At some point you have to be able to direct/motivate/drive multiple people to accomplish higher productivity. Even the best widget maker in the factory can't produce as many widgets as we well run team of people producing widgets.

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> If you want to rise to the top

The cream floats to the top...but so do dead fish.

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[mortonda]

Not really. It has long been known that there's a glass ceiling for *any* technical skill (programmer, chemist, etc.), and that the only way to rise above a certain level is to switch to management.

If you can't do it, teach. If you can't teach, get into management. If you can't manage, run for office. :D

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[lightknight]

Or you could study CS, and start your own company with you at the top.

If you're working at a place where there's a glass ceiling, but a place which cannot exist without people like you, then you're in the company of idiots.

Sadly, I've seen a few companies run like this. Typically, the founders had technical degrees, or if they had business degree, they minored in an appropriate technical field (so they could understand what everyone else was saying, without hand-holding). A generation or two later, marketing is running the show, with the techs being treated like sharecroppers working on mastah's fields. Why does this always seem to happen? The techs focus on skills that are useful, while the marketing people focus on being liked. So when a vote comes down to install the next CxO, the most charismatic, but somewhat clueless person, with lots of 'spunk' is chosen. And what's good for marketing is typically not good for HR, Legal, Accounting, or Tech.

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[lightknight]

Logic is a science. Good logic is an art. ;-)

Re:One should be proud *not* to have a CS degree

[Starteck81]

The guys in marketing usually have more sway with management, than the technical group, because they are better communicators/manipulators. If the technical teams understood as much about how the average business leader thinks and communicates, as the marketing team does, then they wouldn't loose quite as much.

Remember kids, lying is wrong...

[gman003]

Unless, of course, you're a politician, CEO or other Important Person. Then you can pretty much get away with it with little more than a slap on the wrist and a tsk-tsk from the media.

Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick Google search would have exposed his charade a long time ago.

Re:Ironically

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a Yahoo search would have been even more ironical...

And he still has a job?

[Guppy06]

If he were labor, HR would have sent security to escort him out of the building before this even got to press.

That must be one hell of a golden parachute he's packing.

Re:And he still has a job?

[houstonbofh]

Actually, fraud may invalidate that parachute.

Re:And he still has a job?

[JWSmythe]

    Falsifying credentials at hire time are usually grounds for immediate termination, regardless of how long you have worked for a company.

    I wonder what their history of termination for this kind of issue have been.

"Wrongly claimed.."

[3Cats]

I asked my son if he broke the neighbor's window, he "wrongly claimed" that he didn't.

My boss asked me if I was coming in to work today and I "wrongly claimed" I was ill.

"Sweetheart, I am not "wrongly claiming" when I told you I never slept with your sister. It was an "inadvertent error" ..I *LIKE* this !

Re:CEO's

[houstonbofh]

Why do CEO's in this country think they are above everyone else, demanding excessive compensation and feel they can prevaricate with impunity when it suits their purposes?

Because people continue to give them excessive compensation, and they keep getting away with the lies... In other words, they believe that because it is true.

bunch of yahoos

[tomhath]

I always felt that Yahoo was an odd name for a company.

Swift describes them as, filthy and with unpleasant habits, resembling human beings far too closely for the liking of protagonist Lemuel Gulliver

"wrongly claimed"???

[mark-t]

Oh fer crissake...

The man lied. Nothing more to it than that

"wrongly claimed"... give me a break.

Re:"wrongly claimed"???

[frencha]

The man lied. Nothing more to it than that

Whoa there! He wasn't lying. It clearly was not intended to be a factual statement .

Re:CEO's

[joocemann]

Actually, the CEO of one company is on the board for another company whose CEO is on their board. There is a site called theyrule tht tracks these connections to demonstrate the complex collusion/extortion going on among corporate leadership and their siphoning of wealth from the small guys that actually invest in their businesses. Decades ago, those milions went to the owners (stockholders), but as the coup has entrenched, the excess has become standardized and regularly increased.

Shocked

[frovingslosh]

Someone who worked at PayPay lied? I'm shocked!

Fire Him

[JStyle]

I say fire him immediately. Having someone at the top who egregiously lied for so long sets the tone for the whole company. That's not how you want to do business, so that's not who you want as your leader.

Re:Fire Him

[slimjim8094]

Not only that, it's a fire-on-the-spot offense for anyone else anywhere. They'd really set the tone for the company (in a good way) if they said "we're going to hold everyone to the same rules" and had security escort him out of the building after he emptied out his desk, like they'd do to anyone else.

Cringely

[craw]

This brings back memories of the controversy with regard to Cringely (pen name) having a Ph.D. from Stanford. Some of us old-timers might remember that this is a topic of great discussion here.

Re:Cringely

[T.E.D.]

Cringely started out as a pen name for a column in Infoworld, used by multiple authors (supposedly as a way to have some fake employee to "fire" whenever the column ticked off powerful advertisers). As such, it made perfect sense for Cringely to have a made-up backstory, complete with made-up degree.

Perhaps Yahoo! has taken this concept a step further, and come up with made-up executives?

Fired for fraud

[lanner]

Failure for Yahoo's board to terminate his employment with cause for fraud would be a clear indication of corruption at the highest levels in the organization.

I would not be surprised if he were to stay. That's just how those people think. It's basically the good 'ol boy system in the modern day.

Re:CEO's

[cbope]

CEO pay in the US recently hit an all time high. In 2011, they made 209.4 times the average worker. Their pay has increased 127 times faster than worker's pay over the last 30 years. In the period from 1978 to 2011, CEO pay rose by 725%, while worker pay rose only 5.7% in the same period. This is in stark contrast to worker productivity which rose 93% in the same 30 year period. So, the average worker is doing nearly double the work for a less than 6% raise over a 30 year period. Unfortunately, I have not seen any stats on CEO productivity, but I doubt they are doing much more than they were 30 years ago.

You do the math... CEO's will lie as much as possible remain in the position to keep their massive pay packages. The gap between CEO pay and average worker pay is widening at an alarming rate, with the CEO absorbing a very large percentage of company net profits compared to 30 years ago.