Yahoo CEO might have lied about having CS degree

Sort-of off topic: That guy has nothing on some of the other infamous CEO career lies... take the ex-CEO of Lotus (former makers of 123, Lotus Notes, etc). He lied about being a fighter pilot, having a PhD, and being a black belt in tae kwon do. source: <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/news/background-of-lotus-chief-under-fire/95847" rel="nofollow">http://www.zdnet.com/news/background-of-lotus-chief-under-fi...</a><p>I think people get to a point where they start to believe their made-up mythology. Or perhaps they reach a point where it's too late to turn back. That's what I learned while getting my PhD in Lying Studies at University of Fountainhead, anyway.

The issue here is not whether or not he's qualified for the CEO spot. It's whether he has been signing off on SEC filings that he knows contain falsehoods. In particular, there's information in the proxy statements that shareholders are supposed to use as the basis of their voting and their support for executive compensation. If he's lying about this, how are shareholders supposed to trust the rest of the SEC filings he signs off on as CEO?<p>(Also, if it's ok for him to lie on his resume and keep his job, does that mean anyone applying to Yahoo should feel free to do so?)<p>From the proxy statement: <i>"Mr. Thompson has served as our Chief Executive Officer and President and as a member of our Board since January 2012. Mr. Thompson served as President of PayPal, a division of eBay, Inc., an internet auction and shopping company, from January 2008 until January 2012. [clipped prior jobs out] Mr. Thompson holds a Bachelor’s degree in accounting and computer science from Stonehill College. Mr. Thompson was selected as a director nominee principally because, as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and President, he has in-depth knowledge of the Company’s operations, strategy, financial condition and competitive position. In addition, Mr. Thompson has a deep understanding of global online businesses, experience in transforming business models to deliver growth and increased value, and experience in integrating customer experience with innovative technology. Mr. Thompson also possesses strong organizational and operational skills."</i><p><a href="http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312512191515/d319086dprec14a.htm#toc319086_5" rel="nofollow">http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/00011931251219151...</a>

It's such a stupid lie as well. He already has a degree in accounting and has loads of relevant experience. Why lie about an additional degree?<p>What's happening here is liar's debt. Early in his career he must have made a decision to lie about his education, when no one was looking and when the chances of someone verifying the claim were low. He reused the lie on every subsequent job and it's stuck with him. It became encoded in the DNA of his professional reputation and he could not disabuse himself of it without making himself look the fool.<p>Now if the lie is recent and was used to get the head job at Yahoo - well then it's an even stupider lie. Why risk your professional reputation over something so trivial?

Note that they are in a proxy fight to get their nominations to the board of directors, opposed to the company's recommendations. So their motives are to increase the value of their stock through getting more control of Yahoo. A short term dip in the price will just get them to buy more.

For those unfamiliar, this is Daniel Loeb's MO [1]. When he first purchased his share in Yahoo he fired a similar round at the board of the time, headed by Roy Bostock. [2] Still, lying about your education is pretty serious, and Thompson should answer the charges.<p>[1] <a href="http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/finance/features/10426/index1.html" rel="nofollow">http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/finance/features/10...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/64278509/YHOO-20110908-SC13D-0" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/64278509/YHOO-20110908-SC13D-0</a>

I'm curious as to why they made this document public. If I owned almost 6% of Yahoo!, I wouldn't do anything that would publicly make Yahoo! look even worse. I would discretely contact the company and have it dealt with quietly.<p>Additionally, why bother lying? I doubt Mr. Thompson got the job due to his 20 year old CS degree at a tiny liberal arts college.

They actually said they used a Google search to find the info. That is quite entertaining.

What I love about these lies - if this one in particular is indeed a lie - is it's a textbook exmample of why you don't lie. Everyone fixates now he's a CEO. However, he probably introduced that little "stretch" when he was a relative nobody. So you put it on there, get your first "Snr Manager" job. Then you get promoted to "Director" and someone says "Yeah, give it to Frank. He can talk to the business people and the engineer's because he has a Comp Sci degree - that's right right Frank?" "Yep, that's right" Just keeps snowballing. Fast forward 20 years and you're CEO of a large public company and they're crawling all over you. I think may of the the embellisher's started when they were relatively unknown and it's hard to get off the train.

I'm amazed that anybody gives a shit about this. It's a line on a résumé about a degree he earned 33 years ago. If he was 2 years out of college then lying about his degree would be material to his qualifications and compensation. After 30 years, what possible difference does it make? He is clearly qualified.

Many posts mention that he lied on his resume, Dan Loeb's press release didn't mention that. Did I miss something?<p>If it turns out -he- lied about his background, or knowingly let it slide, then I agree with all of you. But I'll wait for a response before forming an opinion.<p>Not all the facts are in yet. CEOs rely on others to prepare documents. It is -possible- that the person at paypal who wrote his bio made a mistake, that someone at yahoo just copied the paypal bio, and that he never noticed the mistake.

I think that unfortunately this type of lying is so common and accepted that this case isn't exceptional. Its a relatively harmless lie compared to most. I would assume that many top executives, including this one, make less harmless lies on a daily basis.<p>What people fail to understand is that our entire way of life, the whole concept of business and finance, is based on deception and at the very least withholding of accurate information.

I have a B.S. in Computer Science and B.S. in Mathematics (a double degree). Had I taken fewer courses, I could have had a combined B.S. Computer Science and Mathematics (a double major).<p>I haven't seen a double degree like mine very often, but I have seen the latter form on a LinkedIn profile where Googling for his name returned a university web site showing that the person actually had a minor, not a second major, in Mathematics.<p>It's true that degrees are not comparable and colleges have different standards of difficulty. Students may be able to convince advisers to count one course for multiple majors. And degrees are not a great measure of applicable skill.<p>However, if you want to get a degree, double degree, double major, or triple major, you should follow the procedures at your college before you graduate, rather than just adding it to resume many years later.<p>As another example, a classmate created his own major to take more Business and Psychology courses and fewer C.S. courses; he lists the degree like a triple major, which is very misleading.

"Might have"? Sounds like his college was only offering one CS class at the time... much less a degree.

His Wikipedia article mentions he previously was "chief technology officer" at PayPal. Obviously the issue at hand is credibility, but I also wonder how someone with no tech credentials could become CTO of PayPal, where article also says he oversaw "architecture."

&#62; holds a Bachelor's degree in accounting and computer science" [...] degree is in accounting only [...] it 1) undermines his credibility as a technology expert and 2) reflects poorly on the character of the CEO who has been tasked with leading<p>You can recognize them by what they _don't_ say publicly online. When a leader of an open source project bills himself with over half a dozen titles, but none of them are educational qualifications, then they lied about those quals to some current or previous employer/s.

How much of this should have been found out in a background check?<p>Is the board responsible here as well?<p>I have to imagine hiring a new CEO for a public company the background checks must be impeccable.

There do appear to be some precedents: <a href="http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-1154-Cover-Letters-Resumes-Infamous-R%C3%A9sum%C3%A9-Lies/" rel="nofollow">http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-1154-Cover-Letters-...</a><p>But they don't necessarily support a resignation or firing. Thompson's other problem is that he has not made any friends (and for the wrong reasons)(patents, rebuffing Loeb, plan-less layoffs).

Question: if Yahoo weren't playing the part of patent troll with Facebook right now does this story still get the same hype? Seems like there are many folks with a vested interest in seeing a change of direction from Yahoo right now..

I wonder how differently this story would have played out if it was Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos? My inclination is that there would be a resounding <i>ya, but he's doing a great job so why does it matter?</i><p>So...does it matter any way?

I wonder who is trying to pull strings and get board votes. and for what i might add.<p>Yahoo is going through a dark time and to have something like this brought to light is so low.

He should be forced to go back and get a CS degree. Imagine the CEO of Yahoo in a CS101 Introduction to Programming class!

It's Nirav Tolia all over again. What's with these Yahoo people lying about their education?

If these allegations turn out to be true I'm going to lose some respect for tech journalism.

Given his penchant for patent trolling I would have figured him for a law degree.

Jobs didn't need a college degree to be a good CEO.<p>In my opinion, college degree is not neccessary to be a competent CEO. Leaders are praised for different qualities than those which can be simply taught in a school.

Time for what, CEO #5 in the last 4 years?

If he lied, then he is a good salesman.

Would the degree have mattered?

They have a valid point on the CEO but when they call out a director for saying she had a degree in 'marketing and economics' and she actually has a degree in 'business administration' they make it pretty obvious this is nothing more than a smear campaign. How on earth could the difference between those degrees (from a 3rd tier school) impact her capability to be a good Yahoo board member? I don't even understand why one would lie about something like that. It's like lying and saying you here a high school lacrosse captain when you were actually a rugby captain.

His pay package for yahoo is 27 million dollars, i wonder how much of that he will keep after he gets the pink slip? Probably more than I'll ever earn in 5 of my lifetimes.<p>It doesn't seem fair. But I guess demand for ceo's is high and quality ceo's are scarce.

If I had a CS degree I would lie about it as well<p>..... cue the downvotes ....

This opinion is from someone who's been in charge of hiring a few times and will likely do so again: If you can actually do the job described, I don't give a damn about your credentials. I would not fire an employee who I found out fabricated credentials, if they had been working well for a while.