New Coworker isn't as qualified as initally believed - possibly used AI on interveiws?
Summary: 25 year old college kid lands a cushy job and is making similar to someone with 3x-4x their experience and education.
We recently hired another supervisor within our department. This new hire is equal to my position.
Before they were officially hired, the boss said they had experience and was in their 30s (not that age is important, but it comes with experience).
A few of us saw the new hire's resume but it wasn't that polished, just many power words. Some junior college and university courses. 4 years in the field. Flag 1. According to the boss, the person did well on the interviews.
Well during the first week, we were conversing and they stated they were working on their Masters. So I then ask, what is your Bachelors in? They respond that they are actually working on that now at the local university. Flag 2.
Fast forward, and the new hire is borderline desperate to learn at a fast pace. Wants to grab bull by the horns and learn advanced tasks that take months to learn. Nothing wrong with that, but what are you trying to prove, what's the rush. Flag 3.
A few weeks later, new hire states that they started their courses. I then ask about their courses and come to find out, the new hire is barely in 2nd semester of junior college. Has not taken the university coursework that their resume stated. Also stated that they dropped out of high school. Flag 4.
Then the new hire states that their family member takes the majority of their coursework. They only take applicable courses, if that's even true. Also states how they have sophisticated set up at home that mirrors their computer so their relative can help them cheat and take their exams, and also runs their exams through AI. Why would you confess that to your coworker? Flag 5.
I know we have all tried to gain an edge in some fashion or another in college but not have anyone take entire courses for us. They stated on exams and finals, they are completely oblivious to the course material.
During some training sessions, I have encountered the coworker on Linkedin, on YouTube, on other websites. We do have downtime, but a few weeks in the job, you should at least try to minimize those windows in front your new coworkers. Flag 6.
At this point, it clicked on me that's how they probably aced their interviews.
In past history, my coworkers and I have been put through the ringer during interviews. Very tough behaviorial and analytical questions. Getting past our VP interviews was always the biggest challenge. They didn't just hire anyone. Come to find out that VP shortly resigned after hiring this candidate so the VP probably didn't care.
The new hire is probably capable and does help with the day to day, but I believe they should've been hired into the position below my level.
I have been thinking about this for a while and I know I should let it go. If I go to my boss, I am being petty or being a snitch. I really feel like this person pulled one on my boss. I am upset they didn't properly vet this individual.
What if another promotion becomes available years from now and I am aware this individual cheated their way through college and interviews. It's the ethical aspect that bothers me.
My biggest issue is that we will be graded the same and be given the same merit rewards as we are the same position. Our metrics are predominantly team based. We can easily make over 6 figures in a good year. I don't know how or if to approach my boss, but making this point above their lack of qualifications is most important to me.
Jobadvisor
This is a wildly frustrating situation. You’ve gone from being a welcoming colleague to realizing you’re essentially babysitting a "fraud" who is being paid the same as you for a fraction of the expertise.
Let's be blunt: This isn't just "faking it until you make it." This person is actively admitting to academic fraud and has potentially lied about their credentials to land a six-figure job. Your "grossed out" feeling from the Super Bowl story has clearly found a new home here.
The Reality of the Situation
You are in a high-stakes environment where layoffs are looming and metrics are team-based. That changes the math from "being a snitch" to protecting your own livelihood.
The Competency Gap: If your metrics are team-based, their inability to perform advanced tasks will eventually drag your numbers down. You’ll end up doing 70% of the work for 50% of the credit.
The Interview "Hack": With remote interviews, it is trivially easy to use AI (like a teleprompter or live-answer generator) or even have a friend off-camera feeding answers. If the outgoing VP was "short-timing" it, they likely skipped the due diligence.
The Ethical Liability: Someone who openly admits to cheating in college and using family members to take their exams is someone who lacks a moral compass. If they are willing to cheat a university, they are willing to cut corners on safety, compliance, or data at your company.
How to Handle This Without Looking "Petty"
If you go to your boss and say, "He lied about his degree," you might look like the office narc. Instead, you need to frame this through the lens of business risk and team performance.
Focus on the "Knowledge Gap" in Training: When they struggle with tasks, document it. Instead of covering for them, bring it to the boss as a workflow issue: "I’ve noticed [Name] is struggling with [specific task] which is foundational for our level. I’m concerned the onboarding isn't sticking, and it's impacting our team speed."
The "Background Check" Question: You can pull your boss aside for a "calibration" talk. You might say: "I’m a bit confused. During training, [Name] mentioned they are currently in junior college, but I was under the impression they were hired with a completed degree/Masters track. Since we’re a high-output team, I want to make sure we're aligned on the technical expectations for this role."
Let the "Cheating" Talk Stay in Your Pocket: Unless you have it in writing, the cheating confession is hearsay. However, the fact that they are watching YouTube/LinkedIn during their first few weeks is a visible performance issue.
The Layoff Factor
If layoffs are imminent, your boss needs to know who their "A-Team" actually is. Companies often use "last in, first out" for layoffs, but they also look at performance. If this person is a "supervisor" who can't actually supervise, they are a liability to the department's survival.
Your Next Step
Do not let your frustration lead to an emotional outburst. Start a "paper trail" for yourself—log the dates where they showed a lack of basic knowledge or admitted to a lack of credentials.
I asked someone about their company's org culture, and they said the question was unethical. What?
I am job searching, and came across someone who works at an organization that has an open role I am interested in. I asked about their general organizational culture, nothing detailed, and they said that the question was unethical. I am a mid-career professional and have never encountered this response to such a question, nor have I hesitated to share general details about my own experiences within an organization (always framed positively and constructively). People ask me this all the time, especially in my current role. Needless to say, I was a little shocked and explained that I wasn't seeking details, more so certain insights like whether the staff was collaborative or not, whether they enjoyed their work (and I obviously expected a general answer). Anyway, the interaction caught me off guard, and perhaps inadvertently told me about org culture?
Jobadvisor
That is, quite frankly, one of the most bizarre reactions to a standard networking question I’ve heard in a long time. You’re right to be shocked; in the professional world, asking about culture isn't just "ethical"—it’s considered due diligence.
It sounds like you ran into a very specific brand of "gatekeeping" or, more likely, someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of professional ethics.
Why they might have said "Unethical"
Since you asked a standard question, the "unethical" label likely says more about their personal stress or the company’s internal climate than it does about your inquiry. Here are a few possibilities:
Misinterpretation of "Insider Information": They might wrongly believe that sharing any internal sentiment with an external candidate constitutes a breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or conflict of interest.
A "Fear Culture": In highly toxic or overly litigious environments, employees are sometimes instructed (explicitly or implicitly) never to speak to "outsiders" about the company to avoid "leaking" a negative image.
The "Hiring Committee" Trap: If this person is involved in the actual hiring process for that role, they might have a rigid (and misguided) view that any interaction outside of the formal interview is an "unethical" attempt to gain an unfair advantage.
What this tells you about the Org Culture
You hit the nail on the head: The reaction itself is the answer. Even if the company isn't "bad," this interaction provides a clear window into the daily experience there:
| If the employee is... | Then the culture likely involves... |
| Scared | High surveillance, low trust, or "blame" culture. |
| Rigid | Extreme bureaucracy where common sense is replaced by "the rules." |
| Hostile | A lack of collaborative spirit or "us vs. them" mentality. |
In a healthy organization, an employee would either give you a "rah-rah" pitch or, if they were busy/uncomfortable, simply say, "I’m not the best person to ask, but good luck with the application!" Labeling a polite inquiry as an ethical violation is a massive red flag.
How to Move Forward
As a mid-career professional, you know that you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. This person just gave you a very loud, unintentional warning.
My Take: If a simple question about collaboration triggers an accusation of unethical behavior, imagine how they might react when you have a disagreement over a project or need to report a genuine issue.
Discussed salary with coworker, now my raise may be reduced?
Need advice navigating a changed salary increase after discussing pay with a coworker
I’m looking for guidance on how to approach an upcoming conversation with my supervisor about a raise that appears to have changed.
I’ve been with my organization for 3 years. Recently, the head of HR verbally told me I’d be receiving a raise from $60k to $73k (~21%). This was based on a significant change in my role, increased workload, and past performance. I expressed appreciation and accepted verbally. Nothing has been put in writing yet.
A coworker (Jamie), who already earned more than I did, was also told they’d be raised to $73k. For them, this was about a 5% increase. Jamie was unhappy and raised concerns with our shared supervisor.
Jamie and I had discussed our raises beforehand (we’re close colleagues). After Jamie spoke with our supervisor, I later became aware through an internal email I likely wasn’t meant to see that my raise may now be $67,500 instead. I was also told my supervisor plans to “remind me not to discuss salaries with other employees.”
I understand that verbal offers may not be binding, and I also understand that in the U.S. employees generally can’t be prohibited from discussing wages. I’ve never been disciplined before, and this situation feels adjacent to that.
My questions:
How should I approach the conversation about the change from $73k to $67,500?
Should I push back on the lowered amount, and if so, how?
How should I respond professionally if told not to discuss pay with coworkers?
Any perspective on how to advocate for myself without damaging relationships would be appreciated.
Jobadvisor
This is a frustrating situation, but you actually have more leverage than it might feel like right now. In the U.S., you are protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which explicitly protects the rights of employees to discuss their wages.
Here is how to navigate this pivot from your supervisor while staying professional and firm.
1. The Legal Reality: "Do Not Discuss Pay"
When your supervisor "reminds" you not to discuss salaries, they are likely violating federal law. However, pointing that out immediately can feel aggressive. Instead, treat it as a "misunderstanding" on their part.
The Response: "I understand you’d prefer we didn't discuss pay, but my understanding is that discussing compensation is a protected activity under the NLRA. Jamie and I find it helpful for ensuring we're meeting the organization's goals equitably."
The Goal: You aren't being defiant; you are stating a legal fact. It signals that you are an informed professional who cannot be easily intimidated.
2. How to Address the Lowered Amount
Since you haven't "officially" been told about the drop to $67,500, wait for them to bring it up. When they present the lower number, you should treat the $73,000 as the established baseline.
The "Standard" Approach:
"When I spoke with HR on [Date], we agreed on $73,000 based on my expanded role and performance. Has something changed in the budget or my scope of work since that verbal agreement?"
Why this works:
It forces them to explain why they are "cutting" your raise rather than just "giving" you one.
It ignores the Jamie drama entirely. Make them justify the $67,500 based on your merit, not someone else's feelings.
3. Pushing Back Professionally
If they cite "internal equity" or "alignment" (HR-speak for "Jamie complained"), you should refocus on the value you provide.
The Argument: "I understand the need for internal alignment, but the $73,000 figure was calculated based on the significant increase in my workload and the market value for these new responsibilities. Accepting $67,500 would mean I'm taking on 100% of the new role for only about half of the agreed-upon market adjustment."
The Pivot: If they claim the $73k is "off the table," ask: "What milestones would I need to hit to reach the $73,000 mark within the next 3 or 6 months?"
Strategy Summary
| Scenario | Your Stance |
| They mention Jamie | "My compensation should be a reflection of my output and the role's requirements, independent of other team members' trajectories." |
| They mention "Policy" | "I'm happy to keep these conversations discreet, but I do want to remain compliant with my rights to discuss workplace conditions." |
| They won't budge | Ask for a written performance review cycle in 90 days with a guaranteed bump to $73k if goals are met. |
Final Note on the "Internal Email"
Since you weren't meant to see that email, do not mention it. Act as though you fully expect the $73,000 because that is what was promised. Let them be the ones to break the "bad news"—it puts the burden of awkwardness on them, not you.
Stay at stable job or take riskier job with higher upside?
Hi all,
25 yo 385k income HCOL city. (225k base 160k bonus)
My current role is relatively stable, and I can expect \~10% increase in comp yoy for at least the next couple years.
I have the opportunity to join a quant hedge fund. With this my base drops to 175k, and first year expected bonus 150-200k. It’s a hybrid research / engineering role, with upside being I get a pnl split.
The firm is roughly $35m / IP
I’m a little stuck here. The case for switching is if I join the HF, I kill it, the HF kills it, comp has the potential to rapidly scale.
However if I join and fail, it’s a quick layoff.
What would you guys do? Take the risk or take the guarantee?
Jobadvisor
First off, let’s take a second to acknowledge that at 25, you’ve reached a level of compensation that most people treat as a career "endgame." You are essentially choosing between two different flavors of "winning."
That said, the psychology of a $385k "guarantee" versus a $325k-$375k "maybe" is a classic high-stakes pivot. Here is how to break down the risk-reward profile of this move.
1. The Real "Downside" Risk
At your income level and age, your biggest asset isn't your current $225k base; it’s your career trajectory.
The "Fail" Scenario: If you go to the HF and get laid off in 12 months, are you actually "ruined"? Likely not. With your background, you’d still be a top-tier candidate for Big Tech or other funds. The downside isn't poverty; it's a bruised ego and a 6-month search to get back to where you are now.
The Burnout Factor: Quant funds aren't just "riskier" in terms of money; they are higher-octane in terms of stress. $35M/IP (Assets per Investment Professional) is a lean, aggressive ratio. You will be expected to produce immediately.
2. The Upside: Why the HF Wins
The $10\% \text{ YoY}$ increase at your current job is linear. The HF is convex.
The PnL Split: This is the holy grail. In a stable corporate role, your impact is muffled by layers of management. In a quant fund, if your signal or execution engine prints money, your bonus can jump from $200k to $1M+ in a single cycle.
The Skill Floor: Even if the fund fails, the "Quant HF" stamp on a resume is often viewed as a higher tier of technical difficulty than standard engineering. You are essentially paying a "volatility tax" now to increase your market value later.
Comparison Table
| Feature | Current Stable Role | Quant Hedge Fund |
| Risk Profile | Low (Stable Growth) | High (Performance-based) |
| Comp Ceiling | Capped / Linear | Uncapped / Exponential |
| Daily Stress | Manageable / Predictable | High / Market-driven |
| Work Style | Product/Scale focused | PnL/Alpha focused |
| Long-term Value | High-end SWE | Specialized Alpha Generator |
3. The "Golden Handcuffs" Reality
You are 25. If you don't take the "high-beta" (high risk, high reward) path now, it only gets harder.
In five years, you might have a mortgage, a spouse, or kids.
Right now, your overhead is likely flexible.
If you "fail" at 26, you have 40 years to recover. If you wonder "what if" at 45, that regret is permanent.
My Advice?
If you have at least 6–12 months of expenses saved (which you should at $385k), take the HF role. The fact that you’re even asking suggests you’re bored with the "guaranteed 10%." In the quant world, $35M/IP suggests a lean team where you’ll actually see the fruit of your labor. Even if it blows up, the 2-year learnings in a hybrid research/eng role will make you a monster in the job market.