I am just wondering how big the checking of a resume is when it comes to structuring a vetting process for a job position.
While 'cultural elements' company- or country-wise to some degree determine the degree of fact-checking, the specifics of the role are probably more important.
If the position sought is difficult and time-consuming to fill and candidates are known to occasionally 'get creative', at least basic fact-checking seems to be a good investment early on in the process.
If, however, the job is more mundane, candidates plentiful and local employment laws employer-friendly as regards to replacing employees, it would seem rational to only fact-check if a problem arises.
I guess it depends largely on the company/role. In my experience, the hiring manager looks at the resume and judges whether it appears to hang together or not. The candidate is expected to demonstrate their skill-set and knowledge during the interview process and defend any holes in their resume.
Having said that, there's no reason why the HR department can't make sure that the resume comes from a reputable source and whether the university/college listed actually exists (or whether it's a known "internet college" where people can buy fake degrees).
Most of this is common sense.