[yummypaint]

Totally agree. For me the most important metric is to what extent a person has made use of the opportunities available to them. I would hire a passionate and engaged community college grad who has hobbies before someone who went to a "top" school but only has grades to show for it.

[neilv]

Hobbies can be a complicated signal.

Consider someone studying while also working to pay their way through school or support their family, vs. someone who has more free time.

(I say this as someone with open source, which I wouldn't have been able to do, if I had anyone to support when I started the bulk of it. The open source helped get me a few very nice jobs, but I still would've had much of the skill and potential without that. So I don't want to over-fit, and exclude people with skills and potential, just because they had different circumstances than I did.)

[anonymouskimmer]

> For me the most important metric is to what extent a person has made use of the opportunities available to them.

We aren't all entrepreneurs, social butterflies keyed into what others are doing, or undecided and thus open to any whims of life made available to us. Some of us had plans and ideas, but lacked the feedback or mentoring to pursue those plans and dropped out, became depressed, or whatever for large chunks of our young adulthood. That doesn't mean we aren't now great at what we do.

[hgsgm]

What if my hobby is scholarship? Is knowledge and comprehension a bad hobby?

Anyway it looks like you are filtering for rich people with free time.