[alanctgardner2]

LOTS OF CAPS!!!! I HIRED 4 PEOPLE WHO WERE TOP OF THEIR CLASS!

Seriously? This seems like him trying to retroactively explain why he has a good team. Even if his company and his team do their jobs excellently, that doesn't mean he can explain why, or even necessarily create a new team with the same level of success. Frankly, there are a lot of random factors in success.

More specifically, as other people have pointed out, the focus on academic credentials is ridiculous. I suppose if you create an insular team where everyone can pat each other on the back for having a 4.0 GPA, that's fine. But there are tons of good technical people without any credentials, or who didn't give a toss about school. Not only are you not willing to hire them, you've created a culture where even if you do find someone amazing without credentials, that person will be a second class citizen.

[mattbarrie]

The point was to hire the very best you can, which I think is something everyone can agree with.

[alanctgardner2]

That's a useless platitude. The point of the article is to define what exactly "best" is. Everyone always wants to make the best choice, but they hardly know what that is. In this case, the author says "best" is top of class, a sentiment with which I vehemently disagree