[alttab]

As a hiring manager, I actually care about your GPA. There is some self-selection with those that have a 3.9+. It means they cared about the topic, they went to class consistently, and they performed well during tests (under pressure).

I'd much rather have the motivated, driven guy who wants to dot his I's and cross his T's than a programmer who thinks that learning big-O notation isn't worth it, that learning software engineering methodology is a waste of time, and operating systems is dumb because all hiring positions want Java programmers.

High GPAs come with certain attitudes built in. It is not the only indicator of success, but when I see anything less than a 3.5 it makes me question the candidate's grit. Is that how you are going to behave when you are given work you don't like, or do not deem is important? We are paying you "A+" salaries, we want A+ work. Not night-before C- "I turned it in" software.

[MetaCosm]

As a non-hiring manager, who has hired 159 software developers and interviewed probably over 1000. I have found high GPA to have negative correlation with success. When I started, I had absolutely no idea how to hire -- so I just kept track of good hires and bad and looked for correlations to help me hire better in the future.

Two biggest things in my personal experience that ended up with amazing hires. Unashamed to admit they don't know something in the interview, treat it as a matter of simple fact - they don't know yet, but can find out. Program in multiple languages / explore languages / can speak about strengths and weaknesses across languages.

In my (obviously limited) experience, high GPAs have correlated to poor or even poisonous personalities. Often arrogant without merit, unable to change positions because of ego, and with an inability to adapt and learn.

Google appears to have done an experiment on a much grander scale and come to similar (but IMHO a little better written up) conclusions: http://qz.com/180247/why-google-doesnt-care-about-hiring-top...

[alttab]

I would agree if we were considering GPA as the strongest leading indicator of a good hire. This seems like a straw man argument because its not what I said.

I would assume that arrogance, ego, and inability to adapt and learn comes out during the interview process. You should be weeding these people out regardless of their GPA.

Assuming they aren't afraid to admit they don't know something, or aren't a complete asshole, I want to know how you deal with the cards you are dealt - that includes going to class, studying for tests, and doing things you deem "unimportant." The last 20% of any project is where 80% of the time and effort go, and I want to know when that time comes that you won't settle for a "B."

[MetaCosm]

I didn't say strongest indicator, I said negative correlation. These are people I hired because they interviewed well, I liked them initially -- or I wouldn't have hired them. Yet, out of the small handful of people I have had to fire, they make up the vast majority.

Over time (around 15 years), I simply had to accept a negative correlation. It is something me and my peers spitball ideas about often these days. Our working, but entirely booze derived, theory is that the high GPA kids are generally able to keep top marks because mom and dad pay for everything, so they can devote themselves more easily to getting an A. But, this ease gives a sense of absolute entitlement and bitter, useless arrogance... versus the kid working a job, helping at home and struggling to lock down that B. But, just a theory and all that.

[alttab]

Can't argue with the sentiment. And considering "numbers" I'd say you're right about privileged kids getting 4.0 easy, but it can't build character. Maybe I myself am an outlier (as I've had my own hardships), but I'm willing to accept I may be wrong, statistically.

Tldr I totally buy your "brat theory"

[seanmcdirmid]

Do you weight against school and course load? It's easy to get a 3.9 GPA and it's easy to take a few upper division math classes taught by a top field professor and get much less than that. The 3.0 I got in my upper level discrete math was more meaningful than the 4.0 that I got in most of my upper level CS courses (and with a phd, it's all moot now a anyways).

I see so many 4.0 students from top schools that it doesn't even turn my eye anymore (grade inflation is a bad problem in china).

[dllthomas]

Right, and I keep remembering schoolmates saying "you're taking that? But this is an easy A..."

[nraynaud]

It's also a very good indicator of obedience. Someone who cares about painting in the lines, and pleasing authority. Which is very important in some companies.