[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"