Comment by todayiamme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by todayiamme | Hacker News Reader

>>>GPA is really good predictor of good programmers (this surprised me). You can have great programmers who have bad GPA but that often means they are great only when working on super interesting projects which won't always be the case in real life.<<<

I think that this is a bad line to draw. Sometimes, it's about bright kids getting bored with dull teachers, but more often it's about troubled kids who need to escape. This is quite important because I would hire someone who has crawled his/her way up through adversity in a heart beat. As compared to someone with a cushy resume with an equally cushy life.

Think about it in this way. Person A has never had anything to take for granted and has to fight for every inch s/he has gained in life. Person B has a much more impressive resume, but grew up in a comfortable life with an entire army at their beck and call. Who would you choose for a startup fighting against the odds?

[edit - I haven't judged someone on the basis of their financial background, or something like that. In fact, what I was trying to say is that until you understand the context of what a person has achieved you cannot judge them. Kids who have parents with large bank balances can also face a far from ideal childhood. Moreover, kids whose parents struggle to make ends meet can have the perfect environment to grow created by their parents.

It's my observation that you can't judge if someone will be good, or not on the basis of what lies on the surface. You need to truly understand the struggles of the person in front of you to make that decision.

So, as a rule of thumb I would pick someone who has struggled more in life vs. someone who hasn't felt the world crash around them.]

Are good GPAs a predictor of good programmers, or good employees? I would argue the latter, though they certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

My take on it is that those with good GPAs are probably more likely to work well within a structured framework (show up 9-5, work, go home) and with more feel-good rewards ("here's an A+" and "here's a $5000 bonus this year for consistently working 50 hours/week"). Those who don't care about things like GPA are more interested in what they're getting out of it (what they actually learn, making FU-money, working for themselves, etc) than rewards bestowed upon them by others for their great work.

Of course that's a huge generalization and entirely anecdotal but I don't think it's all that inaccurate.

You make quite the leap from GPA to a person's financial background. I would still lean toward the individual with the higher GPA, as it really is a solid indicator of how hard someone is willing to work. Joel makes a great point that academic projects are frequently uninteresting, but a high GPA indicates that the candidate can complete these tasks regardless.

Judging someone on their financial background instead is heavily subjective, prone to all sorts of prejudices and pre-conceived notions, and doesn't actually tell you anything about the person's abilities.

After all, a driven and motivated person from a troubled financial background can achieve a high GPA. Your theoretical 'Person A' who lived a cushy life yet isn't motivated won't be able to achieve a high GPA without working for it.

My point wasn't to make the case for high or low GPAs. Or, for checking the parents bank account, but it was just an observation that lines can't be drawn without context. It's only when I understand someone can I judge his/her accomplishments.

However, when you are trying to hire someone on a massive scale then this isn't always possible. So, that's why, I think, it's better to throw the resume into the dustbin and look at what they've actually built on their own.

So, this way you don't throw false negatives, while having a lower false positive layer.

[edited it a bit to make the point more clear]

I definitely agree with you that lines should not be drawn without context. However, I don't think anyone here would choose someone solely on GPA either.

Still, I'm not going to hire someone who has poor grades and personal problems over the smart kid, as in your example. No matter how you cut it, someone who can complete college with a solid GPA has already proven that s/he can set goals, handle deadlines, deal with multiple managers (professors) all while learning the material and completing the homework and tests.

Your aversion to the 'smart kid cruising through' is a bit perplexing. I usually work hard to get and keep the smart kids on my side.

It's not an aversion. Or anything like that. I make a point to never judge anyone. Ever.

Yet, I sincerely think that the kid that struggle to put him/herself through college and fought against all the odds to sit in the interviewee chair should be hired. It's about determination to make things work no matter what.

Person B has shown that s/he can work within those constraints, but they haven't known perpetual hopelessness with fear about their future. They haven't fought to make things work no matter what. They haven't faced repeated failure and crawled their way up from there.

So, in a lot of ways I will respect person B, but person A is a determined survivor and I would prefer to hire him/her.

Not sure about this. All I know ( in Malaysia at least) is good GPA doesn't mean you can program, but bad GPA means you can't program.

Re: the edit

I think the issue was that your original post could be interpreted to mean that GPA is determined primarily by the amount of adversity in one's personal life and very little by academic ability. This is contrary to what I've observed: those with hardships still do fine academically, only a very small step below those with everything going for them, whereas those with genuinely bad GPAs typically aren't putting much effort into their coursework or are simply in the wrong major.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com