Super common. More common than the opposite.
In fact a version of the above story has happened in the last two companies I worked for.
In fact a version of the above story has happened in the last two companies I worked for.
As far as I can tell, even obsessing over credentials happens because its a proxy for merit[1], and we care about merit. Its often a lousy proxy, but our industry as a whole didn't care about merit, why would anyone care to look at a candidate's credentials?
[1] "Nobody gets fired for choosing IBM" -> "No recruiter gets fired for hiring a PhD"
Now I lead a team of analysts and junior data scientists at the University of Chicago.
That company is still making money hand over fist.
By the way, the point of the concept of meritocracy is that it depends on performance, not on some proxy variable.
A or B students could generally get the job done, but B students tend to be able to go deeper because of their greater theoretical horsepower. I could assign them tasks of greater difficulty and they will figure it out on their own and deliver.
If the organization only requires A-level talent, then let's be honest, there's no difference between A or B students. The majority of enterprises out there really only require A-level talent.
But if your organization has the kind of challenges that require B-level talent (a minority of organizations, to be sure), I think you might struggle with A-level talent. I faced this first hand when I learned that I couldn't scale because I was limited with the A-level talent that I had and was spending an inordinate amount of my time training and guiding them that I barely had time to do my work.
In general you are correct, but in some very specific situations, my experience has been there's value in identifying the right kind of talent that fits the problems you are trying to solve.