Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikpukinskis | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one who finds the language "C class talent" really distasteful? I feel like it's worse than referring to your employees as "human resources".

I understand the importance of passing on people who are a close-but-in-the-end-imperfect fit for your organization. But using the concept of class and grading people from A to F just makes my skin crawl, and it makes me want to avoid any company or organization who things about people that way, YC included.

Am I the only one?

View on HN

I would find it unpleasant to be called "C-class talent," but I'd also find it unpleasant to get a C. In both cases, that would prompt me to either step up my game or reconsider my priorities.

People are unequal, and in a business context, that means some people are worth less than others. You can grade them on a curve, but that just means we'll all learn that a "B" means you're a failure, and that really good companies are only recruiting among As and A+s. Differences in ability can't be fixed through semantics.

On the other hand we've have noticed people branded as C-class talent kicking ass of A and A+s too, haven't we?

I think it's fine as long as you don't think people are born ABC. You have to draw the line, and you have to be able to recognize talent - and the lack of such.

I think you're spot on.

A fun game is to ask the person using this kind of language whether they consider themselves an A, B, or C player.

I feel the same. I think the original concept also came from what kind of GPA a person got in university, which makes it even more distasteful.

Ah is that what it is. It makes no sense in other parts of the world.

I am used to it. It is a terminology shortcut to qualify people's actions. You'll find that from a lot people coming from universities. They tend to compare themselves a lot and use statistical horizontal comparisons. If not from HR, it is mostly to imply they are part of the A group.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com