Yeah, there's a ton of BS in here IMO. For instance

> Getting straight A’s requires conformity

we could equally easily reach the opposite conclusion with an equally bald assertion that "getting straight A's requires an ability to hack the system"

Ehh, hacking the system to get straight A’s is a bad sign. The equivalent ‘hacking annual reviews’ makes you more expensive employe without a creating more value for the company.

My point was that at the relatively evidence-free level of discourse seen in the article, we could equally well paint straight-A students as anything from conformist (as the article claims) to subversive.

In my limited TAing experience, the actual explanation is much simpler: students who do very well in my class tend to do well in their other classes too because they're (as far as I can tell) smart and motivated. Go figure!

But more value for yourself. "It is not to the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker..."

> recruiters actively selected against

That's good news. No need to waste time interviewing with such employers, and I certainly wouldn't want to get a job with them.

> Consider a student who went to school to get a degree

That's the problem right there.

You don't go to school to get a degree - you go to school to get an education and build a network.

Often, especially in the case of your interests not aligning with your degree program, effort put towards your degree detracts from your education.

I learned a heck of a lot more from leading a software team in Student Government than I did from any of the coursework attempting to teach those skills. SG doesn't count for shit in my GPA, took 20-40 hours a week, and really whipped me into shape.

I say it doesn't make sense to punish for having a high GPA, but it is a red flag in exactly the same way that a low one is - it indicates a lack of balance or a preponderance of extrinsic motivation.

This seems strange. It's like you only want people who only sort of deviated from the requirements to graduate in some field - who don't commit to following their own path, but also don't commit to their studies. Why not just go all the way, and prefer students who took random classes for a decade to gain an education in the fields of their interest and had great experiences, yet never graduated? That seems like the continuation of the reasoning you are describing.

Also, if the core problem is students setting out to get a degree, then the system is fundamentally broken - after all, the unique differentiator of universities is the ability to award degrees.

FWIW, I think college is significantly overrated, but treating a high GPA as a red flag and yet seeking candidates with a degree seems contradictory to me.

For some context, my own experience was that I had offers for employment before university, but I decided a diploma would be valuable, so I spent 3 years in school to finish a 4 year degree with a "high GPA." That's a red flag?

To be fair, I totally agree. And I do my best to explicitly not look for any particular degree - that doesn't mean HR isn't going to declare in all the job postings "bachelor of science in computing or related field required".

I think the core of the problem is people who never learn perspective or why you would do something outside of good grades - no one grades you at work.

I wouldn't say your GPA is a red flag without investigating the rest. If you have a GPA -and- other good qualities, then the GPA ceases to be a red flag.

I kind of agree. At least for me getting good grades in school required learning to manage my time and life skills effectively. I worked while I was in school and was taking fairly work intensive courses.

We were expected to prepare reports and presentations weekly on different things, we had tests and quizzes, we had a large comprehensive term project worth a large part of our grade that required regular field work, preparing drafts and progress reports coordinating with our contact at the park we were working at, on top of spending 10-12 hours a day 2-3 days a week in doing field work or away to different places.

And I still had to find time to work a few nights a week to help pay bills and such.

Though I suppose it depends on what you take in school.

It’s possible the grade isn’t the actual factor, but rather there are certain groups that are more likely to get As and those recruiters have a bias against members of those groups.

Just as the quote says, the interviewers are questioning their life priorities. Not every business needs to best book smart people or the best homework doers. Maybe they need someone who isn't going to take the job too seriously?

This would be true if both time and marks were not zero-sum.