> "we need to remember that it's a far better bet never to fall behind in the first place."

True in principle, but since when did low/mediocre grades become associated with "falling behind"?

I think that's the cognitive disconnect between the two camps - the pro-academic crowd sees poor grades as a general failure, the rest of us do not.

Addressing the article directly:

> "Those who get good grades are the ultimate survivors."

That's awfully generous, if not quite self-congratulatory. As a staunch believer in the disconnect between academic achievement and real programming competence, I would suggest that the comment is true - but you've survived an arbitrary system constructed to achieve very little. It's a little bit like finding your way out of a garden maze - amusing and interesting perhaps, probably difficult, but the relation of this accomplishment to anything else is hazy.

> "They enter an environment, evaluate it critically to figure out what skills they need to succeed and thrive in said environment."

Perhaps - but assuming the goal is to be a great programmer (or whatever else your passion may be), why would you spend all your time and effort defeating this arbitrary system as opposed to pursuing things that actually make you a better programmer? (or carpenter, or doctor, or what-have-you).

That's the disconnect that I see. Academic performance is measured in such a way that doesn't shed light on real ability, and in fact much of the curriculum for a lot of degrees/certificates bear little relevance to the job they supposedly train for. Beating this system is IMHO meaningless, since it contributes little to your professional abilities.

Which is also why I think the medciore grades sometimes get a lot of love - I know more than a few people who eschewed academia in exchange for actually getting their hands dirty and writing a lot of code. They learned what they needed to learn from school, and spent the rest of the time perfecting their craft instead. IMHO these people make stronger programmers than those who spent their time and effort optimizing for something that isn't their end goal.

When I was in college, I knew a few people who were hardcore academics. They hit the books really hard, got great grades, aced exams regularly, and generally were kicking ass. What they were not doing was developing their professional abilities - so they graduated with little to no practical experience under their belt. They were rudely surprised when their intensely deep knowledge of a great number of theories weren't at all attractive to employers who needed people to get things done.

I also knew this one guy who was academic and spent a lot of time honing his real, executable skills. He's a superstar.

Given that, I would say that the real discerning variable here is how much practice you've had at programming - the variable of academic achievements is really largely independent from competence as a hacker.

> "there is nothing that stops a high achiever from being a passionate, free-thinking, risk-taker"

I would agree with this point with some caveats, but this comment strikes me as particularly arrogant:

> "good grades make better anything"

Really man, really? Wow, thanks for reinforcing the ivory-tower holier-than-thou stereotype that academics surely must love having.

[edit] At the risk of being inflammatory, a lot of this "high grades make better everything" hubbub seems like sour grapes from people who optimized for the wrong variable, and are now frustrated that the "losers" from before have become the winners (insofar as employment goes anyhow), and that the variable they were taught to religiously optimize turned out to be a bit pointless (for the purposes of employment, anyhow).