Well, I guess I'll have to respond to these extensive edits you've made. > For example I can't see any way in which working at a particular company defines whe

Well, I guess I'll have to respond to these extensive edits you've made. > For example I can't see any way in which working at a particular company defines whether or not someone is a good programmer. Some companies have stricter hiring standards than others. Thus the probability that a candidate is worth hiring is higher, because they already passed that company's tests. Plus, they'll have experience working on whatever the company's working on -- you can expect somebody to be a better foo developer if they've done foo before. > Can you explain to me precisely how you can measure someone's capability as a computer programmer via their GPA? I never claimed you precisely measure that, did I? But obviously, somebody with a 3.5 GPA is much more likely to be a good programmer than somebody with a 2.0 GPA. If you have a 2.0 GPA, you're most likely stupid, and even with four years of mitigating circumstances there's a huge set of people that could not get such a low number even if they had a policy of not caring about their grades at all except to show up for exams. > Even what someone majored in.... can you say exactly in detailed terms how this defines whether or not someone is a good computer programmer? For example at my alma mater the CS major was filled with gamedev-wannabes, and programming-inclined EE students were far better on average. Also, all your new questions in your post's edit are still putting everything in terms of If X then 100%-Y. Why?