For what it's worth, that hasn't been my experience at all, with the possible exception of the As. I suppose tech is in some ways an unusually functional industry overall, but all the leaders I've seen who weren't particularly smart but had people skills have failed pretty miserably. The successful ones have been almost universally the ones who are very smart (categorically as smart or usually smarter than their underlings) _and_ had excellent people skills.
As I said, it's entirely possible that tech (or at least the quality of company I've worked at) is something of an anomaly, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as unrepresentative: it's not controversial at all that the importance of intelligence is rising fairly rapidly in the modern economy and tech may be more representative of the present and future than you'd think at first glance.
I've worked in finance in a finance capacity and tech in a technical capacity. There isn't much of a difference (at least in the sub-areas I've worked). Getting a job is different than holding it. My impression is that useless people get culled MUCH more quickly in finance because the work is frequently more transparent to those in a position to fire you, along with the labor supply and demand in the two industries.
I think people are simply conflating GPA and intelligence. This is especially true given the study is from the NE liberal arts schools who funnel into finance regardless of their major. My math/econ double major was completely irrelevant during my 3 month training program where the brightest person in the room was an english lit major.
> I think people are simply conflating GPA and intelligence
Yes, this is a very good point that I elided a little in my comment: I actually just wrote a different comment on this post about me not including my GPA on my resume because it reflected the fact that I miscalculated how much I could take on vs my actual intelligence (I ended up with a low-3s GPA and three degrees (all considered fairly challenging) in four years).
But I don't think that, at the population level, it's a conflation to recognize that the _correlation_ between intelligence and GPA (ceterus paribus) is pretty significant. The risk is in reducing the candidate to too few features, but that's not inherent to including the feature in your overall assessment.
As I said, it's entirely possible that tech (or at least the quality of company I've worked at) is something of an anomaly, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as unrepresentative: it's not controversial at all that the importance of intelligence is rising fairly rapidly in the modern economy and tech may be more representative of the present and future than you'd think at first glance.