@Aran so unpacking that, this is where I have the problem with it. Namely, startups tend to delay forming an HR department until there's an issue that requires one, in my experience anyway, for instance, we do not have one, and probably won't until we triple in size. That said, your list seems an accurate depiction of the delusion. Anyone who's transitioned from academia to industry will immediately recall the disconnect. One doesn't necessarily give you benefit in the other area. That said, not having anything in lieu of it, for sure, makes you less attractive as a potential hire.
So how I try and hire is namely, figure out, with questions I'm allowed to ask, a candidate's skill, and how they think about problems, what their background is. If it fills a gap in our organization thought wise, and their skill level is at least near what we need, that person gets time with my team -- that'd be 2-4 candidates in total typically. I definitely have confirmation bias that the way I deal with this is my current best understanding of how to hire people and build teams, but I'm not entirely sure that's correct. 
The main thing I see, is if you had a piece of paper, draw a circle in it, that's your organization's "things we know we know" limits. Then draw a circle outside that that encompases the things you know you know, this is the things you think you know... Outside that is a bigger circle that corresponds to the problem domain (involves things all the way down to the sand used in creation of your processor as an example). The goal in hiring more people is almost always to expand that innermost circle as close to the middle circle's bounds as possible, even pushing that middle one out further. More diverse ways of looking at a problem help, and hiring college graduates from select schools only seems to really miss that point, in my view.