That's quite of a naive interpretation of Mr. Mellon's paper.
My interpretation would be: EA played (and probably payed) Mr. Mellon to deliver them fresh meat right to their doorsteps. It's obvious that some as Mr. Mellon would not be really "embedded" during his term at EA, he would not have to sleep under his desk, nor would he get to see this.
Why? Because no company in this business can run with 75% newbies from right university, unless they just want to use them as "fresh meat" to produce sequels. Everyone with a bit of knowledge about the gaming industry and the IT industry knows just how important veterans are. The only setup where you wouldn't need veterans (and I mean, significantly more than 25% veterans) is when you don't to innovate anymore but create games as a manufacturing job rather than a creatiive process. Then you can have a few managers run a team of slaves.
Want to know why making games at EA isn't like making games at Obsidian, Troika or BioWare? Why EA tanked with all their MMORPGs? Why EA doesn't put out RPGs?
Because RPGs require more than an overhaul in the graphics engine to sell again, unlike SportGame 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 .... You can't take KotOR, rename it Kotor II, III, etc and sell it a year later with a graphics update. It requires work, experience, talent and a lot of creativity to create RPGS, it requires veterans training newcomers and it requires understanding of what makes RPGs great. None of these things is of interest for EA - they churn out sequels for the mass market, and every once in a while buy a successful newcomer who has a good franchise that you can convert into a sequel fest (Battlefield anyone?).
Why did EA scrap all the MMORPGs they started? Think about it - if you have a 50+% turnover rate, you just can't do it, it's a long term commitment - and EA is, as far as I can see, more interested in short term, shareholder pleasing quarterly results.
The smaller RPG companies seem to have a much smaller turnover rate, I could only find information on BioWare ( http://pc.ign.com/articles/549/549530p2.html ) - but 3% sound like a lot more happy workenvironment than 50% if you ask me.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with "weeding out 75% slackers", it has something to do with getting 75% stupid fresh meat that's not burned, enthusiastic and too blinded to see that the recipe to make games at EA is "burn out and throw away".
I hope this thread is not seen as "EA bashing", it's not meant that way - it's meant to
explain the business model EA has chosen to adapt, and from a pure, american point of view (capitalism regulating itself), it's a valid model, especially if the market accepts it - and it does, otherwise, why do all the sequels sell so well...