Jump to content

Humility: Degree, Gpa, Test Scores Are Worthless Criteria


Recommended Posts

Harvard business degree. Top-of-class ranking and a 4.0 GPA is what top companies like Google are looking for in new talent, right?

Not right.

According to Google, the Internet behemoth that snaps up other companies like families buy groceries, the top quality it looks for in job candidates is the ability to learn.

Likewise, the crucial ability to step up and lead when needed – or “just as critically, do you step back and stop leading, do you let someone else?” explains Google Senior Vice President of Operations Laszlo Bock.

And what quality allows for all of these critical attributes? Believe it or not, “humility.”

In a New York Times interview on “How to get a job at Google,” Bock said, shockingly, that “GPAs are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless. … We found that they don’t predict anything.”

Even a college degree doesn’t make it, he said, noting that the “proportion of people without any college education at Google has increased over time.”

In some cases, a college degree may be a positive hindrance. As noted in another report, “Why Google doesn’t care about hiring top college graduates,” Bock cites a common error in “successful” people without intellectual humility:

    “They, instead, commit the fundamental attribution error, which is if something good happens, it’s because I’m a genius. If something bad happens, it’s because someone’s an idiot or I didn’t get the resources or the market moved. … What we’ve seen is that the people who are the most successful here, who we want to hire, will have a fierce position. They’ll argue like hell. They’ll be zealots about their point of view. But then you say, ‘here’s a new fact,’ and they’ll go, ‘Oh, well, that changes things; you’re right.’”

That the lack of a college degree is not necessarily a handicap is well known. Microsoft and Apple were started by a couple of college dropouts, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. It was the same with Facebook and Dell Computer, founded by dropouts Mark Zuckerberg and Michael Dell. All are billionaires, and there are many others.

Google: GPAs, test scores 'worthless' Top candidates need 1 attribute, without which 'you are unable to learn'


Based on experience and observation, I generally agree.  My only question would be who defines the mind/course changing facts?  In an interview or test situation, one would have to be able to recognize when the company defined fact is being given.


What has this to do with the Church?  Intellectual honesty and intellectual humility play an important role in our debates obviously.  The problem being the same as above, who gets to define what a fact is as we often disagree even on those.

Link to comment



"What has this to do with the Church?  Intellectual honesty and intellectual humility play an important role in our debates obviously.  The problem being the same as above, who gets to define what a fact is as we often disagree even on those".


I'm all for intellectual honesty and intellectual humility. However those has nothing to do with facts. IE; We are each entitled to our own opinions, that is a given. But we are not entitled to our own facts..

Link to comment

A rather large hinderence to the acceptance of the church (from a religious point of view) in both Europe and Australia is that they perceive Americans as emotionally dishonest. The lack of trust is completely apparent. Couple this with the cultural attribute that Americans are always right and it tends to have a negative effect in many countries outside America.

Sorry I don't mean to pick on Americans. I am just highlighting the perception of cultural differences. It is interesting that this study has picked up these issues for business. I think it also directly relates to the worldwide church.

Link to comment

I think one can always be right in a more subtle fashion.  Couching the truths in questions such as "do you think..." or "what do you think..."  Also qualify by saying "in my view..." or "in my opinion...".  Those tend to deflect the usually erroneous feeling that one is forcing one's opinions on another.

Link to comment

I think one can always be right in a more subtle fashion. Couching the truths in questions such as "do you think..." or "what do you think..." Also qualify by saying "in my view..." or "in my opinion...". Those tend to deflect the usually erroneous feeling that one is forcing one's opinions on another.

I agree to a point but this just highlights my point. Using phrases like that simply add to the emotional dishonesty. It is completely manipulative if the person using those phrases does not actuall believe it. They are just empty words.

Link to comment

Perhaps.  But it's a two way street as far as trust and emotional honesty is concerned.  Europeans, for example, often come off as stand-offish or anti American as a matter of course.  Often they don't seem to have all the facts and are far too trusting of those from whom their facts come.

Link to comment

Perhaps.  But it's a two way street as far as trust and emotional honesty is concerned.  Europeans, for example, often come off as stand-offish or anti American as a matter of course.  Often they don't seem to have all the facts and are far too trusting of those from whom their facts come.

I see the exact opposite. Europeans tend to have much more nuanced views then Americans. They are also more likely to admit they are unsure about something. Many do see Americans as kind of crazy. I admit I sympathize with their perception.

Link to comment


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By MosiahFree
      I’ve seen it said before that Mormonism is an expression of theocentric Humanism (or at least very amenable to it) and as a result of its American origins is also amenable to American philosophy of the Pragmatic kind. I’m of the opinion that the Gospel we Mormons are to bring to the world is seriously compromised by the aforementioned ideas and in this thread I’ve decided to give an example of what a Gospel presentation looks like within the context of apologetics; a Gospel that commits to the flames Humanism and the doctrines of Pragmaticism.

      I understand the length is a hindrance, but the Cliffs Notes version is: Humans do not create truth, we can only have it revealed to us.
      In respect to apologetics, even those who are just slightly familiar with secular anti-mormonism will be well acquainted with their gauche habits of the mind; theirs is a socius that Richard Hofstadter warned us of back in the early 60s with his insightful meditation on, and dutiful archaeology of, ‘Anti-Intellectualism in American Life’. Now it may seem that anti-intellectualism is too harsh a charge to level at the participants of the anti-Mormon social media hive and indeed I do not make it without the necessary gravity it demands. I think the proper place to begin is with just what is meant by “intellectual” in the Hofstadter context:
      Speaking of the Intellectual’s dedication to a life of the mind Hofstadter goes on to say:
      I think the most prolific Mormon Intellectual today is Daniel C. Peterson and through the aptly named blog ‘Sic et Non’ you can often find him engaging secular anti-mormonism with candor, grace, and acumen. One of Dr. Peterson’s recent blog posts has been causing some murmuring in the usual quarters and I thought it would serve as an excellent example of:
      A thoughtful riposte and I daresay a coup de grâce on those who try to engage the good Doctor (as if any of the man’s most vocal critics even know who Gilbert Ryle is, much less having read the man). I’m going to come back to this last paragraph, but first I need to lay some philosophical groundwork.
      Now I’m convinced that if Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) had not regretfully joined the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, he’d have been baptized a Mormon after reading the Book of Mormon, even a cursory reading. Herr Heidegger and Joseph Smith have more in common you might think; both come from village life, both ended up rejecting the dogmas that saturated their upbringing and established some new, both had remarkable charisma that drew in and made acolytes out of some of the brightest minds of their day, both raised above their station by their own talents but were derailed by their respective enemies, and both stand accused of extra-marital dalliances among other notable sins.
      So what is the big deal about Heidegger? His singular obsession with BEING. Our experience of existence. See Heidegger believed that in Western intellectual tradition we have forgotten about the blunt and ever present question of Being, this fact lead Heidegger into a detailed examination of metaphysics, finding that the traditional ways of investigating Being are not only inadequate but they also impede us. We therefore must resort to “destruktion” in order to “abbau” the contemporary philosophical edifice; this is to say we must destroy the history of philosophy in order to deconstruct our obstacles (this is actually what Derrida has in mind when speaking of “deconstruction” FYI). We must get rid of Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomistic, Kantian, and Cartesian elements  before one can look at the raw phenomena of our existence.

      See, it isn’t the case that beings are not simply things that exist, as some kind of furniture of reality. What most of the great metaphysicans have missed is that that their views of the world were not fundamental but just a distortion of experience. Being is existence, of which interpretation is necessary and unextractable from Being. Every Being’s existence has a unique specificity to it that is theirs. Interpretation of Being is not neutral, dispassionate, or even contemplative, but it has a movement that is forward to backward and backward to forward. This movement is what makes the existential structures our experienced lives possible, setting the conditions for the mystery of conscious awareness and compels us to question the world.
      The rub of it though is that we are Beings in Time limited by birth and death, yet if philosophy and theology are at all representative of their cultures of origin, the West has trouble articulating the authenticity of our temporal character. Now this is where it gets interesting.
      Another important and necessary precursor to the genius of Mormonism is Saint Augustine of Hippo (think of him as a North African B.H. Roberts living as a cenobite with a CTR ring w/thorns) who talks about this very issue in his ‘The Free Choice of the Will’ where he speaks at some length about how our love of God as summum bonum. Because we are imago dei what this love of God ends up really being is amor sui, but this is difficult because we must love human essence (which is incommutabilis) but we mistakenly identify our existence (which is mutabilis) as our essence and this drives home the contingency of our lives, this fleshly tabernacle cannot be present and identifiable in the ways we need it to be.

      Channeling the Apostle Paul, Augustine correctly notes that to truly love God is to seek the annihilation of the temporal/mortal/present through projection into an absolute future which is really what eternal life is.  See here (Mosiah 2:41):
      Just like we see in Augustine, the author of Mosiah brings out conceptual distinction between caritas/cupiditas: “…if they hold out faithful to the end...” the neglect of the present pushes us into that absolute future the love of God instills in us to seek.

      Okay, so what does any of this have to do with Daniel Peterson? Well I take it as a given that Dr.Peterson is the kind of scholar who is deeply familiar with the canon of Aristotle and in the course of his studies he became intimate with ὑποκείμενον (dealing with form and matter in composition for those reading that are uninitiated). Herr Heidegger was just such a student as well and Heidegger argued authoritatively that art is actually Being imparting truths to us.
      I took this to be Dr. Peterson’s point in response that petty school of critics that snap at his heels. That “Shakespeare, Bach, Monet, ****ens, Goethe, Dante, and Dostoevsky” is the kind of art that allows us to bear witness to eternal truths, a glimpse of that absolute future, brief access to that which is incommutabilis, the summum bonum.
      But I think Dr.Peterson had a deeper lesson for us in this blog post; the bigger challenges Mormons are facing in terms of defending our sacred history from those who seek to bring Joseph Smith’s divine calling into the realm of the profane come from two wings related but different wings of philosophy. The first is the typical paleo-marxism that seeks to sublate the individual psychic process to outside/exterior social forces (e.g. Rorty and his identification of philosophical Ideology) and the second is post-Lacanian psychoanalysis which would see the Rortyian ideology as being congruent with unconscious pressures (which is the exact strategy Fawn Brodie uses).
      I think we ought to join Dr. Peterson is eschewing the present to seek the eternal by adopting the kind of Heideggerian ontology that allows God to be God and we his creatures to be his creatures.

      Take care friends!     

    • By Freedom
      I responded to the topic that asked if FAIR was a benefit to the church and I thought it would be a good idea for people to post articles they found on FAIR that were particularly helpful, well written, scholarly or otherwise worth sharing. I will start by linking to the article I referred to in my response on the other thread. 
      Are Jesus and Satan Brothers?
    • By Meadowchik
      I would like to open up a thread as a repository for Gospel-related comforts for the broken-hearted and especially for victims of violent crime.  I think this might be helpful because I am guessing it is not a subject that is frequently addressed in gospel writings or in books written for LDS audiences.
      So, please share what you have!
      Have you found comfort through such trials (or trials of those close to you) in the scriptures or gospel-centered literature?  Have you wrestled out of the darkness building on your testimony as you've done so?  Please share your insights.
      For me, I lean on the belief that Christ suffered our pains, including the pain of the innocent. 
      Here's the two scriptures which come to my mind first and foremost:
      Revelation 21:4
      "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."
      Doctrine and Covenants 122: 7-8
      "And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good
      The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?"
      There are many times I've known of exceedingly great tragedies striking the innocent including people I know and care for, and recently I felt hit especially hard.  Perhaps this time it was because the parents of the victim are my age and I grew up in the same stake as them; what happened to them could have happened to me. But, I'm not particularly looking for this for myself but because, during this last time, I've seen requests for books for LDS audiences addressing such tragedies. I know that even if we don't have many books out, there are many who've passed through tragedy with the help of Jesus Christ and the gospel. I feel that eventually as they and others continue to work through their grief, resources catered to them may become helpful from time to time.
      Thank you for your help.
    • By Robert F. Smith
      A friend told me that the problem with writing a biography about Joseph Smith is that it cannot be objective.  To illustrate, he added that 

      Dan Vogel said, "I examine historical issues like, Is the Book of Mormon genuine ancient history? If not, then what is the best explanation for what happened?  Were there real or fake plates under the cloth? Of course, I don't think one has to always discuss such things; history is a big subject with many approaches. But I don't think a meaningful biography can be written about Joseph Smith without taking an interpretive stand." 
      My friend adds that many apologists and critics insist that History is about obvious historical facts.   But are they correct?  Isn't history not facts, but rather the interpretation of facts?  Is Vogel right to put so much emphasis on POV?  https://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/just-the-facts-maam-eh-carrs-what-is-history/ .
    • By trim
      My involvement in apologetics has been very rewarding.  As is the case with most, there are some dark stretches in the path, but I feel wiser for being willing to stay engaged with it.  I wanted to share my insights with my kids, but I know that a lecture from me will probably fade into blah, blah, blah...I decided to try and capture it in a fable of sorts and I thought that many of you here would have some valuable insights or corrections.  Hopefully, it is self explanatory:


      A young squirrel accompanied father to the market for the first time.  The squirrel was amazed at the sights and sounds of this new found part of the world.  At their first stop, father loaded their harvest on the owl’s balance scale and the owl stacked iron weights on the other end to assess the harvest’s worth.  The squirrel was intrigued by how this stranger assigned value to the fruits of his family’s fields.  When they returned home, the industrious young squirrel built his own balance scale and fashioned some weights from hand-carved wood.  Over the next season, the squirrel weighed crops on the makeshift scale and was excited for the tremendous value they were sure to bring.  At the end of the season the squirrel walked with father to the market with some confidence in his step.  They approached the owl and loaded their harvest on the balance scale.  But the young squirrel was disheartened as the owl stacked only a handful of iron weights on the scale and handed over a few coins.  The squirrel had grown accustomed to seeing a tall stack of the hand-carved weights on the makeshift scale at home.  The market was not so kind, and visions of a generous recognition faded quickly.  The squirrel’s wise father seemed unbothered and graciously accepted the owl’s valuation.  The father grabbed the squirrel’s hand and strolled through the market looking for something special to take home as he did every season.

  • Create New...