Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#191

Post by morgante » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

SiVal wrote: post #153

ArlenBales wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People spend years at medical school or law school to become a doctor or lawyer. I don't see the big deal at devoting a huge amount of concentrated time and effort to being an engineer at Google. If you got the free time and willpower (and the author does), more power to you. If he doesn't get the job, he's still got the knowledge. And 8 months is nothing compared to multiple years in college.

The med school and law school knowledge is equally applicable to any med or law career, because you are studying for a certification exam that is independent of employer. Even if you choose to employ yourself (private practice), you'll have to pass those exams. The Google study emphasizes what Google tests for, not what you need for the profession. If you start your own software company, for example, is the Google ma…

> The Google study emphasizes what Google tests for, not what you need for the profession.

While it's applicability to actual software development is debatable, the Google interview is not substantially different from other top tech company interviews.

I'm sure the author will be well-served with this knowledge even if they don't end up working at Google. There are dozens of other companies which will test the same knowledge (and also pay well).

The IB comparison is apt. People routinely study extensively and run a gauntlet to get a job at an investment bank, and that preparation is generally applicable to multiple different banks.

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#192

Post by morgante » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 2:40 AM UTC

bambax wrote: post #120

solipsism wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Where in this article does the author treat Google like a religion? He specifically said it wouldn't be the end of the world if he didn't make it. He specifically said others shouldn't study that much. Another comment based on the headline and not reading the article? Bet you'll get those anti-google upvotes anyway.

What about: "The more I learn about Google, the more I want to work there. In brief, Google is a company that [...] gives employees the freedom to make good decisions for the user. [...] Nowadays candidates are chosen based on coding ability, technical knowledge, and Googleyness." As a user, it hasn't been my experience in a long while that Google gives employees the freedom to make good decisions for the user . Goog…

Personally the Googleyness thing is the most cult-like aspect of Google by far.

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#193

Post by morgante » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 2:50 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #87

arglebarnacle wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely true that startups are often founded for the sole purpose of being acquired by one of the Big Boys--but not so that the founders get to work there. It's because they're hoping to get rich--make the perhaps $10M+ so that they can do whatever they want with the rest of their lives. You almost make it sound like the startup is part of their Google interview strategy and acquisition is how they get hired,…

I wonder if there is any data showing whether on average starting a startup and running it for a year or so is a more reliable path to employment (through aqui-hiring) at these big companies than firing resumes into their black hole job sites or milking your contacts. I mean, sure, it's a "long game" strategy.

It's by far a worse strategy. The median outcome for a startup is much worse than the median job search.

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#194

Post by user5994461 » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 2:53 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #189

user5994461 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in Europe, the best is London, and the best in London is either consulting (easy and awesomely low taxes) or finance (hard). In the USA, obviously SF against NYC, you need to get information from Americans. I can't help you. In case anyone wonders: inter-continental comparison are worthless so don't bother. It's [almost] impossible for Europeans to get VISA to work in the USA, and even if they get one they won'…

> In the USA, obviously SF against NYC, you need to get information from Americans. I can't help you. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm based here and making those comparisons myself. Specifically, NYC has both finance and tech. For developers (not quants), big tech pays better.

Can you throw out some numbers?

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#195

Post by morgante » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 2:55 AM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #194

morgante wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the USA, obviously SF against NYC, you need to get information from Americans. I can't help you. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm based here and making those comparisons myself. Specifically, NYC has both finance and tech. For developers (not quants), big tech pays better.

Can you throw out some numbers?

I already did. $200k is very achievable for senior developers in big tech, with potentially another $50-100k in RSUs on top.

Finance you're typically looking at $180k total comp.

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#196

Post by user5994461 » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 3:09 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #195

user5994461 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you throw out some numbers?

I already did. $200k is very achievable for senior developers in big tech, with potentially another $50-100k in RSUs on top. Finance you're typically looking at $180k total comp.

LOL. I'm sorry, there might be a disconnect between us. You're not in the right order of magnitude ^^

It's easy to get $200k for ANYONE in the NYC/SF. Please re-read the first message from ceras that started this conversation:

"How does high performer compensation compare to high performer compensation at tech companies (who start at, say, $400K-$500k for what I'll call "entry-level high performer")?"

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#197

Post by morgante » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 3:53 AM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #196

morgante wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already did. $200k is very achievable for senior developers in big tech, with potentially another $50-100k in RSUs on top. Finance you're typically looking at $180k total comp.

LOL. I'm sorry, there might be a disconnect between us. You're not in the right order of magnitude ^^ It's easy to get $200k for ANYONE in the NYC/SF. Please re-read the first message from ceras that started this conversation: "How does high performer compensation compare to high performer compensation at tech companies (who start at, say, $400K-$500k for what I'll call "entry-level high performer")?"

You can't simultaneously claim to know nothing about US tech salaries and then claim it's "easy for ANYONE to get $200k in NYC/SF."

$200k is absolutely achievable, but claiming that ANYONE (and EVERYONE?) is getting it is farcical. The vast majority of developers are making less than that.

The notion that entry-level developers are getting $400k-500k is a joke. Not even quants start at that.

----

Since you'd apparently like to be an asshole about markets you know nothing about, I'm done with this conversation.

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#198

Post by user5994461 » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #197

user5994461 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL. I'm sorry, there might be a disconnect between us. You're not in the right order of magnitude ^^ It's easy to get $200k for ANYONE in the NYC/SF. Please re-read the first message from ceras that started this conversation: "How does high performer compensation compare to high performer compensation at tech companies (who start at, say, $400K-$500k for what I'll call "entry-level high performer")?"

You can't simultaneously claim to know nothing about US tech salaries and then claim it's "easy for ANYONE to get $200k in NYC/SF." $200k is absolutely achievable, but claiming that ANYONE (and EVERYONE?) is getting it is farcical. The vast majority of developers are making less than that. The notion that entry-level developers are getting $400k-500k is a joke. Not even quants start at that. ---- Since you'd apparent…

The keyword is "high performer".

$200k is a classic "senior" package. It's good but it's nothing outstanding.

No offense intended but finance comp doesn't stop at $180k, you're not looking at the right place or you don't have the profile.

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#199

Post by narutouzumaki » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 6:41 PM UTC

ijustdontgetit wrote: post #159

amirmc wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People spend years at medical school or law school to become a doctor or lawyer. True, but both of those are professions . Qualifications that you carry irrespective of your employer. Being 'a Google engineer' is not the same thing, although people might like to imagine it is.

What is it then?

I think what he is getting at is while being an 'Engineer' definitely is (a profession), a 'Google Engineer' is not.

Re: Why I Studied Full-Time for 8 Months for a Google Interview

#200

Post by jondubois » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 10:26 PM UTC

goda90 wrote: post #79

jondubois wrote: post #75

The thing about constantly learning new things is that after about 10 years you start to forget the old things. The new stuff kind of overwrites the old stuff after a while. What I find annoying about technical interviews is that they force me to review useless, basic stuff that I learned 10 years ago instead of asking me about all the cutting edge (and much more interesting/difficult) stuff that I have learned more…

If you're forgetting it after 10 years, then maybe it's not important. And the alternative shouldn't be the new stuff, because we don't know if that's important yet. It should be the old stuff that people don't forget.

Exactly. It's not important... Except for the interview - Which is my point.