Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

secure.dahladmin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

#61

Post by gohrt »

howawaygoog wrote: post #45
jedmeyers wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read that being rejected at a committee level happens relatively infrequent. Did they hint to what might be the reason for rejection at such a late stage?

I was a bit pissed that the way the recruiter told me initially I thought the hiring committee was just a safety check and pretty much a rubber stamp so I got all excited for abut a day until he told me I didn't pass the committee. He gave me no feedback whatsoever about interviews or anything, just encouraged me to apply in a year, which may be standard talk for all candidates (he did invite me later to an online se…

There was a miscommunication. The recruiter intended to communicate that "VP-level committee is usually a safety check and pretty much a rubber stamp". That's the review layer above the main Hiring Committee.

If you got rejected by VP committee, that is unusual and work grumbling about -- and possibly constrained by amount of funding available for new hires.

The "come back in a year" is absolutely honest. Many people are hired a year, or 2, or 3 later. Google is happy to say "not sure / not yet" to people and "yes" later.

Re: Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

#62

Post by gohrt »

howawaygoog wrote: post #51
stuckagain wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the recruiter made a mistake. The committee rejects the vast majority. The executive review committee that comes after accepts most, though.

yes, that somehow makes me feel better (rather than almost all passed but me), I guess in the media they all focus so much in the legendary Google interview that so few people pass, they forgot to mention the committee. My one bad taste of the experience was that one day (thankfully it could have been worse) I thought I had made it.

The committee is how you "pass" the interview. Only awful interview performances are rejected on interview scores alone, before committee. Committee reduces the set of interview scores into a single decision.

Re: Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

#63

Post by howawaygoog »

gohrt wrote: post #62
howawaygoog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, that somehow makes me feel better (rather than almost all passed but me), I guess in the media they all focus so much in the legendary Google interview that so few people pass, they forgot to mention the committee. My one bad taste of the experience was that one day (thankfully it could have been worse) I thought I had made it.

The committee is how you "pass" the interview. Only awful interview performances are rejected on interview scores alone, before committee. Committee reduces the set of interview scores into a single decision.

recruiter literally emailed me "congratulations, you passed the interviews", before committee so that's very confusing, what did I pass then, a low filter?

Re: Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

#64

Post by howawaygoog »

gohrt wrote: post #61
howawaygoog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a bit pissed that the way the recruiter told me initially I thought the hiring committee was just a safety check and pretty much a rubber stamp so I got all excited for abut a day until he told me I didn't pass the committee. He gave me no feedback whatsoever about interviews or anything, just encouraged me to apply in a year, which may be standard talk for all candidates (he did invite me later to an online se…

There was a miscommunication. The recruiter intended to communicate that "VP-level committee is usually a safety check and pretty much a rubber stamp". That's the review layer above the main Hiring Committee. If you got rejected by VP committee, that is unusual and work grumbling about -- and possibly constrained by amount of funding available for new hires. The "come back in a year" is absolutely honest. Many people…

somewhere I read that "come back next year" for the specific position I applied is actually a common thing they do since they like to see persistence and growth, so that's looking good.

Re: Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

#65

Post by devwastaken »

DannyBee wrote: post #40
throwawayforme wrote: post #33

TL;DR: Google often does not know how to hire senior people who are not luminaries, this screws people in their 40s. I think this happened to my wife, but her job category was not listed. When my small company was acquired by Google (and I had to interview to keep my job), we were forced to re-locate across the country from the east coast to Mountain View. My wife is a stats professor with tenure at a mid-tier univer…

"In my wife's case, the problem was that the committee deadlocked on how to level her. She had 5+ years of academic experience, and 5+ years of research experience (think national lab type stuff; research w/o teaching). However, she'd only briefly worked in industry many years ago between her MS and PhD. So rather than hire her, they told her to "go work someplace else for a year, then apply again". (direct quote, as…

Problem here is though, you're just a single opinion in a commitee. As the poster stated in their second post, one of the other members mentioned how insane it was they voted to not hire. That could easily be you, and with how massive a company Google is, with I'm guessing dozens of comittee's that exchange people, its probably within the realm of possibility.

Re: Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

#66

Post by devwastaken »

DannyBee wrote: post #44
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The answer you received is, in my view, usually the answer given when "we don't think they did well enough to hire them, but think that they may get there with practice". If you don't want to hire a tenured stats professor with 10+ years research experience to work in data science, I think that's your problem. Maybe OP's wife had some horrifying deal-breaker personality trait, but really it just sounds like Google's…

"If you don't want to hire a tenured stats professor with 10+ years research experience to work in data science, I think that's your problem. Maybe OP's wife had some horrifying deal-breaker personality trait, but really it just sounds like Google's committee was too snobby about Industry Versus Academia to hire an experienced statistics expert to do statistics. " 1. Google, from what i can tell, is okay with it bein…

"You have pretty much no data to base this on. Seriously."

Unless Google has made their internal hiring notes and private information public, there's no data to be found on that. I don't know why you'd expect an opinion like that to have data to it when the opposite does not have data to it, either.

Re: Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

#67

Post by jedmeyers »

gohrt wrote: post #62
howawaygoog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, that somehow makes me feel better (rather than almost all passed but me), I guess in the media they all focus so much in the legendary Google interview that so few people pass, they forgot to mention the committee. My one bad taste of the experience was that one day (thankfully it could have been worse) I thought I had made it.

The committee is how you "pass" the interview. Only awful interview performances are rejected on interview scores alone, before committee. Committee reduces the set of interview scores into a single decision.

That's actually the reason I got confused with the original comment I replied to. The author said he 'passed' the interview and then got rejected by committee, and the only committee 'after' passing the interview is the VP/SVP review. In reality he did not actually passed the interview, he might have just gotten a relatively good feedback from the interviewers.

Re: Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

#68

Post by jcims »

poikniok wrote: post #7
jcims wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got hired over 40, no problems. Left six months later for personal reasons, hoping to get back in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What do you mean hoping to get back in? My general understanding of Google is that if you leave on decent terms you can get back to your previous role without having to interview again as long as you do it within a year or two, is that applicable here?

Yes! Just don't want to count my chickens before they have job offers :)
Post reply on HN