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

Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

yegor256.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 674 posts

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#51

Post by rpdillon »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #35
iainmerrick wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in hearing from people who work at Google, and get to figure out a cool algorithm for solving an interesting puzzle-problem more an about once a year. I bet there aren't very many. In my experience, the stuff you do in this kind of interview has very little relation with the stuff you do in the actual job. (I wish it did! I love those algorithmic puzzles.)

figuring out a cool algorithm is not the same as learning 1000 algorithms by rote to prepare for an interview. Just because doesn't feel like doing test prep for an interview, it doesn't mean they don't have the brain capacity to actually solve the business problem when it comes up. If in my day-to-day I need to use an AVL tree, I will get a library for it, I won't be reimplementing it from scratch every single time.

> If in my day-to-day I need to use an AVL tree, I will get a library for it, I won't be reimplementing it from scratch every single time.

Completely agree. How will you know you need an AVL tree, versus, say, a Red-Black tree? What are the performance characteristics of each? Why pick one over the other? When I interview someone, I ask algorithm questions to find out how they reason about the algorithms, not so I can watch them implement one.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#52

Post by teddyc »

ryandrake wrote: post #31

Unlike most of HN (it seems), I like hearing from recruiters, because despite the very low signal-to-noise ratio, there's always that remote chance that one of them could be able to set me up with a "dream job". It's zero cost to me to politely reply to a recruiter and ask for more info, and I try to at least respond to everyone. What I've found is that they must have a lot of candidates they're juggling because fall…

I tend to agree with you and try to at least be cordial with recruiters in my region. I have gotten 2 jobs from recruiters, both being external recruiters.

Once I applied for a job that had a really obscure job requirement which I met. The job was already filled but I spoke to the recruiter, who was really nice and ultimately found me a different job in another skill set about a month later.

The other was the traditional thing were a recruiter reached out to me. I actually didn't like the recruiter, but I liked the job and ended up pursuing it anyway.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#53

Post by alistproducer2 »

I agree with this post. I've turned down Google interviews twice precisely because I was immersed in personal projects and didn't want to spend the time needed to practice algorithm writing just for a test. I could understand if they ask you practical questions like "when and why would you use a trie?" that seems more appropriate than "write a trie on my whiteboard or you're not smart enough to work here." None of their engineers are writing trees by hand and in fact are actively encouraged not to "reinvent the wheel."

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#54

Post by jdhopeunique »

I did a second phone interview at Amazon once. I have several years experience and understood the algorithm for the problem fine but got tripped up on the syntax a little. I was interviewing for a specific team and I could tell the interviewer was just looking for an excuse not to hire me. Perhaps I dodged a bullet in not getting on that team, but now I have to wait before I can apply anywhere else at Amazon.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#55

Post by vinhboy »

sdenton4 wrote: post #39
forgotpwtomain wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should skilled developers with extensive track-records in their field be forced to use their free time to cram for college-style exams? Other professions dealing with exact-sciences / engineering don't seem to have this problem..

Mostly false. Other areas have professional exams, but they're generally industry standards instead of given by the hiring company. This is more efficient if you're a candidate, since you only need to take the test once. (Or more if you don't pass the first time.) My house mate just got a professional engineer's certificate after being at work in the field for about five years. Of course, if we had this in swe land,…

This is actually a brilliant idea.

> soon-to-be-obsolete tech of yesteryear

Not if it focuses on things like basic algos, and understanding basic data structure.

Then it would be timeless.

And if that makes employers more confident in my abilities, then I will gladly do that.

Because it's a lot easier to study for a standard test than a bunch of different tech interview scenarios.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#56

Post by arielweisberg »

xt00 wrote: post #10

Places like google give you a guide on how to prepare. So it consists of stuff like algorithms and data structures. I do wonder sometimes how much it is tailored to getting people who are fresh out of college rather than more experienced. My take is that you basically have to spend time preparing and studying so as to get past those types of questions then finally you talk one on one with the people you likely would…

I agree. If you take the time to interview at Google or Facebook and you actually want the job it's 100% worth it to bone up on cracking the coding interview as well as the papers they have published about their systems.

Cracking the coding interview is damn near encyclopedic and many interview question you are asked that have a "trick" to them will probably have something you can adapt from the book. You go in knowing most of the tricks and it's a huge edge.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#58

Post by sumeno »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #35
iainmerrick wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in hearing from people who work at Google, and get to figure out a cool algorithm for solving an interesting puzzle-problem more an about once a year. I bet there aren't very many. In my experience, the stuff you do in this kind of interview has very little relation with the stuff you do in the actual job. (I wish it did! I love those algorithmic puzzles.)

figuring out a cool algorithm is not the same as learning 1000 algorithms by rote to prepare for an interview. Just because doesn't feel like doing test prep for an interview, it doesn't mean they don't have the brain capacity to actually solve the business problem when it comes up. If in my day-to-day I need to use an AVL tree, I will get a library for it, I won't be reimplementing it from scratch every single time.

You don't have to memorize 1000 algorithms. Honestly you could have a really good understanding of when and how to use about 10 algorithms and probably do very well on most interviews.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#59

Post by lolc »

xt00 wrote: post #10

Places like google give you a guide on how to prepare. So it consists of stuff like algorithms and data structures. I do wonder sometimes how much it is tailored to getting people who are fresh out of college rather than more experienced. My take is that you basically have to spend time preparing and studying so as to get past those types of questions then finally you talk one on one with the people you likely would…

You probably didn't intend this, but your comment reads like you're trying to give advice to the author on how to pass the screening. The author explains how these initial mails set wrong expectations. They specifically mention having zero interest in learning the algorithmic skills tested for in the screening process.

It's a dishonest approach and the response laid out in the article works just fine to weed out shady recruiters doing this.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#60

Post by rarec »

ryandrake wrote: post #42
noonespecial wrote: post #4

Its the London Cabbie(1) method. They're not looking to fill any particular role. They're just looking for smart people (for the value of smart that fits their biases). They just need as many warm bodies as possible to ram through their test so that a few trickle out the bottom of the funnel to keep the ranks from shrinking. If too many started getting hired, they'd add competitive basket weaving to the skillset if t…

> They're not looking to fill any particular role. They're just looking for smart people I've found this to be decidedly not true, from many recruiter contacts. They have a role in mind they're trying to fill and if you point out that it's far more junior than what you're looking for, the conversation's over. Think about how must companies hire. The hiring manager fights internally and finally gets a req for a very s…

Nobody does that because being smart is of no guarantee that this person can be of any use to a business.
Post reply on HN