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

Google: My interview experience

gilvegliach.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 164 posts

Re: Google: My interview experience

#101

Post by anindha »

yongjik wrote: post #60
rubicon33 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wouldn't make that conclusion until you knew what job he was interviewing for. Firmware development? Sure, you might be right. iOS developer? Unlikely that low level bit manipulation is going to be a good indicator of his ability to succeed in that role. That's not to say its irrelevant, but, just not a quality indicator for that role in my opinion.

Maybe Google hires firmware developers, but I think they don't hire iOS developers. They hire "software engineers", and throw problems at them. (Or rather, these generic software engineers migrate toward problems that interest them in the long run.) It prevents Google from having, say, more "iOS developers" than they need when they decide to concentrate on other products. We may debate the merit of this strategy, but…

There is always going to a problem that you haven't done before or haven't done for a long time.

If I was the interviewer and someone was honest about not knowing about biwise operatoons but was able to ask the right questions to gain some understanding I'd be impressed.

Re: Google: My interview experience

#102

Post by steelframe »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #7

I'm becoming convinced that the only way to get into Google is to get in as an intern or new grad if OP studied for 6 months and still didn't get an offer. It doesn't seem that way at other top companies like FB, Amazon and MS from the people I've talked to.

I got into Google within 2 years of completing a graduate CS degree. It's been nearly 10 years since I've been in school, and I doubt I'd be able to get into Google again.

(There's even a term for this at Google: Impostor Syndrome.)

Re: Google: My interview experience

#103

Post by steelframe »

rifung wrote: post #42

> The recruiter also said I was borderline, which might be just a nice empty word from her, but made me feel better. I don't think this is just her being nice; I was also told I was borderline and they actually ended up letting me interview again for a different position (SETI instead of SWE). Alas I got rejected again, but the year after they called me back because I was borderline, or so they told me, and I am work…

I've heard of Google hiring committees rejecting candidates who got all "Hire" recommendations from the interviewers. I've also seen candidates get hired who seemed on the wrong side of "borderline." There are many more factors at play than just your interview performance.

Re: Google: My interview experience

#104

Post by xenadu02 »

mining wrote: post #96
gil_vegliach wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once upon a time, a hiring committee was presented some feedbacks and had to come to a yes/no decision for some candidates. All them were rejected. It turned out that the feedbacks were of the hiring committee's members, from when they got hired.

This is good if you assume that there's a desire to improve the quality bar over time.

You are making several assumptions:

1. That we can clearly and precisely define intelligence 2. That successful interviewing correlates with intelligence 3. That hiring people who can clear this gauntlet will generate more value for the company in the form of better products 4. That there is only one "bar" for quality

As far as I am aware, current research indicates intelligence is multi-variable and by extension there are multiple "bars" for quality one could measure. It also seems likely a team will be more successful if it includes people who are capable across multiple dimensions.

We're still in the very early days of Software Engineering. Why do we insist that the Landscape Architect must be familiar with the intricate details of HVAC Engineering?

Re: Google: My interview experience

#105

Post by gil_vegliach »

Artlav wrote: post #85

> In this model, the sourcer discovers a talent > The talent is then picked up by a recruiter Am i the only one who trips over such terminology of calling a hired worker "talent" and finds that it feels like it's manipulative, PC or doublespeak? What meaning does the word "talent" have in casual English?

It could well be, as a non-native speaker I'm not aware of such shades of meaning. It sounds a bit "TopTal speak" to me. Probably I picked it up subconsciously as I was skimming my TopTal post during writing.

Re: Google: My interview experience

#106

Post by steelframe »

EmployedRussian wrote: post #63
johnrob wrote: post #47

I'm curious if the people giving the interviews have an incentive to be conservative with scoring. Maybe it looks bad when your score is the highest? As if you're lowering the bar? If true, I could see that contributing to how these interview stories play out (candidates thinking they did better than their no-hire outcome).

There are no such incentives. When writing feedback, you simply look back at 20 other interviews where you asked the same question, and write "candidate X's performance on this question was was in {top,bottom} {5,25,50}% of ... at this level". You also have no idea how other interviewers will score, and if your score is 1.5 when everyone else's is a 3.9, it's likely that the HC will ignore you. The HCs do see multipl…

My hires are uniformly distributed across the score spectrum. Not sure how the HCs "adjust" me. I have gotten props for the quality of my written feedback though.

Re: Google: My interview experience

#107

Post by [deleted] »

bitexploder wrote: post #64
duiker101 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the coding interview is whatever the interviewer thinks it is. Sure, it SHOULD be to see if you are a good person to work with, but that's not always the case, if the interviewer thinks that you should produce a working and optimal solution(for whatever reason), that's what you will be judge on. Unfortunately not everyone uses the tools at their disposal in the best way. And it might not even be a case o…

For Google that simply isn't true. Check out Work Rules some time. Google has put a ton of effort in having a repeatable hiring process that specifically avoids this problem of interviewer bias. Most people, even Googlers do not really understand their hiring process and how it works. It isn't to hire the best coders.

[deleted]

Re: Google: My interview experience

#108

Post by EmployedRussian »

thesmallestcat wrote: post #88
EmployedRussian wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would never apply I guess you'll never know what (if anything) you've missed. > I'd end up working with a bunch of sycophants who are willing to do that sort of thing You are implying bad intentions where none are likely to exist. Google is a very large company, and 0.001% of candidates are bound to have suboptimal interview experience by sheer bad luck (and it's likely that you see their horror stories more than…

Do you work for Google? I hate that I have to ask this, but Googlers are known to come out to defend their employer on HN, for better or worse.

> Do you work for Google?

I do. I've also done 200+ interviews.

> Googlers are known to come out to defend their employer on HN

Well, sure. It's not because Google tells us to defend it though, but rather to state the facts as we see them.

Re: Google: My interview experience

#109

Post by yongjik »

EmployedRussian wrote: post #75
thesmallestcat wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading people's accounts of interviewing at Google, I would never apply, and I won't cash in on the recommendations I could get from some ex/Googlers I know. Reading the submission, look how many times the candidate has to "ping" people just to keep the ball rolling. In my mind, I'd end up working with a bunch of sycophants who are willing to do that sort of thing, the same sort of people who got a thrill out of the…

> I would never apply I guess you'll never know what (if anything) you've missed. > I'd end up working with a bunch of sycophants who are willing to do that sort of thing You are implying bad intentions where none are likely to exist. Google is a very large company, and 0.001% of candidates are bound to have suboptimal interview experience by sheer bad luck (and it's likely that you see their horror stories more than…

> "I interviewed at Google, had a good experience, got hired, and now move protocol buffers from one directory to another every day"

There, FTFY. :P

(used to be a Googler.)

* Well, that and eat tons of snacks and coffee. So it was actually pretty good.

Re: Google: My interview experience

#110

Post by SamReidHughes »

tertius wrote: post #86
chronic910 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't get the job, it's not a signal regarding your quality as an engineer and you shouldn't interpret it as such (however tempting it may be to do so). Of course "not getting a job" is a "signal regarding your quality as an engineer". We need to keep this toxic mindset out of tech and silicon valley. The idea that everyone is smart, special, and deserves a job at Google, is completely false. There are peopl…

I believe what he was trying to say is that there is a large factor of chance involved with interviews. Therefore it should not be a signal. Not getting a job because of an interview does not mean that you are not a qualified engineer. It may mean that though. But it's not as if it's a 100m sprint where you can very easily measure results between Olympian and couch potato. > https://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-…

There is a large factor of chance if you're a marginal candidate. But if you're very bad, there's no chance, and if you're very good, there's a very high chance.
Post reply on HN