141–150 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if google had to reinterview their existing employees, in a blind study... How many rounds of interviews before they eliminated most of their staff?
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.
Better than my interview experience. Sailed through the phone interview, went in person for the day long interview. Most were no problem except for one that took longer than it should have. And then... Nothing. Radio silence. No emails. No answered emails. I had ceased to exist. After that colossal waste of time, I decided to only work remote.
> Nothing. Radio silence. No emails. No answered emails. I had ceased to exist. Actually, that seems to be the standard behavior for rejected candidates these days, at least in my personal experience. (I've seen some references calling it the "California no", suggesting that the practice is widespread.) It's really kind of annoying.
As always, remember that even technical interviews like this one have an incredible amount of random chance built into the hiring process. This is especially true at a big company like Google (where I work and do interviews). Do they happen to have positions open right now? Did you happen to get asked questions that clicked with you? Was the hiring committee feeling grouchy that day? Did you get an especially harsh i…
> There's a decent amount that you can do to prepare for one of these things, but there's also an incredible amount you don't have control over. This is where I call bullshit. This person prepared for six months. You can't tell someone to not take something personally if he or she took six months of their life to study up, only to hit a dead end because your company didn't find it within themselves to take control of…
But 1. i extended my knowledge 2. i came closer to working for google than ever 3. if you really wanna work for google / you will try again and even optimize those superficial 'issues'
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 was rejected from Google when I first graduated from college. Now I work at NASA and I'm very thankful I didn't get that job. Saying that the hiring process is flawed isn't the same thing as saying everyone is special and deserves a job there. From my anecdotal experience, I felt that they focus too much on algorithms and give the same interview to every candidate regardless of their experience or desired job. I ma…
What other professions are like this? Do lawyers, accountants, civil engineers, bartenders, etc. take massive time to memorize stuff every time they want or need to go job hunting?
It seems many acknowledge that the Google process (and other similar ones) is very flawed with a high false negative rate, but it's considered ok because there's a flood of talent always applying to Google. Maybe this used to be true, but I don't think it's true anymore. It's very likely still true in the fresh graduate to early 20's age range of candidates. But at this point, senior engineers know what this process…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think a company like Google would be able to implement a non-subjective and fair interview. Their current process must cost them a lot of talent
> Their current process must cost them a lot of talent reply They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. That last bit is why I think it's quite silly for smaller/unknown startups to be copying Google's interview process, as seems to be the trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think a company like Google would be able to implement a non-subjective and fair interview. Their current process must cost them a lot of talent
> Their current process must cost them a lot of talent reply They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. That last bit is why I think it's quite silly for smaller/unknown startups to be copying Google's interview process, as seems to be the trend.
Getting too many false negatives is a very sure way of getting a lot of false positives.
>>They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there.
You might be wrong there. Apart from huge money opportunities, there are little incentives for any body to waste their best years in large company political middle levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their current process must cost them a lot of talent reply They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. That last bit is why I think it's quite silly for smaller/unknown startups to be copying Google's interview process, as seems to be the trend.
>>They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. Getting too many false negatives is a very sure way of getting a lot of false positives. >>They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. You might be wrong there. Apart from huge money opportunities, there are little incentives for any body to waste their best years in large company political midd…
Why ? IMO if you reduce the False Acceptance Rate, you will up the False Reject Rate. Good chart at https://www.tractica.com/biometrics/in-biometrics-which-erro...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard this before, is there a source for this? It has all the hallmarks of an urban legend...
I don't have the source anymore but it was an article where they spoke to someone at Google HR who mentioned that a particular team was difficult to approve anyone or hiring. To prove their point, they anonymized the team's own resume and asked them to rate them.