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

Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

gwan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 344 posts

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#221

Post by [deleted] »

logicallee wrote: post #163
selimthegrim wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less window is informal but I don’t see how it’s incorrect. Bread is both correct and fits the context better.

Yes but from "times" you can see that this is a test of VERY basic English. I agree with you that Bread is both correct and fits the context better, and I would still choose "eggs" (a worse answer, from the choices given) because I would analyze what the (really stupid) question-writer wanted. You are right that window exists in that sense but in this case it's clear that the question writers didn't think about it. F…

[deleted]

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#223

Post by geofft »

trisimix wrote: post #160
geofft wrote: post #43

This was posted previously, in October 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12701272 An actual Google director of engineering pointed out that these are individual-contributor SWE/SRE questions (and I can attest I got very similar questions as a new college grad). As I commented previously: "Reading more closely, it sounds like they are not interviewing him for a director of engineering position; it just sounds…

Assuming he didnt lie about the exchange of words, this guy could be a homeless person make believing hes getting hired as ceo of google and this interview would still be an affront to proper advancement. You cannot possibly justify making a quiz that asks about kill in unix and doesnt accept SIGKILL ~literally kill with SIGTERM the default. If you are looking for the default level (15) you should specify. If this in…

> Assuming he didnt lie about the exchange of words

If it's not clear: I strongly believe he lied. (I don't think he intentionally lied, as in deliberately twisted what the interviewer said to make them look bad: I think he genuinely misheard the questions because understanding questions accurately when asked by someone he considers inferior is not his strength, and then incorrectly reported them, which is still lying.)

There are lots of people on the internet (including in the prior thread, including my own memory in the prior thread which I have now completely forgotten) who have reported that the kill question is about default kill command signal and not SIGKILL. It's certainly theoretically possible that the interviewer mis-spoke, but it's very hard to make that sort of mistake if you don't understand the questions you're asking (which is what he's alleging) because you wouldn't know enough to coherently phrase that version of the question.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#224

Post by kybernetikos »

Gargoyle wrote: post #138
sdhgaiojfsa wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OK, but incorrect/inflexible quizzing about tech questions is inappropriate full stop. If this was an interview for SWE summer intern it'd be a badly-run interview. I would not ask the questions listed in this interview. But, I'm not a recruiter. I think it's safe to say that the average recruiter has a better understanding of their objectives and constraints than I do, and is better able to judge what types of que…

"Google is still not having any trouble attracting engineering talent." Is this really true, though? Are they losing out on more top end candidates? There are other places with interesting work and big paychecks. Some of them aren't building reputations for annoying interview processes.

I know multiple people who have told Google recruiters that they are not interested on the basis of their famously drawn out and disrespectful interviewing.

Of course, Google is one of the top names in tech and has already employed some luminaries many developers would love to work with, so I'm sure that they get some leaway to treat their interviewees poorly, but for people with other good options, there's not a lot of appeal to being sucked into one end of a very long, very painful funnel.

Having said that, Lazlo Bock has some interesting things to say about hiring in an organisation like Google.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#225

Post by pjc50 »

jiveturkey wrote: post #206
geofft wrote: post #43

This was posted previously, in October 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12701272 An actual Google director of engineering pointed out that these are individual-contributor SWE/SRE questions (and I can attest I got very similar questions as a new college grad). As I commented previously: "Reading more closely, it sounds like they are not interviewing him for a director of engineering position; it just sounds…

Ha! I remember this from back then. Interview process aside, did you see the guy's technology page? Which process has led to TrustLeap's technology? Instead of trying to add something on the top of a multi-layered construction done by many different persons in a period of time exceeding 30 years, TWD has resolved the problem from scratch in a few months. riiiiight

From their linkedin?

> TrustLeap, the security division of TWD Industries AG (founded in 1998), protects digital assets with cryptanalytically unbreakable technology (safe against unlimited computing power as it is proven mathematically that no key leaks can be exploited).

Riiight.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#226

Post by berg01 »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #136
DannyBee wrote: post #69

So, as part of my job, I have been the hiring manager for directors for Google (3 in the past 6 months), and recruit quite a bit. This was a simple phone screen, and it seems the recruiter was not given a good set of questions. However, I actually doubt it was really a director of engineering screen, despite this person's experience level (maybe it should have been, but ...). I say this because I know a lot of the le…

I thought Google hires into a general pool, and hiring managers don't "own" candidates like Amazon HMs do.

I was approached by some Google recruiter for a very specific engineering management role based on my background. I also thought the same about that general pool thing before that.

The process seemed quite different from what I've read here about the Google software engineer recruitment process.

(After a few phone calls/interviews I realized this was not a position I would likely enjoy, all things considered, so I told them I thought I was bad fit because of A and B, but please keep me in mind if you have another opening that's more suitable.)

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#227

Post by killaken2000 »

jstimpfle wrote: post #79
rorykoehler wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the correct answer is you Google how to do it!?

These questions are supposed to work as a proxy for experience. Everybody can google the answer to trivia, but if an applicant doesn't know the answer by heart that's an indication for lack of experience.

I laughed so hard at this. Thank you.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#228

Post by jason_slack »

One of my interview questions:

Interviewer: What is the difference between a mutable and immutable string?

Me: A mutable string can be changed. A immutable string cannot be changed.

Interviewer: Nope, think mutations. Mutable string can be mutated.

Me: Mutated? Altering DNA?

Interviewer: If you don't know this there isn't any sense in asking more difficult questions.

Me: Floored.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#229

Post by zpatel »

kamaal wrote: post #143
noarchy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So who at Google is using Google Docs to write their code, day-to-day? No one, right? And 8 interviews? Was it even the last potential interview? That is indeed fubar. They do this because they can. Hiring is an expensive process, and not everyone can afford to dump this much effort into a single hire.

>>And 8 interviews? Pretty standard across these AmaGoogFaceSoft like companies. They basically have too much money and time to spend on these things, and they inevitable hire people like them who have lot of free time on their hands to prepare for their textbook puzzle questions. In other words they wish to hire candidates who do bare minimum work but spend hours preparing for interviews to move to next jobs.

15-20 yrs back general app s/w hiring was not about solving algos and puzzles but more about object oriented software and threading etc.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test (2016)

#230

Post by jvreagan »

jroseattle wrote: post #144

We experienced the same type of issue with my company, and decided to try to address it. First, our problem statement: filtering phone-screens by recruiters is resulting in poor experience, false positives, etc. We thought about potential causes, but instead opted to look at the logistics of the call: recruiter runs process, gets responses, and then returns to engineering with feedback. It was a vacuum filled with in…

Love the idea, thanks for this!
Post reply on HN