51–60 of 432 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are manhole covers round, and similar brainteaser questions have been banned at Google for ~5 years at least. They're only the new normal if you're a decade behind the curve.
I joined Google at 2008, and these questions were already banned by then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a google recruiter reach out a couple years back, and I asked for just some ballpark idea of salary range. No dice - they wouldn't discuss even a ballpark range until I'd flown and and given up a couple of days or my time for travel and interviews. I didn't followup.
If you are in California, the employer is now required by law to disclose salary range.
For all the complaining here, Google's system actually works for Google, so i'm unsure why people expect something to change. The average interview score from a panel of interviews correlates very highly with performance at Google, interviewees report high satisfaction, etc. If those things changed, i'm sure Google would change it. But why would they change it otherwise?
i thought they said average score doesn’t correlate at all with how you do once you’re in? a lot of high performers only get in 2nd or 3rd time and barely.
However, as of 2014 average interview score was very well correlated with job performance (I can't give you further exact details because they are still marked confidential and i can't find a paper or anything that has disclosed it).
Note very clearly the word average above ;) Individual interview scores are definitely not predictive of job performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me OP seems to assume a competent, unbiased, and well meaning interviewer: always giving hints, knows exactly what they want, will field and answer questions comprehensively. At Google's scale with hundreds of thousands of interviews on the books, thousands of interviewers who like all human beings have good days, sick days, angry days, and depressed days, this will not always happen. What happens when its the int…
What happens is the hiring committee will disregard the interview report, and send feedback to the interviewer, saying "don't do that". (There are generally 4-6 interviewers on an interview panel, so if one interviewer does a bad job, there are other interviewers who will be providing signal to the hiring committee. A single bad interview report won't sink a candidate.) Google's interview training is pretty specific…
Why does everyone on HN seem to care so much about what Google does in interviews? We get it, no one likes weird off-topic brainteasers. Be a better engineer so you don't have to worry about having them on your resume and you'll be good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i thought they said average score doesn’t correlate at all with how you do once you’re in? a lot of high performers only get in 2nd or 3rd time and barely.
I can't speak for whether that was true in the past. (If you really care i can bug people for historical data) However, as of 2014 average interview score was very well correlated with job performance (I can't give you further exact details because they are still marked confidential and i can't find a paper or anything that has disclosed it). Note very clearly the word average above ;) Individual interview scores are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a google recruiter reach out a couple years back, and I asked for just some ballpark idea of salary range. No dice - they wouldn't discuss even a ballpark range until I'd flown and and given up a couple of days or my time for travel and interviews. I didn't followup.
If you are in California, the employer is now required by law to disclose salary range.
That doesn't sound like a particularly useful answer.
[1] https://www.teamblind.com/article/google-engineer---total-co...
So yeah, buzz off..
If these points were indeed important, I'd expect feedback addressing them. All feedback I received was about doing well or not well on certain questions. No meta whatsoever.
I didn't make it for good reasons, but I feel there is a big chance part. I had one onsite interviewer in the first round who was difficult to deal with. He presented a problem I've never seen in my life, nothing close. He interrupted and gave hints in directions that didn't make sense to me, and didn't give me 5 minutes to think without him talking. The second attempt was fair. In the third, the first phone screen's interviewer was constantly typing on his keyboard while I talked, and it was so loud. No real conversation happening. He was just staring in his screen clacking away. I addressed it, but he kept typing loudly while I was talking. So annoying.
On the other hand, the recruiters were always very good.
At another company recruiting was a mess, and only knowing someone inside helped dealing with that, but the interviews were all great.
There are probably millions of High IQ people applying and vying to work at Google. Tomorrow Google could decide to add juggling competitions in interviews in addition to algorithm jargon and while it would lead to a lot more bitching from interviewers, it wouldn't matter to Google as they would still get their fill of qualified high IQ applicants.