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

Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

threader.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 432 posts

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#101

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #69
starpilot wrote: post #24

Yet another "trust the system" message from the authority figure who enables the system. Similar: - Police officer: Just follow our instructions, be cooperative. - Car salesman: Just be upfront with what you want. Tell us about yourself, and we'll earnestly try to help you. The message is the same; the authority "just wants to help," but in reality the relationship is adversarial to a larger degree than it is coopera…

Yeah, I call bullshit as well. Try getting to the onsite if you don't solve the phone screen question exactly as expected. I have a friend who solved/memorized ~600 leetcode questions and got offers from Google, Facebook, etc. He was average, not dumb but not well above average. When I apply to both, I will definitely be leetcoding as many question as possible as well, to maximize my chances.

> I have a friend who solved/memorized ~600 leetcode questions and got offers from Google, Facebook, etc.

Well then, to go through and solve 600 leetcode questions actually takes a lot of dedication and time investment, which alone to me shows that your friend has a lot going for him. TBH, as someone who has hired a lot of engineers, if I found someone who was well rehearsed, and it was clear this person understood a lot of the underlying concepts in a problem as I dug deeper, I'd be thrilled to hire that person!

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#102

Post by ReverseCold »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #84
pfarnsworth wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I call bullshit as well. Try getting to the onsite if you don't solve the phone screen question exactly as expected. I have a friend who solved/memorized ~600 leetcode questions and got offers from Google, Facebook, etc. He was average, not dumb but not well above average. When I apply to both, I will definitely be leetcoding as many question as possible as well, to maximize my chances.

If that’s all it took maybe those interview funnels aren’t actually that great. IME, my worst interview process ever was at Google. All I remember from it was some question about burning a piece of string. The coding part was relatively easy. The best interview process I ever did was at Yahoo in 2008. Everyone was very friendly but the questions were tough. I found the “expert” level of the people interviewing me hig…

The string problem where you burn it in creative ways in order to measure a certain amount of time?

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#103

Post by throwawaymath »

dominotw wrote: post #20
Someone1234 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My link from Glassdoor has feedback from interviewees from as recently as days ago. You can see the types of interview questions Google is asking right now. The sentence you're referring to was in the context of the FIELD which is why it said as much, and the specific question is a very well known stereotypical example: > But disrespectful and unprofessional interview questions ("why are manhole covers round?") has b…

I interviewed there last year. Definitely didn't get brainteaser type questions.

So what, we downvote people for volunteering contrary anecdotes now? Come on HN.

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#104

Post by chaosite »

MarkSweep wrote: post #71
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I went through the interview process and I actually really enjoyed it. My attitude going in was that I was evaluating what it would be like to work there, and I treated the interviewer as a coworker solving a technical problem, where I was taking the lead. The questions I got were pretty much exactly the sort of hing you see on LeetCode, but I hadn't seen any of the questions before. I know from studying for ot…

> Everybody was super nice, they all wanted you to do well I had the same experience. Afterwords I thought I did pretty well because I got to a solution to all the problems eventually. Later when I discussed not getting the offer when a friend who works at Google. He said they try to guide the interviewee to a solution before the time limit. Which is reasonable, you want the interviewee to feel more confident and not…

Getting the interviewee to a solution was not part of how I was trained to interview at Google.

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#105

Post by ajcodez »

cheez wrote: post #74
kamalkishor1991 wrote: post #47

I keep reading about how bad Google's interview process is. But has anyone done any proper large scale research on what is the best way to hire software engineers? All the comments here seems like opinions of people based on themselves and no one provides a proper alternative. Just curious!

I've been hiring people for 10 years and far and away the best results (in order): 1. I've worked with them before or they were referred by someone I trust 2. Test project Never had a good result from a question-based interview. I just don't have the numbers for it to work. Think about it, if the probability of a random dev knowing your stupid questions is 1%, then you would need to interview 100 people to find that…

I like to give short term contracts to promising applicants. It filters both good and bad for different reasons but it works.

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#106

Post by 01100011 »

I just interviewed for an embedded position a few weeks ago. Got a rejection - need to work on my coding and design skills apparently - so take this with a grain of salt.

I felt like there was tremendous variability in the interviewers. Some were disinterested, some were engaging. Some asked relevant questions, some clearly had no idea what my background was or what position I was interviewing for. Some asked canned questions and wanted canned responses. Some explored my experience and knowledge with open-ended questions.

It is my experience that interviewers from countries with rote-learning based educational systems ask canned questions and expect regurgitated answers. Interviewers from western educational systems performed more fluid interviews(where, incidentally, I excelled).

I do not believe Google's current interview process selects for the type of smart people they claim to want. Then again, they're now a big, not-so-benevolent corporation with lots of grunt work(i.e. maintenance, bug fixing) so maybe they just want effective robots?

I'm fully able to admit that I just wasn't smart enough for their organization. Then again, another leading tech company loved me and stuck me on their core design team. Based on my conversations with Google's engineers during the on-site, I did not feel like I was dealing with the best and brightest, whereas at my new company I felt awed by the depth, experience and accomplishments of the team.

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#107

Post by cletus »

tytso wrote: post #94
cletus wrote: post #70

Hiring continues to be a favourite whipping boy on HN and honestly I kind of wish it would die because it's the same arguments every time: - Inconsistent interviews - Luck of the draw questions - "I don't do well coding on a whiteboard" (often framed as "coding on a whiteboard proves nothing") - Bad experience with the process - Etc Personally I don't mind coding on a whiteboard but only if you understand why you're…

The problem with FizzBuzz is that it's too well known. So it's basically something which has very little signal because people can just google it and memorize the solution. Two of my favorite phone screen questions (now unfortunately banned because the have been identified on various web sites like Glassdoor as being Google interview questions) were "validate a UTF-8 string" (the interviewee is given the UTF-8 rules)…

The point is "like FizzBuzz" not "actually FizzBuzz". This could just as easily be:

- Add all the odd integers in an array

- Count the number of vowels in a String (bonus points if they ask about Unicode vs ASCII in the context of what constitutes a vowel). ASCII is the easy case. Unicode is a little more involved. Handle upper and lower case (they should figure out this is an issue).

- Given a set of Strings find all the characters (or words if you prefer) that are unique to only one of the Strings

- Given an ordered sequence 1..10 and the operators {+,-,/,*} where you can put any operator between two numbers but maintain the number order and operator precedence, find the number of operator combinations that yield 5 digit positive integers. Brute force is totally fine. Pick any category of answers you like in fact. Writing this one will take longer than FizzBuzz but the important point here is no specialist algorithmic knowledge other than how arithmetic works is needed and there is no special trick memorization.

I can come up with a million examples like this.

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#108

Post by chaosite »

bgirard wrote: post #72
joshuamorton wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll almost always be quoted for a single, perhaps 2 levels. No one is going to be considered for both an L6 and L4 role.

Before an onsite? That's a reasonable range.

At Google? L5 is a reasonable terminal level there, as in you can have a successful career and never go beyond L5, and no one will bat an eye.

L6 is a senior position, and not just in terms of title.

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#109

Post by joshuamorton »

bgirard wrote: post #72
joshuamorton wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll almost always be quoted for a single, perhaps 2 levels. No one is going to be considered for both an L6 and L4 role.

Before an onsite? That's a reasonable range.

Yes, before an on-site.

Your interviewers and and the type of questions asked depend on your potential level.

The expectations and responsibilities of an L4 and L6 differ so strongly that I'd be interested in a hypothetical candidate which could be both.

Re: Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem

#110

Post by lemoncucumber »

01100011 wrote: post #106

I just interviewed for an embedded position a few weeks ago. Got a rejection - need to work on my coding and design skills apparently - so take this with a grain of salt. I felt like there was tremendous variability in the interviewers. Some were disinterested, some were engaging. Some asked relevant questions, some clearly had no idea what my background was or what position I was interviewing for. Some asked canned…

Sorry for the pedantry, but I think maybe you mean "uninterested" rather than "disinterested"
Post reply on HN