Google's interview system: it's not about solving the problem • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by curiousDog » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:32 AM UTC

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…

Exactly. The bottom line is every interviewer is different and comes with their own quirks and biases. Writing another me too post just because you squeaked through the 5hr gambit isn't going to help anyone. I've met some interviewers (Google and elsewhere) who were incredibly arrogant, some who just wanted to see the solution and copy it down for proof etc. It's not black and white. Something has to change here.

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

#132

Post by vezycash » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:33 AM UTC

ender7 wrote: post #115

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…

Some perspective from the interviewer's side may help here: - A Google interviewer's (and I would assume any interviewer's) primary goal is to come out of the interview with enough confidence to give a positive or negative score. If they sit down to write feedback and have to give a neutral score, the interview wasn't productive. This means that the interviewer is just as eager to find evidence for a positive score a…

Aren't recruiters paid a commission for successful hires? Also, do interviewees who choose to interview a second time have a higher pass rate?

Consider their financial incentives first before ascribing some altruistic motives.

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

#133

Post by komali2 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:34 AM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #113

joshuamorton wrote: post #8

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 can confirm that no one asked me a brainteaser or gotcha question. They did, however, ask me irrelevant questions. My system design question involved a web based system. I am an embedded guy with no web experience who was interviewing for an embedded job. I would have been happy to design something in or near my skillset, but I have rarely worked with load balancers, backends, schemas, etc. I did my best and tried…

The opposite happened to me at triplebyte. There was a whole section on embedded systems and C. My interviewer let me know the section was coming up and I asked if I could just say "I know nothing about embedded systems or C" so we could just explore my web dev knowledge further, but no go. Very weird. I have nothing about either on my resume, and no desire to target any jobs that need me programming anything other than webapps in JavaScript for at least the first couple months...

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

#134

Post by an4rchy » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:36 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #38

an4rchy wrote: post #14

I am not sure if this is in the interest of any company but why not provide feedback, as it can only help the interviewees in the future and the companies attract better talent. Even if it's not standardized, a rubrik across X attributes with a scale and a number. (Which is what I am assuming they are doing anyway -- as it sounds likes the interviewers are rating them across different dimensions) Not sure if this is…

Experience says that in addition to liability, failed candidates just try to argue and get upset. People claim they want feedback but then claim that the interviewer must have misjudged them. More work for the company, and leads to even more negativity in the process.

I agree with the possible liability aspect but if they are doing it already, i.e. taking notes or rubric scoring, then it's just a matter of sending a summarized version of that and hopefully it's feedback from multiple people and not just one person's opinion.

The negativity may likely exist from no response/lack of feedback -- which can be frustrating for ppl that spent time/effort), but at least as the previous poster mentioned some people do appreciate feedback.

Also, recently noticed that companies have automated questionnaires asking how the recruiting process was or can be improved -- wondering if there's any improvements based on feedback.

As a side, it's been kinda interesting to read glassdoor responses for how people were treated/felt during the whole process (timing, professionalism etc...)

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

#135

Post by onion2k » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:39 AM UTC

ender7 wrote: post #115

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…

Some perspective from the interviewer's side may help here: - A Google interviewer's (and I would assume any interviewer's) primary goal is to come out of the interview with enough confidence to give a positive or negative score. If they sit down to write feedback and have to give a neutral score, the interview wasn't productive. This means that the interviewer is just as eager to find evidence for a positive score a…

This means that the interviewer is just as eager to find evidence for a positive score as a negative one -- there isn't an incentive to "getcha" with cheap or tricky questions.

This is only true if the interviewer is uninterested in what happens after the hiring process. If they want to make sure they're winning a reputation doing great interviews for more good hires than bad hires then there's an incentive to be cautious, and that caution could well manifest as trying to catch out anyone who might be 'gaming' the interview process. Those false positives reflect badly on the interviewer; the false negatives don't because they might have been real negatives.

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

#136

Post by petters » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:40 AM UTC

I have conducted many interviews at Google and this article is not true, at the very least not generally so.

> If you are not highly senior, you won't get asked system design

This, for example, is not true.

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

#137

Post by lozaning » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:42 AM UTC

vezycash wrote: post #132

ender7 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some perspective from the interviewer's side may help here: - A Google interviewer's (and I would assume any interviewer's) primary goal is to come out of the interview with enough confidence to give a positive or negative score. If they sit down to write feedback and have to give a neutral score, the interview wasn't productive. This means that the interviewer is just as eager to find evidence for a positive score a…

Aren't recruiters paid a commission for successful hires? Also, do interviewees who choose to interview a second time have a higher pass rate? Consider their financial incentives first before ascribing some altruistic motives.

I think that depends if you're talking about internal or external. At least everywhere I've worked our in house recruiters don't get paid a bonus when they hire someone, it just their job. If you're working with a recruiter that doesn't work for the company hiring you that person may have a more direct financial stake in your employment.

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

#138

Post by komali2 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:42 AM UTC

Hysterisis wrote: post #96

jakelarkin wrote: post #22

"its not about the problem" but if you cant correctly code one of these 200 algorithms on a whiteboard in sub 15 minutes while under extreme stress youre not getting an offer either.

You generally aren’t asked to implement a specific algorithm. You’re asked to solve a broad open ended question. You get 45 minutes, sometimes more if the interviewers can see that you’re close. These days Google offers the option of a chromebook instead of a whiteboard.

>These days Google offers the option of a chromebook instead of a whiteboard.

This definitely isn't advertised, I interviewed there on Friday for frontend and was presented with an entire wall to write on.

Would have preferred the Chromebook, could have done a final test run of the code, written out params and comments, tests, etc.

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

#139

Post by komali2 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:44 AM UTC

resouer wrote: post #4

Really? So leetcode is actually helping you work better with your future colleague in Google？

To be fair, the bit of juiced up kick to the brain doing a leet code problem on the train commuting to work has made me feel much more engaged once I show up.

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

#140

Post by komali2 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:45 AM UTC

ajcodez wrote: post #105

cheez wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like the most interested and serious candidates will be shut out by this.