I was interviewing at a startup in the Bay Area and the CEO insisted that since "being surrounded by people smarter than me and getting better at what I do" was a huge driver for my professional life, I'd be better served by working at Google.
I did not understand that then, and I don't understand it now. I don't blame the guy for saying that I guess, and maybe he's right. That said I don't want to work at a megacorp doing software engineering, even if that megacorp is Google. It's just not for me.
I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…
I futilely attempted to get reassigned to something close to field D (really, B, C, E, or F would have been just peachy) and that seemingly got me flagged as trouble internally. "Meets Expectations" ranges from 3.0 to 3.4, and employees in this range have no idea where in that interval they landed, even the career effects of the numbers are dramatically different. 3.4 is above average, while 3.0 is fatal to transfer…
I'd call that more justifiable anger than bitterness.
I agree. Google should have done their homework before contacting a past employee (including contractors). Google as a large organization should know why people left their company and the context of situations around it. Some employees aren't vocal about it, but I don't think this is the case.
you're treating the company as monolithic, and it's not. every group has their own hiring practices and contractors, and manage it differently. i came across this when a bunch of infosec people (myself included) got spammed for entry level jobs. every group has their own targets, methods, faults and strengths. it's just how it is. can't fault the entire company for one bad incident. if you do have concerns, reach out to people and let them know their tactics are turning good candidates off. that gets attention, and that gets changes.
I don't follow why being an "expert" in D would make you "bored" of Q. If Q is simply a boring field to you, that's one thing (and the appropriate response is to quit and find something better). But it's not your employer's job to give you your dream assignment. If they need Q geeks and you're available, then that's what you're stuck with. That's what being an employee is all about.
"it's not your employer's job" It's in their best interest however to do so, as replacing him costs money.
Yes and no. Replacing someone who can't possibly be happy with the work you have available is cheaper than keeping them on. It depends critically on the details of D and Q. If you get hired by, say, Facebook and refuse to do web development you're going to be a bad fit. The goof here may have been hiring him in the first place.
It's important for both sides to accomodate. But sometimes fits just don't work. If what someone wants to do isn't something you need, or if they aren't as good at it as the other people you have on staff, then the correct fix is just to part amiably. It's no more Google's "fault" than it is varelse's.
I tried, but I found that I can't really identify with the plights of some. Thankfully (for reasons I'd rather not be challenged to justify, except to say that it's apparently good as measured by others) I'm a fairly normal white guy with no marginal traits that might cause me to have different viewpoints than I currently do. This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus, and I also believe that all…
You aren't the first to try to attach a different meaning to the term free speech and you certainly won't be the last. That isn't what it means, though.
I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…
I don't follow why being an "expert" in D would make you "bored" of Q. If Q is simply a boring field to you, that's one thing (and the appropriate response is to quit and find something better). But it's not your employer's job to give you your dream assignment. If they need Q geeks and you're available, then that's what you're stuck with. That's what being an employee is all about.
Depends on what he meant by "expert". If he meant he has PhD level expertise in D and that is his life's work, then it's completely understandable he wouldn't be happy doing Q, and would seek to do D elsewhere.
People tend to misuse words like "expert" and "fluent" though, when they're really not, but on HN odds are higher that they're using at least "expert" correctly.
I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…
I don't follow why being an "expert" in D would make you "bored" of Q. If Q is simply a boring field to you, that's one thing (and the appropriate response is to quit and find something better). But it's not your employer's job to give you your dream assignment. If they need Q geeks and you're available, then that's what you're stuck with. That's what being an employee is all about.
There are some among us that won't do tasks we don't enjoy. Even if it meant that our pay was to be cut, we'd flock elsewhere to seek the fulfillment of being applied to a more meaningful duty. The key here is that 'meaningful duty' is self-evaluated and the organization's value of that position holds no merit or sway to the individual.
You're assuming that you can write what you want and get away with it, now and in the future. But Histoy has shown that anyone can be in danger because of something they wrote long ago. The easy rule of thumb: if you have opinions and want to post them online, be prepared to lose friends, miss job opportunities and go to prison for them, even if they're not illegal or controversial right now.
The reality is someone like bmelton probably can write what he wants and get away with it. As a normal white guy who believes in technology and etc. etc. It's very unlikely that he has, or will ever, face oppression for his views. And that's probably why he can't relate to these particular views. If he were Arab, Black, or Latino he would probably be able to relate just fine.
I'm going to confess that I gave you an upvote because it is exactly right (even though I have lost friends over political views, that's hardly earth-shaking) while simultaneously wondering whether or not your comment was meant to be for or against me.
It's quite possible that the answer is neither, and I read in in a neutral tone and, as I stated, I think that it's spot on. My argument comes from the position of privilege. I haven't personally felt the privilege, but I acknowledge that it exists due to the piles and piles of evidence in its favor.
"it's not your employer's job" It's in their best interest however to do so, as replacing him costs money.
Yes and no. Replacing someone who can't possibly be happy with the work you have available is cheaper than keeping them on. It depends critically on the details of D and Q. If you get hired by, say, Facebook and refuse to do web development you're going to be a bad fit. The goof here may have been hiring him in the first place. It's important for both sides to accomodate. But sometimes fits just don't work. If what s…
If Facebook hired someone who wants to work on their compiler and put them on web development I'd regard that as an extremely bad decision.
The one thing I took away that really is a pain in the ass is recruiters hitting people up and asking them to apply. If a recruiter reaches out, in my opinion, they should already consider the person in question a genuinely attractive candidate and should be asking for a little more info, not asking them to start at step 0, they can do that on their own if they decide to.