Live data from Hacker News

Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

gwan.com

121–130 of 969 posts

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

#121
post #85
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew all these answers too, because I was a developer in the 1990s. There is absolutely no purpose to knowing off the top of your head how long an ethernet address is, or even what system call will retrieve an inode (his bickering over stat() "filling in" rather than "returning" was bogus, for what it's worth). The top Google search result for each of these questions has the answer. Knowing these things isn't part…

But what if Google is down and you are tasked with diagnosing it?

I lost it at this one. As if there is some single point of failure that's going to bring all of Google down, and some intrepid director of engineering has to inspect some TCP packets by hand to fix it.

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

#122
post #78

Without actually hearing the transcript verbatim, it's hard to give much enlightened perspective here, but there's a lot of "hur hur, dumb recruiter" responses here. What I will say, in general, is that figuring out what the "right" answers are here for what is obviously a technical phone screen by a non-technical person with answers on a piece of paper is also part of the challenge. This is a Director of Engineering…

How were the answers stated to the recruiter being a dick? There was no room to a be a dick given the recruiter was looking for verbatim scripted answers.

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

#123
post #78

Without actually hearing the transcript verbatim, it's hard to give much enlightened perspective here, but there's a lot of "hur hur, dumb recruiter" responses here. What I will say, in general, is that figuring out what the "right" answers are here for what is obviously a technical phone screen by a non-technical person with answers on a piece of paper is also part of the challenge. This is a Director of Engineering…

I more or less agree, although the real wrong party here is Google, for putting a non-technical recruiter asking a quiz as a step. This story does sound bizarre though, very unlike Google.

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

#124
post #42

I've been at Google for five years as a SWE and I've been interviewing for 3 of those. I'd fail this pop quiz. This strikes me as bizarre and inconsistent with all the practices I'm aware of. The idea that we'd ask anyone this stuff, let alone director candidates, strains belief.

I've had similar phone screens previously both at Google and Facebook. The depth/specifics of some of the questions seems maybe a little deeper but it's not too far off what I remember from my screens to be honest.

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

#125

I'm amazed he knew things in such detail. I mean who would know just how long a MAC address is? Or what the actual SYN/ACK etc tcp flags are? You just need to know what they're used for, and if you need the specifics, you'll find out with a single search. He seemed to know that as well though. Kernighan for bit twiddling algos, that kind of thing. It's a bit strange to have someone non-technical interviewing a techie…

> I'm amazed he knew things in such detail. I mean who would know just how long a MAC address is?

Not surprised by the questions. Most are [somewhat] common and not particular challenging.

I am surprised by the stupid counter-answers from the recruiter thought. This guy should not be giving phone interview.

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

#126
post #85
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew all these answers too, because I was a developer in the 1990s. There is absolutely no purpose to knowing off the top of your head how long an ethernet address is, or even what system call will retrieve an inode (his bickering over stat() "filling in" rather than "returning" was bogus, for what it's worth). The top Google search result for each of these questions has the answer. Knowing these things isn't part…

But what if Google is down and you are tasked with diagnosing it?

Then you do what people did before Google when they didn't know some trivia: Use a book.

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

#127
post #85
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew all these answers too, because I was a developer in the 1990s. There is absolutely no purpose to knowing off the top of your head how long an ethernet address is, or even what system call will retrieve an inode (his bickering over stat() "filling in" rather than "returning" was bogus, for what it's worth). The top Google search result for each of these questions has the answer. Knowing these things isn't part…

But what if Google is down and you are tasked with diagnosing it?

If they are trying to hire for a position that will somehow be on the line for what happens when all of Google is down, I for real hope that they get some higher-power questions into that interview.

But, obvs, the answer is that you Bing it.

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

#128
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah I get the feeling you're supposed to "act stupid" so you can get to the next interview. Definitely not an idea way of getting candidates - you are selecting for people who know how to manipulate screens (and thus increasing the risk of getting a bad candidate), or rejecting otherwise knowledgeable people who just don't have the time/inclination/"social savvy" to pretend to be stupid.

Why not? Especially in a managerial position, you will occasionally need to build a rapport with people who are convinced they have good technical knowledge, but don't. Being able to talk to them productively instead of picking fights is a skill worth selecting for . If you can't figure out that the first person who's interviewing you has answers on a sheet of paper and you're supposed to parrot them until you get to…

It's totally dependent on the type of person being interviewed. There is a difference between "knowing how to work in a team" "knowing when to be civil, when to push, when to go to battle", and wanting to parrot answers in order to just get to the next step.

If it were me, I'd try to engage with the recruiter and make them go completely off book. I'd ask them about their career, and try to find a different job for them (instead of reading stuff off a sheet of paper), or if that's what they are content to do, try to escalate and get them to reveal their "client" or "person they report to" (which in recuiting is a no-no) - I think I have the confidence and social skills to try to do that (I've talked past border officials, and various recruiters, and having been in a tele-job where I had to follow a script, I know exactly where a script reader is most likely to go off book if I ask something at exactly the right time). I am in no way qualified for a director of engineering position, but I can very easily get past this telephone screening, because precisely I've been the person asking this kind of question and using this kind of script. If I got past this screening, I'd be wasting the time of the person next in line for the interview.

Of course, it is a valid strategy to get an interviewee to follow along, but it's misguided - using the entirely wrong tool (scripted questions/answers) for doing the job (finding someone with managerial and people talent).

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

#129

I'm amazed he knew things in such detail. I mean who would know just how long a MAC address is? Or what the actual SYN/ACK etc tcp flags are? You just need to know what they're used for, and if you need the specifics, you'll find out with a single search. He seemed to know that as well though. Kernighan for bit twiddling algos, that kind of thing. It's a bit strange to have someone non-technical interviewing a techie…

I'm just reaching here, but is there a chance at all that the test wasn't really about whether or not he knew the correct answers but more that he knew the correct answers and was able to simplify them to the extent that a non-technical user could understand and compare them? I have a feeling that Google is far more interested in someone being able to get their point across than someone that just wants to sit there and argue about whether or not an answer is right. Just based on reading his responses, I got a condescending vibe and a vibe that this guy always has to be right and would work terribly with people of different levels of skills. At a Director-level position, that kind of skill is the most basic skill you need to have.

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

#130
He's confused an inode (file object) with an inode number (the index). But who cares? This is not a useful interview question.

His confusion carries over to the stat question, because he's still thinking an inode is just an index. That said, I wouldn't describe stat() as returning an inode, either... it fills a stat struct. That's all. Inodes can have more or less information than is present in the standard stat structure.

If this is how Google interviews director candidates, they've really gone downhill since I last tried to interview there in 2011 or so.

Post reply on HN