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

Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

gwan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 969 posts

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

#151

Post by kzisme »

kmonsen wrote: post #44
kkapelon wrote: post #12

They asked me the same questions back in 2012. I was applying for a Java developer position. The person asking the questions said right from the start that he is not technical (he was a psychologist) and that he had a cheatsheet in front of him. I passed that telephone call and failed the process later on another call (on the lightbulbs and the 100 floor building) Really surprised to see that 4 years later they still…

This is really weird and should not be happening. I am a software developer and do a lot of interviews including phone interviews. These kind of questions are not expected, but I would say the lightbulb one is not super horrible as long as it is the discussion that was valued and not the answer. I have gotten weirder questions for sure when interviewing.

I didn't hear about the light bulb drop question until this thread, and was surprised how in-depth it can go.

Can you really "fail" an interview on a question like that? I assume the person conducting the interview is reviewing your process of coming to an answer rather than getting the most correct answer - right?

By most correct I found this article that broke down the question/answer: https://pointlessprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/2-ligh...

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

#152

Post by DannyBee »

FWIW: As a director of engineering for Google, who interviews other directors of engineering for Google, none of these are on or related to the "director of engineering" interview guidelines or sheets.

These are bog standard SWE-SRE questions (particularly, SRE) at some companies, so my guess is he was really being evaluated for a normal SWE-SRE position.

IE maybe he applied to a position labeled director of engineering, but they decided to interview him for a different level/job instead.

But it's super-strange even then (i've literally reviewed thousands of hiring packets, phone screens, etc, and this is ... out there. I'm not as familiar with SRE hiring practices, admittedly, though i've reviewed enough SRE candidates to know what kind of questions they ask).

As for the answers themselves, i always take "transcripts" of interviews (or anything else) with a grain of salt, as there are always two sides to every story.

Particularly, when one side presents something that makes the other side look like a blithering idiot, the likelihood it's 100% accurate is, historically, "not great".

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

#153

Post by callahad »

endtime wrote: 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.

To add to the chorus: I had an extremely similar interview (including a few verbatim questions) during my phone screen for an SRE role at Google five years ago.

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

#154

Post by xigency »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #93
mherdeg wrote: post #17

Ha ha re: > 10. what is the type of the packets exchanged to establish a TCP connection? > Me: in hexadecimal: 0x02, 0x12, 0x10 – literally "synchronize" and "acknowledge". > Recruiter: wrong, it's SYN, SYN-ACK and ACK; if Google is down you will need to know this to diagnose what the problem is. We will stop here because it's obvious that you don't have the necessary skills to write or review network applications. Y…

Surprising they wouldn't have given the recruiter a list of alternate acceptable answers. Almost feels like the recruiter was conspiring against you, but why?

This is actually a real danger in hiring: personal bias.

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

#155

Post by justicezyx »

dkonofalski wrote: post #129
lordnacho wrote: post #13

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 a…

That's not the problem, a non-tech recruiter cannot assess the correctness. Even the simplification can be done, which I disagree, the answer will be rejected because it's not a literal match. That, is the problem.

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

#156

Post by DannyBee »

endtime wrote: 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.

These are pretty much SWE/SRE questions, not director questions.

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

#157

Post by sharemywin »

TheCapn wrote: post #41
buttershakes wrote: post #7

I had almost exactly this same engineering test when google interviewed me in 2006. It was terrible, and left a bad taste in my mouth. Given the complexity of the work I was doing at the time, the entire thing seemed ridiculous.

The inode question gave me flashbacks to my interview with Amazon. They wanted me to explain what a hash function is. I kept giving answers for about 3 minutes explaining hashing, common algorithms, reasons to use it and places it applies. Recruiter: "I was looking for you to say it's a fingerprint " So I guess I was wrong, because despite explaining them in decent detail, I didn't use the one keyword.

I've found the best way to answer those is "buzzword diarrhea"

first thing I do is try to get them to ask it a different way. then I play spew out every related buzzword possible as if its a question. Are you talking about .... oh, you mean .... I can usually get it in a few tries.

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

#158

Post by FoeNyx »

dkonofalski wrote: post #129
lordnacho wrote: post #13

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 a…

> this guy always has to be right and would work terribly with people of different levels of skills

Are you talking about the recruiter?

Post reply on HN