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

151–160 of 432 posts

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

#151

Post by jypepin »

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…

+1. This is exactly my experience doing 300+ interviews at Uber.

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

#153

Post by jypepin »

onion2k wrote: post #135
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…

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 cau…

Yes and No. You want to build your reputation as a good interviewer, but that doesn't only mean you are tough and let only amazing candidates pass. That also means that you are usually aligned with the interview committee, and if you constantly are a NO when 90% of the committee is a YES and the candidate ends up being hired, then you'll end up building this reputation of being too tough or just not getting the right signals.

I've done 300+ interviews at Uber where the process is somewhat similar to Google, and OP's points are true. As an interviewer all you really want is get good signals either good or bad. And yes, an interview is much nicer when the candidate is doing great.

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

#154

Post by akhilcacharya »

Someone1234 wrote: post #5

> Your interviewers try to understand what it feels like to work with you on a daily basis. If that were true then why not simulate those situations rather than riddles, google-able CS trivia, or whatever the interview flavor of the month is? I'd actually argue that for many companies this post is true (i.e. that getting it "right" is less important than the journey) but I still won't forgive companies that design th…

>If that were true then why not simulate those situations rather than riddles, google-able CS trivia, or whatever the interview flavor of the month is?

I hate this meme so much. I personally have seen situations in my own work several times in the last few months where knowledge of algorithms, even on the leetcode medium level, was immensely helpful in finishing the job. If you can do it quicker and more fluently, you're probably going to be more productive.

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

#155

Post by akhilcacharya »

esoterica wrote: post #65

Anyone who interviews at a "prestigious" company and then complains about how difficult the interview is kind of hypocritical. Google, and other FAANGs/unicorns, make you solve hard algorithms questions because they believe - correctly or wrongly - that in order to succeed as a company they have to filter out the vast majority of candidates who have poor algorithmic skills. They also pay a lot of money because that's…

To be fair the people who complain about this stuff probably don't think they pay this much either - I've seen a strong co-occurrence of salary denial in the same population!

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

#157

Post by pmiller2 »

drharby wrote: post #23

When I get interview feedback about literally not having a coded complete solution despite strong communication skills, understanding of the solution and underlying cs concepts, i really cant help but conclude this as nothing but PR... And then I read this >personal opinion I'd rather take advice from /adv/

Exactly. What interviewers are really looking for is speed and fluency in working through the solution. The easiest way to get there is by already having seen the problem. This leads directly to the “grind hundreds of leetcode” meme seen on Blind. (“LC and TC or GTFO,” in other words.)

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

#158

Post by sdenton4 »

DannyBee wrote: post #53
oculusthrift wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i thought they said average score doesn’t correlate at all with how you do once you’re in? a lot of high performers only get in 2nd or 3rd time and barely.

I can't speak for whether that was true in the past. (If you really care i can bug people for historical data) However, as of 2014 average interview score was very well correlated with job performance (I can't give you further exact details because they are still marked confidential and i can't find a paper or anything that has disclosed it). Note very clearly the word average above ;) Individual interview scores are…

Those interested in learning more would do well to read Kahneman's "thinking, fast and slow." Averaging across multiple axes and multiple interviewers gives good signal.

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

#159

Post by CamouflagedKiwi »

mavelikara wrote: post #142
BurningFrog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in 2006 when I joined. Yet the myth just never dies.

See comment from gedy elsewhere in the thread. Multiple people have pointed out these kinds of questions being asked well past 2006. Since there is no incentive for a large number of engineers to cook up stories about their interview experience at Google, I am calling this smoke as having some fire behind it.

But what's the incentive for a large number of Google engineers to surreptitiously ask questions of a style that's explicitly banned?

I think there is incentive for failed interviewees to cook up stories - or at least to tell something very one-sided - because none of us like to believe we failed at something and feel better if we persuade ourselves it was stacked against us.

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

#160

Post by projektir »

I keep hearing this but it is simply not compatible with my experience.

Often the problems are given without any interviewer at all, for one (the initial screens).

Even for ones where the interviewer is present, if I solve the problem, all is well. If I do not, all is not well. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground where I fail to solve the problem and it's fine.

Post reply on HN