Live data from Hacker News

Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

protocol.com

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#21
post #5

I interviewed at Google about a decade ago. I made it far enough that they flew me out to interview on-site at their Kirkland office. I remember feeling like I had done fairly well, sans one interview. The interview in question was around development experience in C. The interviewer, very early on, asked how to redirect stdout. I suggested using freopen, and he said that wasn't allowed. Well why the hell not? The ans…

Out of curiosity, which kind of position within Google were you applying for? And how did you sell your own expertise?

This sounds like a really bizarre and very specific question for the interviewer to fixate on, unless it was particularly relevant for the position. Knowing the details of how to best do the redirect doesn't seem relevant for a generalist interview; this is the kind of thing you end up, well, googling when you need to do it. I suppose a kernel developer is supposed to know this though, were you applying for kernel development?

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#22

> It was the design of the recruiting system itself that became his problem: At some point, Google decided Watt (who was working as an associate professor at the time) was interviewing to be a site reliability engineer, despite never indicating an interest in that role himself (he was interested in a more management-focused position). > "It just never seemed to get through. They were so focused on whatever categoriza…

> Didn't Google at some point decide a guy who developed a VM or interpreter or something that they were using in-house was only good enough to be a sysadmin for them?

You're probably thinking of Max Howell, the maker of the Homebrew package manager.

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejectin...

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#23
Google's recruiting system isn't "failing" unless they're hiring unqualified devs.

Google gets tons of applicants. The point isn't to prevent qualified applicants from being rejected, it's to prevent unqualified applicants from being hired.

They can do whatever arbitrary, unfair filters they want as long as they still have at least some applicants left, and as long as those people are adequate.

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#24
Three years ago I interviewed at Google for an internship here were all the steps I completed:

- Google Foobar to get someone to notice my resume

- First form that asked for general information

- Second form that asked weird behaviour questions like "Do you think people can change"

- First interview with regular leetcode questions

- Second interview was waved because of foobar

- Third form to write your interests/motivation for matchup with a team (No guarantee of having an internship at that point)

- Dropped the whole process because I got an offer somewhere else

The whole process spanned maybe 3 months.

The year after that I re-did the whole process and was ghosted by the recruiter after the first interview, I assume that was because I did not rank high enough and they were waiting to see if I'd make the cut or not.

This process (and the big version for FTE) works to weed-out candidates that aren't motivated to work at Google and I just don't see how else they could be doing it. People have to understand that recruitment at FANG is painful because you will get thousands of SDE applications and you can't really take the time to treat everyone "right".

It does suck.

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#25
Before finally getting hired there I interviewed with Google at least 3 times (hard to remember), on a referral each time (for a different team, from a different person). Incidentally, doing an interview for any role puts you on a secret 6+ month lockout, so it turns out that if you're interested in working at Google you shouldn't interview unless you're absolutely sure you want that role and can ace the interview. Anyway,

Each time until my last interview cycle, they seemingly assigned me interviewers at random and they were usually a terrible fit. I'm a games/systems programmer, so think C, C++, C#, etc. Console games (PS4), PC games, etc. Never shipped a mobile app, don't have much Linux expertise, don't list them on my resume. Haven't written Java since the J2ME era.

So naturally, I kept getting assigned to interview with people who worked on the Android Play Music app, or people who wrote Linux cloud storage infrastructure (think talking to storage hardware directly, etc) in Python and C. Inevitably, it was impossible for us to have an in-depth technical conversation without a lot of overhead because the disconnect was too big. Sometimes they'd ask me to whiteboard and there was no appropriate language for me to use that we both understood. At the end of each day I came away having had interesting conversations with people but it was consistently a failure of an interview process, so it wasn't a surprise that they never made me an offer. You could tell that this messed up interview process was also an issue for interviewers - I had a couple different interviewers get really combative or frustrated because of the disconnect, in one case borderline abusive.

Then finally a team that really wanted me (the NaCL/WebAssembly team) looked at my interview history and just stacked the deck so that everyone interviewing me was actually qualified to interview me. It was a breeze. Sure, it was challenging like any good interview, but not a complete waste of anyone's time.

While I can't speak to this personally, I also have heard from current/former Googlers that in the past it was extremely hard to hire Linux experts (kernel devs, etc) because they kept giving those people the same garbage screen (let's talk about Java!) and then rejecting them in the same way. Apparently the fix was a special interviewing process for people like that, presumably that's the treatment I got eventually.

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#26
post #17
post #5

I interviewed at Google about a decade ago. I made it far enough that they flew me out to interview on-site at their Kirkland office. I remember feeling like I had done fairly well, sans one interview. The interview in question was around development experience in C. The interviewer, very early on, asked how to redirect stdout. I suggested using freopen, and he said that wasn't allowed. Well why the hell not? The ans…

I wonder how dependent Google’s hiring pipeline has been on just having a huge % of every qualified candidate attempting to get a job at Google? If that is the case, then the interviewing process just needs to be good enough to have a low false positive rate. The false negatives don’t hurt them.

Yes this is well documented and I think Google publicly admits it themselves - they optimize to reduce false positives.

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#27
post #5

I interviewed at Google about a decade ago. I made it far enough that they flew me out to interview on-site at their Kirkland office. I remember feeling like I had done fairly well, sans one interview. The interview in question was around development experience in C. The interviewer, very early on, asked how to redirect stdout. I suggested using freopen, and he said that wasn't allowed. Well why the hell not? The ans…

An example context where it wouldn't work is if stdin is closed, e.g. `./a.out <&-`. Awful question, I'm sorry you got hit by it.

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#28

I don't get it. University tests are brutal too and have the expectation the student will devote large amounts of time and energy. It seems like a job interview is fair game for the same, no? I feel like this is a very bruised ego here. I'm not saying any interview process is perfect, and I think a lot of them are very, very bad at accessing the capabilities and value someone provides, but same for University.

At least in my experience the main difference between exams and interviews comes down to relevance. That is, an exam will be within the context of material you've been studying and an interview just... kinda whatever? I have only very, very rarely seen -- from both sides of the table -- professional interviews that are associated with the job the person might do. This problem is worse the larger the company, once there's a standardized set of questions to evaluate someone's possible fitness for a variety of roles.

When I've had power over the interviewing process it's always been enlightening to ask the interviewer to take their own interview. I'd be willing to bet most professors can pass their own exams; the same hasn't been true of interviewers.

Re: Google’s recruiting system is famously brutal. Many workers think it’s failing

#29

Google's recruiting system isn't "failing" unless they're hiring unqualified devs. Google gets tons of applicants. The point isn't to prevent qualified applicants from being rejected, it's to prevent unqualified applicants from being hired. They can do whatever arbitrary, unfair filters they want as long as they still have at least some applicants left, and as long as those people are adequate.

If your teams desperately need qualified staff to get things across the finish line and you can't hire them, your recruiting system is failing. This is a real problem Google has had in the past (I don't know if they've fixed it since I left.)
Post reply on HN