301–310 of 969 posts
Maybe these types of interview practices are designed to reduce the applicant pool by scaring people away from even applying.
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 engineer…
On one hand you say that these are "bog-standard" SRE questions, and on the other you say it's "super strange". What exactly is super strange? That a non-technical recruiter asked the questions? If that's not the strange part, then surely it's believable that the recruiter would not recognize some of the subtleties involved? That said, if this guy is the creator of GWAN, then it's entirely possible that his personali…
I've done this kind of phone screen for an entry level position at Google, and while the recruiter wasn't an engineer, they did have some basic knowledge of the concepts involved, and were able to prompt me with follow-up questions if I missed something or got a question half right. The questions themselves are not strange, it's the alleged attitude of the recruiter.
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…
1) His level of knowledge is reasonable for someone who does networking programming full time 2) We are getting description from him. When I interviewed at Google, they asked me to prove that P is equal to NP, and I did, but they said that it took me longer than allotted 45 minutes and I didn't get an offer.
* A link to his LinkedIn profile
* A direct downlink to his resume (well, an HTML file for his LinkedIn page; same purpose)
* Talking about how his skillsets are a "rare mix".
* A "transcript" showing how he's smarter than the recruiter for a Google DoE position
* Taking on a big company in a post bound to go Viral
Yeah, this feels less like a blog post, and more like an attempt at a viral cover letter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But hang on, the primary colours are red, yellow and blue! I know, they told me so in primary school.
Not sure how much you're kidding, but... that's true for a subtractive colour system, where you start with a white sheet of paper (i.e. reflects every wavelength) and subtract colours (filter out wavelengths) by painting over the paper with crayons. For an additive colour system, where you start with a black monitor screen, and you add wavelengths, the primaries are RGB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's not the point of the test. The point of the test is to see whether or not the person attempted to get on the level of the person they were talking to. I have a feeling that the interview would have kept going had the author not started to argue. They're looking for someone that can translate, not someone that will talk down and argue just so that they can be "right".
I did not see any argument here from the statement in the article. The recruiter clearly had little clue about what is right and wrong. And the way the recruiter assess the answer by throwing right/wrong seems more rude to me compared to the author "wanting to be right".
Please do not speculating based on something that is not present in the article.
I had done similar interviews before, the recruiters I worked with did not show the same level incompetence as this one. When I want to be more specific on details, they would suggest that they think it's enough and move on. Not like this recruiter who just throw a 'wrong'.
Or does Google use the same "we have a generic interview and if you get through we will then decide which team to place you in" crap for director level hires as well?
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…
1) His level of knowledge is reasonable for someone who does networking programming full time 2) We are getting description from him. When I interviewed at Google, they asked me to prove that P is equal to NP, and I did, but they said that it took me longer than allotted 45 minutes and I didn't get an offer.