Pretty sure Google's interview questions are under NDA.. Brave!
Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
51–60 of 969 posts
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#52I'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 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 of being a practicing programmer; knowing how to find out is.
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#53I'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…
It tends to be incredibly helpful to know details like the length of a mac address and what tcp flags mean what if you're looking at an unformatted memory dump. One example of how this can be handy is when doing low-level NIC bring up, I've read PCIe TLPs from a logic analyzer to correlate them to network traffic.
s/know/have access to/g
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#54They 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…
> They asked me the same questions back in 2012. I was applying for a Java developer position.
I've has similar issues with other companies. Network developer? Great! Let's ask some assembly / Java questions!
Uh... if you people are that stupid, I don't want to work for you. Thanks.
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#55I can see both sides here. Google does want to make sure even higher up technical hires have good technical skills, which I think most developers would agree is a good idea.
But their way of measuring this (the standard way) is bad, because it ignores the nuance a more experienced person has (seen so clearly here).
On the gripping hand, I can't help but feel the candidate did demonstrate a big failure to communicate, which is an important skill in itself.
For example, listing SYN, SYN-ACK, ACK in hexadecimal is great for showing off, but is legitimately a bad answer to the question – as evidenced by the lack of understanding in the questioner. I also think some social graces might have got them further (e.g. "Oh yeah, sure. Quicksort is O(N log N on average, and is generally a reasonable sort to chose, but I wanted to mention some other factors that are worth considering").
At the end of the day:
- it's a hoop. Jump through it and get a fish, or don't.
- calibrate for your audience! This is a very important technical skill (and this test was unintentionally correct in its result IMHO).
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#56I'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…
People that have been around know such things. At one point, Richard Stevens (RIP) was god. Every programmer had a copy of TCP/IP illustrated, Advanced Unix Programming and Unix Network Programming. If you wanted to do anything network, you had to write your own servers, you had to understand the details. The breath of knowledge was wide and the depth was just as deep. Ask around on HN, and you will probably be shocked how many that know such things. :-)
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#57This is very hard to believe. In most big tech companies technical interviews are conducted by technical people, not recruiters. Especially for a senior role like Director of Eng. the experience described here stretches credulity. Also most of these companies have policies which don't allow any feedback to be given on interview performance. In light of that the recruiter saying "you don't have necessary skills" is ex…
This wasn't a technical interview. This was a phone screen. As dumb as it is, having non-technical recruiters do a "technical" phone screen like this is increasingly common. I don't think this practice is completely justifiable, but part of the root cause is the enormous volume of grossly underqualified people who apply for any particular position. It takes a hiring company a large amount of work to vet a candidate but it takes a candidate nearly 0 effort to apply for a job.
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#58This is very hard to believe. In most big tech companies technical interviews are conducted by technical people, not recruiters. Especially for a senior role like Director of Eng. the experience described here stretches credulity. Also most of these companies have policies which don't allow any feedback to be given on interview performance. In light of that the recruiter saying "you don't have necessary skills" is ex…
It's standard practice at the Googles and Facebooks of the world to have a recruiter lob a bunch of canned questions at you during a phone screen, including Director-level phone screens. My experience was a lot different that the writer's, however. The recruiter was friendly and I was friendly back. I think I missed one or two but still went on to the next round. This guy comes across sounding like a pompous asshole and I wouldn't want him as my Director of Engineering, either.
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#59I'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…
Medical Recruiter: "What are mitochondria?"
Applicant Doctor: "They're double membrane-bound organelles found in all eukaryotic organisms, commonly between 0.75 and 3μm in diameter, that generate most of the cell's supply of adenosine triphosphate"
Recruiter: "No. They are the powerhouse of the cell".
Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test
#60Mediocre people can't evaluate exceptional people. What mediocre people think is knowledgeable can't be exceptional knowledge, by definition. If you want to find exceptional directors of engineering, you need an exceptional person worthy of being director of engineering to evaluate them.
In seeking victory, not going beyond what everyone knows / is not skilled.
Victory in battle that all-under-heaven calls skilled / is not skilled.
Thus lifting an autumn hair does not mean / great strength.
Seeing the sun and moon does not mean a / clear eye.
Hearing thunder does not mean a keen ear.
So-called skill is to be victorious over the easily / defeated.
Thus the battles of the skilled are without / extraordinary victory, without reputation for / wisdom and without merit for courage.
- Sun Tzu Ch. 4 (Denma translation)