Live data from Hacker News

Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

yegor256.com

631–640 of 674 posts

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#631
I'm not sure the OPs approach is reasonable, and I would decline any candidate who tried to put constraints like this on the process. In particular I don't think it's reasonable to insist on being interviewed by the direct manager and I don't think it's reasonable to refuse to engage with algorithm and other whiteboard questions. As a meta-point, a company should try to standardise their interview process as much as possible in order to provide each candidate with an equal chance to succeed. This is very important in attempting to address inherent biases etc.

Apart from filtering out unsuitable candidates, one of the purposes of the interview process is to determine where exactly a good candidate might best fit. Although you get a good guess at this from their CV, oftentimes I find myself suggesting a good candidate be routed to a particular team based on strengths and weaknesses they have demonstrated in the interview process that were not apparent before. There is an information asymmetry at the heart of this that is hard to solve - I know a lot about my company, its teams and their needs, and the candidate (hopefully) knows a lot about themselves, what they are actually good at and want to do. What this means is that the direct manager is not necessarily knowable ahead of the interview (and subsequent review).

Secondly, just because someone is a team lead/manager does not necessarily presuppose they are a particularly good interviewer. Interviewing is a skill that not everyone has and there are good reasons to keep the interview pool to a set of people who see a wide swathe of candidates and are able to calibrate their interview based on experiences of lots of candidates. This means the hiring manager (even if you know who she is) may not be on the slate for interviewing.

Finally the "I'm not prepared to answer questions like x". Although this is becoming a trendy thing to say on HN (most typically about algorithm/whiteboard type questions), refusing to engage constructively with a question is a huge red flag for me, and likely to indicate a personality type that I don't want to hire. I would readily admit that the data shows that algo questions often don't have as much signal as people used to think. However, structured work exercises have been shown time and time again to be a very good indicator of subsequent performance. I do need to know that you can actually program, and often offer a choice of an algo question or a structured code review (where the candidate and I talk through some code on their github or that they can provide me for the review).

There are good and bad ways to ask algo questions as there are with many questions. It's pretty pointless to ask an experienced programmer to write the algo for heapify; they either know it or they don't. However, if you're a recent compSci graduate and you don't know these things I'll suspect that you didn't really pay attention in class and mostly coasted.

One of the hardest and very best interviews I have ever had consisted of someone deliberately re-asking one of the algo questions I had performed poorly on at the beginning of the interview process (after I had a couple of weeks to think about it). This proceeded into a very very tough interview that pushed me beyond the bounds of my compsci knowledge to how I think about solving hard problems. It wasn't about what "book knowledge" I could recall but rather about how good I was at applying my knowledge in a tough situation.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#632
I've mentioned this a couple of times on here, but I'll say it again because it's (somewhat) relevant.

What are you guys doing to get Google recruiters to notice you?!

I get at least 2-3 messages from recruiters every day, and it's your usual nonsense. They have an exciting role in an unnamed company that pays a competitive salary, the usual stuff they spout when they don't actually represent the company they're hiring for. I can count on one hand the number of emails I've had from big companies. Amazon have emailed a few times about working for AWS in Ireland, and I've had an email from Microsoft that led to nothing.

I'd consider myself a decent developer. I have a CS degree (albeit from a crappy uni), I've done well everywhere I've worked, I've given talks at local user groups, and I've got open-source contributions under my belt. I'm primarily a .NET developer, but I've worked with Java, Python, and PHP before, so I'm not limited to a certain stack. When I left uni I applied to Google and never heard back, and over the past few years I've sent a CV in, only to be rejected after about a week by whichever hiring manager handled my application. I've even added a few Google recruiters on LinkedIn, and they never have anything for me.

For me, I'd say that the interview process is one of the reasons I'd like to interview with Google, because it's so different from everything else I've done. Sure, as I get older the idea of jumping through all these hoops to work for a huge company that seems to favour recent grads becomes less appealing, but the idea of being able to pass such a grueling interview and work on hard problems still wants me to dust off the CV and apply to Google again.

I fully appreciate the OP's point of view. Experienced developers have very different standards of working to newer developers. The more you work, the longer your requirements for employment becomes. However, I think the potential positives of working for a company with the resources like Google tends to outweigh the negatives.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're agreeing with each other. Recruiters are needed if the job does not fill itself naturally, and a job will tend to get the candidate flow it deserves. If there's an awesome job available out there, with way above average pay, benefits, great opportunities for advancement, good work/life balance, etc., you'll fill it with a top talent. You're not going to need a recruiter. Word will get around even to peo…

Google and Facebook both pay reasonably above-market and have high employee satisfaction, and receive more resumes in a month than they could possibly hire in the next 10 years. They also both have ginormous internal recruiting departments. They could definitely fill their need for new software engineers naturally, but presumably have data that the quality of candidates they get by bothering a substantial fraction of…

> They could definitely fill their need for new software engineers naturally

Why do you think so? Just because you receive X resumes doesn't mean they're all qualified to work there.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#635
post #261

There is no point in giving me binary-tree-traversing questions; I don't know those answers and will never be interested in learning them. Let's presume this is out of preference and not ability. It's a pretty basic concept. If your preference stops you from learning something as basic as this as a programmer, then it doesn't seem likely that you will be motivated to keep up with even more abstruse concepts. Nearly e…

Conjecture: the majority (by far, probably on the order of 75%-80% or more) of programming and engineering problems to be solved in a typical company or typical application will not see significant differences in performance by selecting a naive implementation. For example, in your string concatenation example, the naive solution is good enough except in situations where large numbers of strings are to be concatenate…

It's not about using this knowledge all the time.

It is about your base knowledge (which should include algorithms) and knowing those algorithms when its matters.

If you have the choice of two identical software engineers and one knows 1 algorithm more than the other, he/she wins.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#636

I've been thinking about it for a while to try to transition from a mechanical engineer to a software engineer but are all the interviews as miserable as HN makes it seem? I feel like these interview structure is a form of deterrent. I had a quick call with one of the recruiters from Apple for a hardware engineer position. He said the interview will take about a week and needs about a month to prepare... I didn't cal…

There is a big difference between computer science as taught and software development in practice. These hiring practices are there to weed out people just can't design applications or write code with any proficiency.

But can't that be said about every discipline of engineering? I could be wrong but these hiring practices are particularly prevalent in the software roles compared to the other major discipline of engineering. I'm more curious to what is different about software engineering/development roles that require these methods. The amount of applications or size of the company doesn't seem like a logical reason since I've seen equally sized (employee-wise) companies weed out and select specific roles pretty well (relatively).

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#639

Unlike most of HN (it seems), I like hearing from recruiters, because despite the very low signal-to-noise ratio, there's always that remote chance that one of them could be able to set me up with a "dream job". It's zero cost to me to politely reply to a recruiter and ask for more info, and I try to at least respond to everyone. What I've found is that they must have a lot of candidates they're juggling because fall…

I respond to most if not all of them.

The only ones I tend to ignore are the recruiters who are bringing positions that are far out of my geographic areas and are not remote.

Re: Why I Don’t Talk to Google Recruiters

#640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So 57,000 are worse devs then you ? This is what i hear from your statement, correct me if I am wrong .. He never said they are worse. >Many extremely talented people want to work for Google. "Most people do/think XYZ." Do I have to explain why that's not a good argument? >They will take the tests, even if they don't agree with the hiring system at all. Other people don't mind shitty treatment, so what?

> He never said they are worse This is why i asked for clarifications. the OP said 'Google is incapable of hiring the engineers I want to work with', which implies that the engineers he is looking to work with are NOT there. Google is incapable of hiring them, and since they are top quality devs, someone else (more capable) did. > Do I have to explain why that's not a good argument? Yes, please explain. Because you o…

>Yes, please explain. Because you only took the first sentence of my argument. the second sentence was that those "many people" are going to do what it takes, even if it means taking 'stupid' tests, smuggy interviers, and some other large corp bureaucracy (which to me personally is more concerning, but is not specific to Google, rather to any large corp). And why ? My guess is that it's probably so cool,curious, challenging to work on something like Google Maps/Balloons/Self driving cars that they will be willing to make a lot of sacrifices and tradeoffs. THAT was my argument.

"Many people want to go to Heaven, and they are going to what it takes, even if it means answering stupid questions, pretending to feel bad about trivial things, and some other large org bureaucracy."

My guess is that it's probably so cool, curious, satisfying to be in Heaven that they will be willing to make a lot of sacrifices and trade-offs.

"Many people voted for Trump", my guess is that it's probably cool, curious, challenging to finally tackle real issues that they will be willing to make a lot of sacrifices and trade-offs.

That's stupid, right? But why?

>My guess is that it's probably so cool,curious, challenging to work on something like Google Maps/Balloons/Self driving cars that they will be willing to make a lot of sacrifices and tradeoffs.

Those people might believe that it's cool, curious, whatever. But then you should end up with "many people think X about Y", not "Y has a property X (because many people think it does)".

>This is why i asked for clarifications. the OP said 'Google is incapable of hiring the engineers I want to work with', which implies that the engineers he is looking to work with are NOT there. Google is incapable of hiring them, and since they are top quality devs, someone else (more capable) did.

He doesn't want to work with them because they are unpleasant to work with (or be around in general), not because there is an issue with their programming capabilities.

Post reply on HN