Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#821

Post by weixiyen » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 6:47 AM UTC

rb2k_ wrote: post #438

ozgung wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying Google's recruiters don't tell what position they are interviewing for and that they found a 20+ years experienced engineering manager holding patents on computer networking under-qualified for an ordinary site maintenance position. Well, that sounds like a dumb recruitment process.

> they found a 20+ years experienced engineering manager holding patents on computer networking under-qualified for an ordinary site maintenance position. To be fair, I've interviewed people at previous companies that had patents and 15 years at IBM on their CV and completely failed even the most basic system / coding questions. (fizzbuzz style). There are a lot of people that read great on the CV but then it turns o…

Agree with everything you said... but I find it not applicable to this particular candidate given his answers.

It's possible that he got frustrated, became condescending towards the recruiter, and the recruiter decided to screen him out.

There are plenty of companies who turn down candidates that are false negatives for various reasons. Author should probably not take that personally and just apply again.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#822

Post by swaraj » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 6:49 AM UTC

Robin_Message wrote: post #55

I 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,…

Completely agree with you. Seems more like a personality mismatch, than a lack of technical skills.

Seems like both parties were at fault here:

- The interviewee for being a little brusque about his answers, and despite understanding the _intention_ of the question, giving potentially off-putting, difficult answers to check over a quick phone call.

- Google recruiter for seeming to ask questions she/he was a little out of her/his league to ask. If you don't understand the nuances in and around the questions you're asking, you are not qualified to evaluate someone's responses.

Wouldn't worry about any one particular interview, there are too many great opportunities in tech right now to let any one bad interview let you down!

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#823

Post by jpgvm » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 6:52 AM UTC

The standard Google phone interview.

I got almost the exact same questions. My interviewer seemed more capable though.

I also wasn't as technically correct as this gentleman so my slightly less correct answers were more "right".

As sad turn of events given that I would have loved to answer the same way as he did here, these are much better answers than mine. But this is just technically recruiting, it's a crapshoot at best. It's much better to just take jobs at places that don't insist on trivia competitions.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#824

Post by hclivess » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:01 AM UTC

this is horrible. just like any other C-rated company.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#825

Post by hclivess » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:02 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #152

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…

no, there are not. go marry microsoft, stupid

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#826

Post by chucky_z » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:06 AM UTC

mirekrusin wrote: post #393

lordnacho wrote: post #13

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…

He's one of the best programmers you can get (in the world) when it comes to networking and friends. Gwan is less known around because it's not OSS but I believe still achieves unmatched performance. This interview must be some kind of a mistake. It's like testing Richard Feynman's knowledge with questions about multiplication table (where you have wrong answers on your table). It's so stupid that it's almost not pos…

Gwan's performance is the real deal. It's also the least stable piece of software I have ever used in my entire life.

That last sentence is important.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#827

Post by BinaryIdiot » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:19 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #634

dekhn wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually, acquisitions normally trigger full interviews- see "Chaos Monkeys" for a description how this happened at Twitter/Facebook.

Is this an US thing? I went through three acquisitions and never had any interview, besides the set of meetings for each of us to decide to go along with the acquisition or get a severance package.

I think it all depends on the requirements of the company doing the acquisition. I've gone through several myself and did not have to re-interview however I have heard of a employees claiming Google required them to re-interview which has got to be nerve racking considering Google's heavy focus on avoiding false positives a lot of good people don't pass them.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#828

Post by esturk » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:22 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #789

crdoconnor wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the in house engineers come out with products like Wave and Glass while things like Maps and Android are purchased you have to wonder.

I think you're neglecting the continuous improvement of successful projects, which take quite a bit of engineering effort. Was it software quality that killed Wave and Glass, or was it more of the market not wanting either of those things? (To digress, it seems like both of those products came too early. Do you think that wearable computers will _never_ exist? And Slack seems to be the Wave-like thing that the market…

Slack is in no way like Wave. Now you're just over reaching with your comparisons. Wave's flaw was showing you what the other person was typing as they were typing it. You try to separate quality from functionality and stick that to market's fault because it doesn't want Wave's functionality. That is not mutually exclusive. Wave's quality was egregious.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#829

Post by joss82 » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:23 AM UTC

I took this exact same test for a SRE (site reliabilty engineer) position at google earlier this year.

I failed in the same way the author did but the recruiting person helped me so much that i could proceed to the next level.

Obviously she was aware that this test was broken and that candidates would occasionally pass it by sheer luck.

Other later interviews were equally broken in the same ways.

Re: Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

#830

Post by weixiyen » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 7:24 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #141

geofft wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Especially in a managerial position, you will occasionally need to build a rapport with people who are convinced they have good technical knowledge, but don't. Being able to talk to them productively instead of picking fights is a skill worth selecting for . If you can't figure out that the first person who's interviewing you has answers on a sheet of paper and you're supposed to parrot them until you get to…

Have an up-vote. This is the most plausible explanation. They're testing his social skills and how he deals with people who are less technical than he--not testing his technical knowledge. EDIT: To add to this, I've seen this tactic before on an interview. Interviewer asked me a pretty softball technical question, I nailed it, and then he said, "No, you're wrong, it's [OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT ANSWER]." He was clearly try…

Really doubt that based on those questions. Recruiters are human and fallible. They form opinions about people, sometimes incorrect, and act on those opinions all the time. This phone screen is the final step before they lose control of the candidate process to the technical team.

Recruiters do reject candidates and create false negative situations when it comes to positions that have a lot of candidates and very few openings. For Google, that would be every position, especially engineering.