Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

gwan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 969 posts

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

#91

Post by chillingeffect »

powera wrote: post #40

As a person who's taken this exact same test: 1) it's a pre-screen from an in-house recruiter. If you have 37 years of experience with computers and 24 years professional experience and any references/reputation, they should have skipped you straight to an phone interview with an engineer. 2) Were you recording the interview? Because if it's an accurate transcript the recruiter should be fired. I assume question 7 wa…

> they should have skipped you straight to an phone interview with an engineer.

When a family member of mine used to be an admissions officer at a small tech school, "unsuitable" (mentally ill, ppl who seemed like they would never get in, be able to pay or complain and tarnish the reputation of the school) used to come in often. They were given a screening test which was waived for all "normies."

This is how power works. It is not fair. With communication media like the internet, we're starting to perceive it. The real challenge will be re-architecting our society to be more fair and clean up from the aftermath of our unfairness.

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

#92

Post by mgkimsal »

TheCapn wrote: post #41
buttershakes wrote: post #7

I had almost exactly this same engineering test when google interviewed me in 2006. It was terrible, and left a bad taste in my mouth. Given the complexity of the work I was doing at the time, the entire thing seemed ridiculous.

The inode question gave me flashbacks to my interview with Amazon. They wanted me to explain what a hash function is. I kept giving answers for about 3 minutes explaining hashing, common algorithms, reasons to use it and places it applies. Recruiter: "I was looking for you to say it's a fingerprint " So I guess I was wrong, because despite explaining them in decent detail, I didn't use the one keyword.

recruiters need to have a few levels of keywords they scan for.

level 1: foo, bar, baz level 2: frobnitz, barfoo level 3: 42, etc

In someone is using words from level 2 that work together in the ways laid out, they're probably beyond level 1, and wouldn't use the word 'fingerprint' (in this case) - they're giving more detail (and probably better) than what was being listened for.

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

#93

Post by Tempest1981 »

mherdeg wrote: post #17

Ha ha re: > 10. what is the type of the packets exchanged to establish a TCP connection? > Me: in hexadecimal: 0x02, 0x12, 0x10 – literally "synchronize" and "acknowledge". > Recruiter: wrong, it's SYN, SYN-ACK and ACK; if Google is down you will need to know this to diagnose what the problem is. We will stop here because it's obvious that you don't have the necessary skills to write or review network applications. Y…

Surprising they wouldn't have given the recruiter a list of alternate acceptable answers.

Almost feels like the recruiter was conspiring against you, but why?

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

#95

Post by burkaman »

adekok wrote: post #61
burkaman wrote: post #18

Is this common for higher level positions at Google? I've gotten a similar kind of phone screen, but for an entry level software engineer position, and getting a few "wrong" was not a big deal. It's just so they can avoid setting up a real interview with someone who doesn't know the basics. If the call actually went like this, it seems like you just hit a new/not very good recruiter.

> It's just so they can avoid setting up a real interview with someone who doesn't know the basics. They're (allegedly) interviewing for a Director of Engineering. If google can't even google the guy and look at his track record, code, whatever, they don't deserve to have competent people working for them.

I know, that's why I would be surprised if this is standard practice for high level positions. But even if it is, this is unusually bad execution. My recruiter had at least surface level knowledge of the concepts and was able to ask follow-up questions if I got something half right, he wasn't just looking for verbatim responses.

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

#96

Post by gjem97 »

To be charitable here: is it possible that this person did not work for Google? Historically, I've known third-party recruiters play fast and loose with their affiliation with the company they're recruiting for. This literally could have been any recruiter in the Valley trying to feed candidates to Google.

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

#98

Post by walshemj »

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…

Anyone who's done any networking will know how long a mac addresses is

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

#99

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

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…

I've had questions that drilled down into what bytes are in a TCP/IP packet on an interview. If you say you know about TCP/IP on a resume, it's fair game. FWIW I got all the bytes but the checksum; apparently no one ever remembers the checksum byte. :)

What's completely wrong with the situation is that the recruiter was saying "wrong" when he was giving detailed answers. The right solution is to have a non-skilled recruiter take careful notes, asking the candidate to repeat if necessary, in the cases where the candidate insists they know the answer.

Then only in cases where the candidate can't answer a question should it be marked as "wrong." In other cases the answers should be run past someone knowledgeable.

I've gone through a phone interview with Google myself, and it was nothing like this: I spoke with a real, skilled engineer, and there was nothing like a "gotcha" question where I had to guess the exact term he meant. Well, except where he asked "I bet you know what my next question is" and I didn't guess "How can the algorithm be faster?" But he didn't count that against me. :)

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

#100

Post by ryandrake »

Knowing the right answer, or when "it depends", is not the expectation. You need to get inside the mind of the interviewer and figure out what he/she thinks is the right answer is, or guess what's probably written on the answer sheet. Think: "What answer would a know-it-all 23-year-old Stanford graduate give?" That, and not necessarily the right answer, is what will get you the job offer.

This is also called "cultural fit".

Post reply on HN