Live data from Hacker News

Jobs at Google (1999)

web.archive.org

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#91
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rarely, but yes. Overall Google was notorious for demanding degrees from top universities.

How true is this today?

Only true for recent grads (2-3 years after college). Google itself (and ex-googlers) say degree doesn't matter for job applicants with some work experience.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#92
post #2

Back when Google was really cool! Who got hired into some of these positions?

I'm guessing they either left or are millionaires many times over by now and don't surf HN

Why wouldn't a millionaire read tech news and discussion, especially if they were previously interested in it?

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#93
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's informative. Thanks! I had read an article where they elaborated how getting into Google is a lot more difficult than getting into Harvard.

Its not. There rejection rate is higher, though. Still, a person who gets into Harvard is more likely to also get into Google than vice versa. Google gets more applications per open position, so they also have to reject more. Lots of people think "Why not give it a shot and apply at Google." Very few think the same about Harvard. Also, I would say it takes more effort to apply to a university. They will require essay…

I thought early Google famously cared about the SAT/GRE scores of applicants regardless of age?[0]

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/job-hunting-dig-up-those-old-sa...

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#94
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nearly every usage of "fella" I've heard has implied that it referred to a male. Neat, and I've heard it implied multiple times to refer to generic groups of people, in US English as well too just like you. The thing though we need to consider is definitions, facts, sentence context, and even the auhtor's intent much more heavily then both of our personal experiences. It can easily be argued based on context that t…

> Personal anecdotes do not make facts. That's precisely why I provided links to two dictionaries. Not the definition google spoon feeds you when you type in "define fella"

I provided facts as well, so let's use your own sources shall we?

  A person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another. [1]

You conveniently ignored that when you attempted to mispaint actual facts in your comment. Here I'll even add another source:

  ​used of people or a person with whom you share something, esp. the same kind of job, interest, or experience [2]
[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fellow

[2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fello...

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#95
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personal anecdotes do not make facts. That's precisely why I provided links to two dictionaries. Not the definition google spoon feeds you when you type in "define fella"

I provided facts as well, so let's use your own sources shall we? A person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another. [1] You conveniently ignored that when you attempted to mispaint actual facts in your comment. Here I'll even add another source: ​used of people or a person with whom you share something, esp. the same kind of job, interest, or experience [2] [1] https:…

You linked to "fellow", not "fella".

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fella

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#96
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I provided facts as well, so let's use your own sources shall we? A person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another. [1] You conveniently ignored that when you attempted to mispaint actual facts in your comment. Here I'll even add another source: ​used of people or a person with whom you share something, esp. the same kind of job, interest, or experience [2] [1] https:…

You linked to "fellow", not "fella". https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fella

Did you read my original comment at all? I'm sorry, I'm not engaging you on this any further.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#98

For Software Engineer, the first requirement - >> Several years of industry or hobby-based experience Key takeaway is “hobby-based”

> Key takeaway is “hobby-based”

That's actually not a bad thing in my book. When I was at the beginning of my career, the fact that most companies completely disregard any non-work-related experience was extremely frustrating to me. I'd been tinkering with computers my whole life, working on stuff far above and beyond your average "just learned it in class" folks, and it was all irrelevant unless qualified by work experience.

Of course today its commonplace to show off your "hobby-based experience" to employers via a Github page and F/OSS contributions, but back then it wasn't.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#99
post #2

Back when Google was really cool! Who got hired into some of these positions?

I remember reading stories from the era following this (maybe the late 2000's) where getting hired by Google was incredibly difficult. As in "You're already a superstar, waste 6 months of your time going through a complicated and disorganized process, and still get rejected" difficult. Made me wonder how they actually managed to hire anyone, let alone thousands of employees.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#100

"The only Chef job with stock options!" wow who was that chef?

That would be Charlie Ayers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Ayers

He was super nice too. Would be serving food with a smile, greeting everyone. That was after he was a millionaire too.
Post reply on HN