the tweet is made to trigger that discussion. but you can rephrase the tweet to something like: even though I made a popular tool, I didn't get a job at Google because I'm not good at other things they need.
Google probably has a lot of factors counted into the final decision, including algorithm skills, other software engineering skills, human skills, contributions to open source projects. It's never 1 reason why you get rejected, it's the total score.
Why do you think white boarding over the course of an several hours would be a better predictor of these traits than years of making very meaningful contributions to software?
It seems to me like creating and managing a repository of more than 4800 contributors is a much better signal of a candidates software engineering, communication, and human skills than a couple of people's opinion of a couple of hours of white boarding.
It's not that you're not _good_ at it, but you're not able to demonstrate under time constraints, lack of references, lack of iterative code/compiler/REPL feedback, and while being stared down by someone whose default mindset is "why am I wasting my time on this person?"
It's never 1 reason why you get rejected, it's the total score.
That depends on how far down the interview process you are. Often they'll cut you off at a phone interview if you stumble. Sometimes they'll cut in-person interviews short if they think you're not worth it. So, they don't always get a "total score" to judge against. It's often just summary judgement off subjective feelings.
It's also aggravating when a Google recruiter "reaches out" to you and but won't (or can't) reveal any details at all about what role they're trying to fill.
demonstrate under time constraints, lack of references, lack of iterative code/compiler/REPL feedback
well that is the interview. for you being good means to know how to invert a binary tree if you have access to a compiler and internet, but for Google it means to know it off the top of your head. they could let you have access to compiler and then make the questions much more difficult. which one is better?
I don't know. first one takes less time at least.
Often they'll cut you off at a phone interview if you stumble
I'd guess that's because they have so many condidates to pick from.
I'd guess that's because they have so many condidates to pick from.
Exactly. It's the Big City Dating Problem. There are so many people to pick from, nobody wants to compromise to build a relationship. Just leave at the slightest sign of something not being 100% what you want and on to the next one since there are 20,000 other acceptable people within walking distance.
if you have access to a compiler and internet
It's not exactly that, but you often don't realize how many micro-checks or micro-confirmations you do while programming. In the absence of any "is this okay so far?" feedback, you're left second guessing yourself and reading your solution redundantly to check for any errors your daily automation would catch immediately by default.
Disagree, this is not some PR campaign of a corporate drone, a real person felt frustrated with the process of hiring in Google. Is it to instigate debate on HN, I doubt it. He is just venting out, that his body of work which is public is effectively ignored in favor of a pedantic exercise.
I am speaking from personal experience here, they don't count a lot of factors while rejecting a candidate, you make one mistake on their particular set of questions, you are out. They don't even look at your resumes until all your 4 interviews are completed. However, selecting a candidate is a different matter, in that decision they might consider everything.
Does your personal experience include actually being involved in the hiring process at Google?
Because in my personal experience - as both an interviewer and a hiring committee member - what you said is completely wrong.
> they don't count a lot of factors while rejecting a candidate, you make one
> mistake on their particular set of questions, you are out.
Completely false. I have personally seen many people get hired despite doing poorly in an interview or making mistakes.
The hiring committee looks at all of the available information - resume, recommendations, and interview feedback when making a decision. There is no "one-thing" that will make or break a candidate.
> They don't even look at your resumes until all your 4 interviews are completed
I have no idea where you are getting this from. All interviewers receive the candidate's resume prior to the interview. I always review the resume's to get a sense of what the candidate has done so I can ask appropriate questions.
Yes, I was interviewed at Google last year. This was basically what happened. Sure, they have your resume, I am not sure if they read it throughly, the interviewer didn't even know my major until I told him at the end of the interview. While, they don't stop inteview and say you made mistake, it's competitive and it's not possible to hire you. But, you know at that moment that you are not getting hired. I guess, they need plenty of reasons to hire a candidate, but just one reason to reject. I am not complaining, it seems to work for Google very well.
