3 ms·

Even so, it only pays to be conservative via an overly selective filter if that filter actually selects for what you want. If you zealously apply some filter, b

by p4wnc6 11y ago

Even so, it only pays to be conservative via an overly selective filter if that filter actually selects for what you want. If you zealously apply some filter, believing that you're being extra cautious, but the filter doesn't actually select for what you think, or the filter isn't actually as selective as you think, then it's just a form of selectivity theater. I've met plenty of ex-Googlers who were great at reciting CS trivia, but actually not very good at real life engineering. Granted, that may be why they were ex-Googlers, but it still doesn't speak well of Google's hiring process.

rhizome 11y ago
I don't doubt it. They've got a (evolving) process that has a lot of false negatives. The creativity vaunted by the earlier poster is more common in the rejects, and as a long-time Android (and Google) user I can draw a correlation. And none of this counters that Google's hiring process has been engineered to produce a conservative model of acceptible employee.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  I'm saying it produces false positives. False negatives are ok for a conservative hiring process, because you're paying for a super low false positive rate with a higher budget for false negatives. But the whiteboard hazing produces too high a rate of false positives -- candidates who can recite CS trivia, study in a way tailored and overfitted to the interviews, and then pass them and be hired even if they don't actually have the broader skills that the interview was designed to conservatively filter for. I speculate that new hires at Google aren't much better at anything than new hires anywhere else. They might become better later due to a compounding returns effect of already being at Google, but the hiring process didn't select them because they already were better. Instead, the hiring process is a status show, selectivity theater, to enhance the promotional reputation of a business-conquering nerds stereotype and to enhance Google's bargaining power by convincing people that they are only worthwhile to the extent they jump through interview hoops.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    It's not a false positive if they aren't testing for the thing that turns out to be positive. That people express creativity or whatever, despite making it through an employment filter based almost solely on technical concepts. It's just luck.
    - p4wnc6 11y ago
      If they are testing for quality X and the test says "yes" even though the person doesn't have quality X, then it's a false positive. I'm saying that they view the riddles, data structure hazing, etc., as tests for quality X (where X == careful engineer who won't inject N^2 complexity into something and make it take centuries). But really, the puzzles and so forth do not select for that X. You get people who are good at the trivia, but who still otherwise would inject poor complexity. Meanwhile, you reject people who might be careful and pragmatic, but are not talented at the trivia. From their perspective (since they believe it does test for X) it produces false positives.

by p4wnc6 11y ago

rhizome 11y ago

I don't doubt it. They've got a (evolving) process that has a lot of false negatives. The creativity vaunted by the earlier poster is more common in the rejects, and as a long-time Android (and Google) user I can draw a correlation. And none of this counters that Google's hiring process has been engineered to produce a conservative model of acceptible employee.

p4wnc6 11y ago
I'm saying it produces false positives. False negatives are ok for a conservative hiring process, because you're paying for a super low false positive rate with a higher budget for false negatives. But the whiteboard hazing produces too high a rate of false positives -- candidates who can recite CS trivia, study in a way tailored and overfitted to the interviews, and then pass them and be hired even if they don't actually have the broader skills that the interview was designed to conservatively filter for. I speculate that new hires at Google aren't much better at anything than new hires anywhere else. They might become better later due to a compounding returns effect of already being at Google, but the hiring process didn't select them because they already were better. Instead, the hiring process is a status show, selectivity theater, to enhance the promotional reputation of a business-conquering nerds stereotype and to enhance Google's bargaining power by convincing people that they are only worthwhile to the extent they jump through interview hoops.
- rhizome 11y ago
  It's not a false positive if they aren't testing for the thing that turns out to be positive. That people express creativity or whatever, despite making it through an employment filter based almost solely on technical concepts. It's just luck.
  - p4wnc6 11y ago
    If they are testing for quality X and the test says "yes" even though the person doesn't have quality X, then it's a false positive. I'm saying that they view the riddles, data structure hazing, etc., as tests for quality X (where X == careful engineer who won't inject N^2 complexity into something and make it take centuries). But really, the puzzles and so forth do not select for that X. You get people who are good at the trivia, but who still otherwise would inject poor complexity. Meanwhile, you reject people who might be careful and pragmatic, but are not talented at the trivia. From their perspective (since they believe it does test for X) it produces false positives.