3 ms·

Why do they do this? The answer you haven't considered is, "because it works." I assume you haven't considered it because doing so would mean wrestling with the

Why do they do this? The answer you haven't considered is, "because it works." I assume you haven't considered it because doing so would mean wrestling with the fact that your intuition isn't always right. Google has turned interviewing into a science. They have interviewed millions of engineers, hired hundreds of thousands, rejected and later hired who knows how many, etc. Many incoming interviewees have also interviewed across silicon valley. And all along the way they've been collecting data and refining their process. Do you have anything except your intuition to show us that the Google style interview doesn't work? One thing you may fail to consider is that there doesn't need to be a direct and plain link between the interview questions and the work the engineer will end up doing. All that matters is whether the interview process produces a clean and strong signal that leads to quality hires. As a person who's been through a Google interview, I can imagine many of my former co-workers performing poorly. Those are exactly the kinds of engineers I don't want to work with. I have spent too much of my time explaining basic concepts to engineers who should already be comfortable with those concepts, or who lack the critical thinking skills to be part of the conversation. So there's my anecdote. Before telling a company how they should conduct interviews, perhaps you should gather some data.

pjlegato 10y ago
I never told any company how they should conduct their interviews. Google is of course free to spend their money however they see fit. This was not written for the benefit of Google, but for the benefit of the many others who are considering whether something is a best practice simply because Google does it. As for why they do this, your conclusion is kind of exactly what I got to in the last paragraph, "for lack of a better option." It's not that it works in some optimal sense; it just works less badly than the other options available, according to their business constraints. I base my claim on my many years of personal experience as a software engineer, both being interviewed and interviewing others, discussing engineering and CS with numerous people. My anecdote: I once worked with a guy with quite reasonable academic CS skills who decided to re-implement SSL from scratch for a bog-standard webapp, rather than use a library to do HTTPS. That was not a good use of the company's limited budget, which he would have known if he had had any engineering skills (as opposed to CS skills.) In my experience, there is little (though not zero) correlation between "good at CS" and "good at writing software commercially." The Google interview process is probably better than nothing, and probably better than their previous "brainteaser" style interview, but far from optimal. As for what I'd select for? I'd certainly reject candidates who manifest anything like the condescending and arrogant attitude you display towards people you consider to be your intellectual inferiors. Even if you're an amazing engineer who can recite the CS in your sleep, that attitude is toxic for any team environment and will be a net loss to the company.
morgante 10y ago
> The answer you haven't considered is, "because it works." Just because something "works" does not mean it's optimal or even very good. Google's interview strategy could also be to pick random resumes out of the pile, hire 10 people for every position, and fire the 9 who didn't work out. It would still "work" because enough people want to work at Google that they have a huge hiring pipeline and plenty of money for excess employees. Worshipping Google as having a great interviews is not helpful to anyone. They can easily be doing it incorrectly. In fact, the very data which you're talking about showed that many of their older techniques were in fact terrible indicators (brain teasers, GPA, etc.).
exstudent2 10y ago
While it's undeniable that Google has an excellent engineering team, it's also undeniable that their products often/usually leave a lot to be desired from the end-user perspective. There's definitely a missing piece of the puzzle there when it comes to UX and human-centric design. Who's to say that their focus on low-level engineering at all costs hasn't left something on the table? I can't say for sure that their interviewing process is broken but as a user of many Google products (many of which get randomly discontinued) I will say there's something lacking.
- solipsism 10y ago
  This is a red herring. Name a company that doesn't leave something to be desired. No company is perfect. The idea that Google's imperfections have something to do with their hiring practices is not prima facie ridiculous, but you've offered exactly zero support for it. You're just lobbing out complete conjecture. How does that advance the conversation at all?
  - exstudent2 10y ago
    Why are you being so defensive? I'll go further and say that Google's products are _uniquely_ bad as far as UX go. There's definitely missing product thinking in that organization.
    - solipsism 10y ago
      It seems you didn't understand my last comment. You're making logical leaps here without connecting any dots. Google's hiring is broken does not follow from Google's UI sucks. You need to put some connecting logic in there if you want to convince anyone that you're even on topic right now.
      - exstudent2 10y ago
        > Google's hiring is broken does not follow from Google's UI sucks. Who do you think is building the UI and products? People that made it through the hiring process.

pjlegato 10y ago

I never told any company how they should conduct their interviews. Google is of course free to spend their money however they see fit. This was not written for the benefit of Google, but for the benefit of the many others who are considering whether something is a best practice simply because Google does it. As for why they do this, your conclusion is kind of exactly what I got to in the last paragraph, "for lack of a better option." It's not that it works in some optimal sense; it just works less badly than the other options available, according to their business constraints. I base my claim on my many years of personal experience as a software engineer, both being interviewed and interviewing others, discussing engineering and CS with numerous people. My anecdote: I once worked with a guy with quite reasonable academic CS skills who decided to re-implement SSL from scratch for a bog-standard webapp, rather than use a library to do HTTPS. That was not a good use of the company's limited budget, which he would have known if he had had any engineering skills (as opposed to CS skills.) In my experience, there is little (though not zero) correlation between "good at CS" and "good at writing software commercially." The Google interview process is probably better than nothing, and probably better than their previous "brainteaser" style interview, but far from optimal. As for what I'd select for? I'd certainly reject candidates who manifest anything like the condescending and arrogant attitude you display towards people you consider to be your intellectual inferiors. Even if you're an amazing engineer who can recite the CS in your sleep, that attitude is toxic for any team environment and will be a net loss to the company.

morgante 10y ago

> The answer you haven't considered is, "because it works." Just because something "works" does not mean it's optimal or even very good. Google's interview strategy could also be to pick random resumes out of the pile, hire 10 people for every position, and fire the 9 who didn't work out. It would still "work" because enough people want to work at Google that they have a huge hiring pipeline and plenty of money for excess employees. Worshipping Google as having a great interviews is not helpful to anyone. They can easily be doing it incorrectly. In fact, the very data which you're talking about showed that many of their older techniques were in fact terrible indicators (brain teasers, GPA, etc.).

exstudent2 10y ago

While it's undeniable that Google has an excellent engineering team, it's also undeniable that their products often/usually leave a lot to be desired from the end-user perspective. There's definitely a missing piece of the puzzle there when it comes to UX and human-centric design. Who's to say that their focus on low-level engineering at all costs hasn't left something on the table? I can't say for sure that their interviewing process is broken but as a user of many Google products (many of which get randomly discontinued) I will say there's something lacking.

solipsism 10y ago
This is a red herring. Name a company that doesn't leave something to be desired. No company is perfect. The idea that Google's imperfections have something to do with their hiring practices is not prima facie ridiculous, but you've offered exactly zero support for it. You're just lobbing out complete conjecture. How does that advance the conversation at all?
- exstudent2 10y ago
  Why are you being so defensive? I'll go further and say that Google's products are _uniquely_ bad as far as UX go. There's definitely missing product thinking in that organization.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    It seems you didn't understand my last comment. You're making logical leaps here without connecting any dots. Google's hiring is broken does not follow from Google's UI sucks. You need to put some connecting logic in there if you want to convince anyone that you're even on topic right now.
    - exstudent2 10y ago
      > Google's hiring is broken does not follow from Google's UI sucks. Who do you think is building the UI and products? People that made it through the hiring process.