8 ms·

As always, remember that even technical interviews like this one have an incredible amount of random chance built into the hiring process. This is especially tr

by ender7 9y ago

As always, remember that even technical interviews like this one have an incredible amount of random chance built into the hiring process. This is especially true at a big company like Google (where I work and do interviews). Do they happen to have positions open right now? Did you happen to get asked questions that clicked with you? Was the hiring committee feeling grouchy that day? Did you get an especially harsh interviewer for one of your questions? Did they just hire someone with your skillset and so don't need a duplicate right now? There's a decent amount that you can do to prepare for one of these things, but there's also an incredible amount you don't have control over. If you don't get the job, it's not a signal regarding your quality as an engineer and you shouldn't interpret it as such (however tempting it may be to do so). Remember, there are many great places to work right now, and your skillset is in demand. If we didn't get lucky enough to hire you, someone else will quite soon.

gil_vegliach 9y ago
I agree with the noise of the process. Actually, the whole experience was a good one for me, maybe I didn't express it in the post? Anyway, I got a job in Amazon UK at the end, so not too bad.
- trimbo 9y ago
  "not too bad"? Understatement of the year! ;) Congratulations on the job.
  - gil_vegliach 9y ago
    Thanks :)
- marklyon 9y ago
  I was unsuccessful in my interviews with Google several years ago, but left the process more impressed with the company and its employees than when I started. As a candidate, they were incredibly respectful to me, even when it became clear I wasn't the right fit for the roles they needed to fill. I truly enjoyed them bringing me out for the weekend before my interview so that I wasn't rushed and to give me an opportunity to see the area. I also enjoyed the interview process itself (well, right up until the point one of my interviewers introduced me to some math I had no chance of solving). One of my interviewers even stayed in touch with me after the process, checking in occasionally and helping me make some new contacts. Today, when I interview people, I keep my Google experience in mind and try to provide candidates a similar impression of my firm.
petters 9y ago
I agree. After I have interviewed and seen Google pass on a candidate, I sometimes feel I was lucky in my interviews.
denzil_correa 9y ago
One of the most frustrating things I've seen is that interviewers/recruiters themselves couldn't stand up to the same rigor of questions which they expect from applicants. In one such company, I asked a question on "algorithmic fairness, accountability and transparency" about core algorithms they used for their business. First, it came across as a bit of a rude shock to them - they hadn't heard about it. Second, they parroted a line which was along the lines of "our legal team looks into it and makes sure it is legal". Third, when pushed about the fact that my question was not on legality - they refused to accept that they may have overlooked this part or were not aware of it. Rather than engage in a discussion, when the boot was on the other foot - they wanted to weasel their way out of it.
- cableshaft 9y ago
  I've worked for a company that's given pretty much the same two hour on-site test for years, and several times the people in charge of the hiring decisions have forgotten how to do parts of it (it's an open office, I've heard them admit it to the candidates). It amazes me how they rejected so many people on this test over the years (seems to be over 90% rejections), when they can't keep it straight themselves. Granted they were always busy on other things, but still. Even I barely passed the test. That being said, they left you alone for two hours while you work on it, sitting in the same environment where other devs are working, which I found much better than some other interviews, the worst of which was coding a full project on a laptop for a platform I haven't worked on professionally in over a year and was a bit rusty on, while one person stared at me from across a desk and a second person stood behind me and looked down at the screen over my shoulder.
noonespecial 9y ago
>There's a decent amount that you can do to prepare for one of these things, but there's also an incredible amount you don't have control over. This is super important. Don't take it personally at all. They're using the randomness as a flow control. They are always attracting more talent than they actually need purposely to keep the reservoir full and just running the extra through the spill gates. Just taking a ride over the chute is proof positive that you've got marketable talent.
- chronic910 9y ago
  > If you don't get the job, it's not a signal regarding your quality as an engineer and you shouldn't interpret it as such (however tempting it may be to do so). Of course "not getting a job" is a "signal regarding your quality as an engineer". We need to keep this toxic mindset out of tech and silicon valley. The idea that everyone is smart, special, and deserves a job at Google, is completely false. There are people here on HN that will never get a "top" software/machine learning/design job simply because they are bad at it. Telling them "it's not you, it's the company" will only doom their future even further as they will lose motivation to improve themselves because: "Hey, HN said I'm smart and a talented engineer." To drive the point home to viewers reading this, some of you may have applied to Google via their website. You did not get a reply. After reading this original post and the GP, please do tell me how smart you are and why your 10x programmer skills didn't catch the eye of Google recruiters (or Facebook, Apple, or any hot startup).
  - tertius 9y ago
    I believe what he was trying to say is that there is a large factor of chance involved with interviews. Therefore it should not be a signal. Not getting a job because of an interview does not mean that you are not a qualified engineer. It may mean that though. But it's not as if it's a 100m sprint where you can very easily measure results between Olympian and couch potato. > https://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/dp/0307275175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357505167&sr=8-1&keywords=the+drunkards+walk https://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/d...
tyingq 9y ago
I wonder if google had to reinterview their existing employees, in a blind study... How many rounds of interviews before they eliminated most of their staff?
- gil_vegliach 9y ago
  Once upon a time, a hiring committee was presented some feedbacks and had to come to a yes/no decision for some candidates. All them were rejected. It turned out that the feedbacks were of the hiring committee's members, from when they got hired.
  - jdale27 9y ago
    Source?
    - benjaminjackman 9y ago
      It was in this video but don't remember exactly when. https://youtu.be/r8RxkpUvxK0 https://youtu.be/r8RxkpUvxK0
      - pyre 9y ago
        Direct Link: https://youtu.be/r8RxkpUvxK0?t=530 https://youtu.be/r8RxkpUvxK0?t=530
        stuxnet79 9y ago
        Yup, this is the video!! Not an urban legend.
  - tsiki 9y ago
    I've heard this before, is there a source for this? It has all the hallmarks of an urban legend...
    - deleted 9y ago
cmahler7 9y ago
You think a company like Google would be able to implement a non-subjective and fair interview. Their current process must cost them a lot of talent
- brianwawok 9y ago
  I doubt they are lacking good resumes. They can afford to miss good people
- rco8786 9y ago
  > Their current process must cost them a lot of talent reply They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. That last bit is why I think it's quite silly for smaller/unknown startups to be copying Google's interview process, as seems to be the trend.
  - hdhzy 9y ago
    Maybe it's part of the process. It's easier and cheaper to maintain good image to get people interested in working for Google (improving workforce supply) than to optimize the interviewing part. It's the same with manufacturing. It's better to provide 96% reliability with warranty than to struggle with providing 99.9% reliability.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - kamaal 9y ago
    >>They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. Getting too many false negatives is a very sure way of getting a lot of false positives. >>They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. You might be wrong there. Apart from huge money opportunities, there are little incentives for any body to waste their best years in large company political middle levels.
    - 9y ago
hiram112 9y ago
The randomness factor is a huge problem for Google and similar SV companies. I'd be happy to take a chance on a Google interview. What I'm not going to do is take 3 or 4 days of my very limited vacation time to jump through Google's hoops, along with spending weeks of time reviewing obscure algorithms I haven't touched since college, and will probably never use again. Honestly, I think if the H1B and other loopholes these companies use were tightened up, the interview process for engineers would quickly approach the respectful negotiations common with other professional industries (law, medicine, finance, etc).
shshhdhs 9y ago
"If we didn't get lucky enough to hire you, someone else will quite soon." The OP did get hired -- he mentioned that in his first paragraph.
- codnee 9y ago
  "The OP did get hired -- he mentioned that in his first paragraph." The OP was hired by Amazon, "we" refers to Google in this case.
  - shshhdhs 9y ago
    I was referring to the"someone else" not the "we".
leothekim 9y ago
> There's a decent amount that you can do to prepare for one of these things, but there's also an incredible amount you don't have control over. This is where I call bullshit. This person prepared for six months. You can't tell someone to not take something personally if he or she took six months of their life to study up, only to hit a dead end because your company didn't find it within themselves to take control of the things they could have.
- sigi45 9y ago
  I did the same and failed. I failed in a very specific way which annoyed me a little bit and which left me thinking how superficial this process is. But 1. i extended my knowledge 2. i came closer to working for google than ever 3. if you really wanna work for google / <company> you will try again and even optimize those superficial 'issues'
- geebee 9y ago
  I interviewed at Google with a no-hire. I asked for 3 weeks to brush up on algorithms and data structures. I should have asked for 3-6 months. This is where it falls apart for me, though. Based on my experience, you really do need to be extremely sharp on data structures and algorithms, and you need to be able to do it at the whiteboard. I have my own opinion on this, like everyone. Personally, I'm completely ok with requiring a data structures and algorithms "entrance exam" for many software development positions. I see it as similar to the vector calculus and linear algebra exam required of actuaries. My problem is with the implementation. Actuaries take a well vetted exam, with a clear study path, and when they pass it, they get a lasting credential respected in their industry. In short, taking and passing this exam means they don't have to submit to potentially random and capricious (and unpredictable) exam based interviews (really, after 6 hours at the whiteboard doing programming problems why do we call this an interview? It's an exam, pure and simple). Here's the thing - I'd do this for a lasting credential. I'd accept that this is a test I have to take, and properly study for. I'd take my 6 months, and I'd put in the time. What I'm not willing to do is take this test over and over and over, every time I interview at a new company. I just don't walk around with this stuff loaded into short term memory. I don't walk around ready to take my undergraduate data structures and algorithms test. And I think I've taken it for the last time. Same for vector calc and linear algebra. I did well in these classes in college, and if I were interested in being an actuary, I'd study up and get back to that level I was at just before I took my exams in college. But no, I'm not interested in allowing a random person at a company to put me through the exams again. This is why I'm pretty much done with technical interviewing and tests. I'll find some other way to participate in this field, or leave it altogether if that turns out not to be possible. I do wish tech leaders, who so constantly bray about a shortage in our field, would recognize the extent to which their behavior and practices drive talented people out of programming and into other fields. They didn't stumble upon this shortage, they created it. And every crutch we give them just allows them to continue with business as usual.

by ender7 9y ago

gil_vegliach 9y ago

I agree with the noise of the process. Actually, the whole experience was a good one for me, maybe I didn't express it in the post? Anyway, I got a job in Amazon UK at the end, so not too bad.

trimbo 9y ago
"not too bad"? Understatement of the year! ;) Congratulations on the job.
- gil_vegliach 9y ago
  Thanks :)
marklyon 9y ago
I was unsuccessful in my interviews with Google several years ago, but left the process more impressed with the company and its employees than when I started. As a candidate, they were incredibly respectful to me, even when it became clear I wasn't the right fit for the roles they needed to fill. I truly enjoyed them bringing me out for the weekend before my interview so that I wasn't rushed and to give me an opportunity to see the area. I also enjoyed the interview process itself (well, right up until the point one of my interviewers introduced me to some math I had no chance of solving). One of my interviewers even stayed in touch with me after the process, checking in occasionally and helping me make some new contacts. Today, when I interview people, I keep my Google experience in mind and try to provide candidates a similar impression of my firm.

petters 9y ago

I agree. After I have interviewed and seen Google pass on a candidate, I sometimes feel I was lucky in my interviews.

denzil_correa 9y ago

One of the most frustrating things I've seen is that interviewers/recruiters themselves couldn't stand up to the same rigor of questions which they expect from applicants. In one such company, I asked a question on "algorithmic fairness, accountability and transparency" about core algorithms they used for their business. First, it came across as a bit of a rude shock to them - they hadn't heard about it. Second, they parroted a line which was along the lines of "our legal team looks into it and makes sure it is legal". Third, when pushed about the fact that my question was not on legality - they refused to accept that they may have overlooked this part or were not aware of it. Rather than engage in a discussion, when the boot was on the other foot - they wanted to weasel their way out of it.

cableshaft 9y ago
I've worked for a company that's given pretty much the same two hour on-site test for years, and several times the people in charge of the hiring decisions have forgotten how to do parts of it (it's an open office, I've heard them admit it to the candidates). It amazes me how they rejected so many people on this test over the years (seems to be over 90% rejections), when they can't keep it straight themselves. Granted they were always busy on other things, but still. Even I barely passed the test. That being said, they left you alone for two hours while you work on it, sitting in the same environment where other devs are working, which I found much better than some other interviews, the worst of which was coding a full project on a laptop for a platform I haven't worked on professionally in over a year and was a bit rusty on, while one person stared at me from across a desk and a second person stood behind me and looked down at the screen over my shoulder.

noonespecial 9y ago

>There's a decent amount that you can do to prepare for one of these things, but there's also an incredible amount you don't have control over. This is super important. Don't take it personally at all. They're using the randomness as a flow control. They are always attracting more talent than they actually need purposely to keep the reservoir full and just running the extra through the spill gates. Just taking a ride over the chute is proof positive that you've got marketable talent.

chronic910 9y ago
> If you don't get the job, it's not a signal regarding your quality as an engineer and you shouldn't interpret it as such (however tempting it may be to do so). Of course "not getting a job" is a "signal regarding your quality as an engineer". We need to keep this toxic mindset out of tech and silicon valley. The idea that everyone is smart, special, and deserves a job at Google, is completely false. There are people here on HN that will never get a "top" software/machine learning/design job simply because they are bad at it. Telling them "it's not you, it's the company" will only doom their future even further as they will lose motivation to improve themselves because: "Hey, HN said I'm smart and a talented engineer." To drive the point home to viewers reading this, some of you may have applied to Google via their website. You did not get a reply. After reading this original post and the GP, please do tell me how smart you are and why your 10x programmer skills didn't catch the eye of Google recruiters (or Facebook, Apple, or any hot startup).
- tertius 9y ago
  I believe what he was trying to say is that there is a large factor of chance involved with interviews. Therefore it should not be a signal. Not getting a job because of an interview does not mean that you are not a qualified engineer. It may mean that though. But it's not as if it's a 100m sprint where you can very easily measure results between Olympian and couch potato. > https://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/dp/0307275175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357505167&sr=8-1&keywords=the+drunkards+walk https://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/d...

tyingq 9y ago

I wonder if google had to reinterview their existing employees, in a blind study... How many rounds of interviews before they eliminated most of their staff?

gil_vegliach 9y ago
Once upon a time, a hiring committee was presented some feedbacks and had to come to a yes/no decision for some candidates. All them were rejected. It turned out that the feedbacks were of the hiring committee's members, from when they got hired.
- jdale27 9y ago
  Source?
  - benjaminjackman 9y ago
    It was in this video but don't remember exactly when. https://youtu.be/r8RxkpUvxK0 https://youtu.be/r8RxkpUvxK0
    - pyre 9y ago
      Direct Link: https://youtu.be/r8RxkpUvxK0?t=530 https://youtu.be/r8RxkpUvxK0?t=530
      - stuxnet79 9y ago
        Yup, this is the video!! Not an urban legend.
- tsiki 9y ago
  I've heard this before, is there a source for this? It has all the hallmarks of an urban legend...
  - deleted 9y ago

cmahler7 9y ago

You think a company like Google would be able to implement a non-subjective and fair interview. Their current process must cost them a lot of talent

brianwawok 9y ago
I doubt they are lacking good resumes. They can afford to miss good people
rco8786 9y ago
> Their current process must cost them a lot of talent reply They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. That last bit is why I think it's quite silly for smaller/unknown startups to be copying Google's interview process, as seems to be the trend.
- hdhzy 9y ago
  Maybe it's part of the process. It's easier and cheaper to maintain good image to get people interested in working for Google (improving workforce supply) than to optimize the interviewing part. It's the same with manufacturing. It's better to provide 96% reliability with warranty than to struggle with providing 99.9% reliability.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kamaal 9y ago
  >>They optimize to reduce false positives. They're completely fine with false negatives. Getting too many false negatives is a very sure way of getting a lot of false positives. >>They don't have any shortage of talented engineers willing to interview there. You might be wrong there. Apart from huge money opportunities, there are little incentives for any body to waste their best years in large company political middle levels.
  - 9y ago

hiram112 9y ago

The randomness factor is a huge problem for Google and similar SV companies. I'd be happy to take a chance on a Google interview. What I'm not going to do is take 3 or 4 days of my very limited vacation time to jump through Google's hoops, along with spending weeks of time reviewing obscure algorithms I haven't touched since college, and will probably never use again. Honestly, I think if the H1B and other loopholes these companies use were tightened up, the interview process for engineers would quickly approach the respectful negotiations common with other professional industries (law, medicine, finance, etc).

shshhdhs 9y ago

"If we didn't get lucky enough to hire you, someone else will quite soon." The OP did get hired -- he mentioned that in his first paragraph.

codnee 9y ago
"The OP did get hired -- he mentioned that in his first paragraph." The OP was hired by Amazon, "we" refers to Google in this case.
- shshhdhs 9y ago
  I was referring to the"someone else" not the "we".

leothekim 9y ago

> There's a decent amount that you can do to prepare for one of these things, but there's also an incredible amount you don't have control over. This is where I call bullshit. This person prepared for six months. You can't tell someone to not take something personally if he or she took six months of their life to study up, only to hit a dead end because your company didn't find it within themselves to take control of the things they could have.

sigi45 9y ago
I did the same and failed. I failed in a very specific way which annoyed me a little bit and which left me thinking how superficial this process is. But 1. i extended my knowledge 2. i came closer to working for google than ever 3. if you really wanna work for google / <company> you will try again and even optimize those superficial 'issues'
geebee 9y ago
I interviewed at Google with a no-hire. I asked for 3 weeks to brush up on algorithms and data structures. I should have asked for 3-6 months. This is where it falls apart for me, though. Based on my experience, you really do need to be extremely sharp on data structures and algorithms, and you need to be able to do it at the whiteboard. I have my own opinion on this, like everyone. Personally, I'm completely ok with requiring a data structures and algorithms "entrance exam" for many software development positions. I see it as similar to the vector calculus and linear algebra exam required of actuaries. My problem is with the implementation. Actuaries take a well vetted exam, with a clear study path, and when they pass it, they get a lasting credential respected in their industry. In short, taking and passing this exam means they don't have to submit to potentially random and capricious (and unpredictable) exam based interviews (really, after 6 hours at the whiteboard doing programming problems why do we call this an interview? It's an exam, pure and simple). Here's the thing - I'd do this for a lasting credential. I'd accept that this is a test I have to take, and properly study for. I'd take my 6 months, and I'd put in the time. What I'm not willing to do is take this test over and over and over, every time I interview at a new company. I just don't walk around with this stuff loaded into short term memory. I don't walk around ready to take my undergraduate data structures and algorithms test. And I think I've taken it for the last time. Same for vector calc and linear algebra. I did well in these classes in college, and if I were interested in being an actuary, I'd study up and get back to that level I was at just before I took my exams in college. But no, I'm not interested in allowing a random person at a company to put me through the exams again. This is why I'm pretty much done with technical interviewing and tests. I'll find some other way to participate in this field, or leave it altogether if that turns out not to be possible. I do wish tech leaders, who so constantly bray about a shortage in our field, would recognize the extent to which their behavior and practices drive talented people out of programming and into other fields. They didn't stumble upon this shortage, they created it. And every crutch we give them just allows them to continue with business as usual.