3 ms·

"But the process does seem to be a lottery to some extent." They go to great lengths to ensure this is not the case. If the feedback from five different interv

by enneff 16y ago

"But the process does seem to be a lottery to some extent." They go to great lengths to ensure this is not the case. If the feedback from five different interviewers led to a 'no hire' decision, the chances are good that it was the right decision. Of course, no system is perfect. They tend to err on the side of exclusivity; it's much cheaper to decline a suitable candidate than it is to hire someone who won't work out in the long term.

cletus 16y ago
> They go to great lengths to ensure this is not the case. That may well be the case and I can't dispute the conclusion because I am unaware of the position. Were they looking for a hardcore C++ programmer? That's not me. This goes to my observation that feedback is important. I've applied for positions that were slim chances before but I knew they were slim going in so I could set my expectations accordingly. As for the lottery part, 2/5 didn't know my primary language. That seems open to interpretation.
- danbmil99 16y ago
  They won't give you feedback for the same reason they don't disclose their search algorithms: information about their process can be used to game the process. I see the same behavior with VC's -- no usable feedback. It's like in poker -- there's no game-theoretic advantage to show your cards if everyone else folds.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    It's also arrogant not to even let someone know what the specific position involves. It's a solid reason not to interview with Google if you're not going in there on the basis of contacts.
    - btilly 16y ago
      The reason for that is that at the time of the interview there are usually many different positions you could wind up being slotted into. In many cases this is still true at the time of the hire. In a few cases this is still true at the time the person starts on the job.
- chengas123 16y ago
  I can't speak to any particulars in this situation. I thought I would add that it's not necessary to know C++ (I don't :o). It is true that there are people who work on projects that are entirely written in C++. However, there's not generally a requirement that applicants write solutions in a particular language and pseudo code is usually fine.
- Smerity 16y ago
  I'm interested how this came about. They usually either try to match people who know common languages or they do more generic problems which don't depend on language. One important thing is if you said you knew C well (or even only "working knowledge of") then it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask you to write it in C instead of Java/Python/etc. Did the interviewers state they didn't Java beforehand? Did they say they knew another language you'd mentioned you knew on your resume? My interview experience actually involved them hammering me on the languages I said I knew but wasn't an expert in. This is likely as they were trying to find out whether I was lying (or, put kindly, overstating) on my resume. From what I've seen there are a few people who put every language down that they've ever written hello world in ;) (disclaimer: recent intern from Google Sydney office)
timcederman 16y ago
As a company that gets 100k resumes a day, they can afford a few false negatives, but no false positives.
slpsys 16y ago
Yeah, no. Of the dozens of Googlers I've met, their take is that this is just not the case. As others have pointed out, it is _not_ a lottery as to false positives, but it certainly can be for false negatives; Yegge himself points it out with "interview anti-loops." But you know what? From a certain perspective, that's fine. We're currently going through a hiring phase at the startup I work for, and I'd much rather turn away people who might be ok than lock someone in who slid by. From his StackOverflow profile, cletus is a top-notch developer (or at the very least passionate and knowledgeable), it just sounds like he encountered his anti-loop. The biggest problem I see (and encountered this myself with them) is that there's no real feedback, even if your raw score was only just below the mark, where it might behoove everyone if you came back and interviewed with a little more experience and/or preparation.
- enneff 16y ago
  "Yeah, no. Of the dozens of Googlers I've met, their take is that this is just not the case." I am a Googler. I mentioned explicitly that false negatives happen, and stated why they are preferable. Why, then, do you preface your comment with a disagreement?
  - csallen 16y ago
    Because you also said this: >> If the feedback from five different interviewers led to a 'no hire' decision, the chances are good that it was the right decision.
btilly 16y ago
"Ensure" is too strong a word. Best efforts notwithstanding, there remains a lot of luck in the process.
prospero 16y ago
They go to great lengths to ensure this is not the case. If the feedback from five different interviewers led to a 'no hire' decision, the chances are good that it was the right decision. As a recent hire at Google, I don't really think this is the case. There's not just a bias towards false negatives, there's a strong bias. It's well understood here that lots of qualified people are turned away. And for whatever it's worth, the offer to keep your resume on file wasn't just lip service. I interviewed two years ago unsuccessfully, and was recruited a year and a half later based on the strength of that failure. It's also maybe worth mentioning that my only prior work experience was four years of desktop software development in C#, so I don't think the Microsoft thing is that much of a black mark.
- enneff 16y ago
  "As a recent hire at Google, I don't really think this is the case. There's not just a bias towards false negatives, there's a strong bias. It's well understood here that lots of qualified people are turned away." This is pretty much exactly what I said. Do you think if I'd pointed out that I'm actually a google employee also, I might have been spared the down votes?
  - prospero 16y ago
    You said there was a good chance it was the right decision. That may be true in some amortized sense across all hires, but you implied that it was also likely the correct choice in this specific situation. I don't think putting that much faith in the results of the hiring process is justified. Jobs interviews at Google aren't near perfection with a slight bias towards false negatives, and it's unfair to the people who don't make it through to suggest that they are.

by enneff 16y ago

cletus 16y ago

> They go to great lengths to ensure this is not the case. That may well be the case and I can't dispute the conclusion because I am unaware of the position. Were they looking for a hardcore C++ programmer? That's not me. This goes to my observation that feedback is important. I've applied for positions that were slim chances before but I knew they were slim going in so I could set my expectations accordingly. As for the lottery part, 2/5 didn't know my primary language. That seems open to interpretation.

danbmil99 16y ago
They won't give you feedback for the same reason they don't disclose their search algorithms: information about their process can be used to game the process. I see the same behavior with VC's -- no usable feedback. It's like in poker -- there's no game-theoretic advantage to show your cards if everyone else folds.
- barrkel 16y ago
  It's also arrogant not to even let someone know what the specific position involves. It's a solid reason not to interview with Google if you're not going in there on the basis of contacts.
  - btilly 16y ago
    The reason for that is that at the time of the interview there are usually many different positions you could wind up being slotted into. In many cases this is still true at the time of the hire. In a few cases this is still true at the time the person starts on the job.
chengas123 16y ago
I can't speak to any particulars in this situation. I thought I would add that it's not necessary to know C++ (I don't :o). It is true that there are people who work on projects that are entirely written in C++. However, there's not generally a requirement that applicants write solutions in a particular language and pseudo code is usually fine.
Smerity 16y ago
I'm interested how this came about. They usually either try to match people who know common languages or they do more generic problems which don't depend on language. One important thing is if you said you knew C well (or even only "working knowledge of") then it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask you to write it in C instead of Java/Python/etc. Did the interviewers state they didn't Java beforehand? Did they say they knew another language you'd mentioned you knew on your resume? My interview experience actually involved them hammering me on the languages I said I knew but wasn't an expert in. This is likely as they were trying to find out whether I was lying (or, put kindly, overstating) on my resume. From what I've seen there are a few people who put every language down that they've ever written hello world in ;) (disclaimer: recent intern from Google Sydney office)

timcederman 16y ago

As a company that gets 100k resumes a day, they can afford a few false negatives, but no false positives.

slpsys 16y ago

Yeah, no. Of the dozens of Googlers I've met, their take is that this is just not the case. As others have pointed out, it is _not_ a lottery as to false positives, but it certainly can be for false negatives; Yegge himself points it out with "interview anti-loops." But you know what? From a certain perspective, that's fine. We're currently going through a hiring phase at the startup I work for, and I'd much rather turn away people who might be ok than lock someone in who slid by. From his StackOverflow profile, cletus is a top-notch developer (or at the very least passionate and knowledgeable), it just sounds like he encountered his anti-loop. The biggest problem I see (and encountered this myself with them) is that there's no real feedback, even if your raw score was only just below the mark, where it might behoove everyone if you came back and interviewed with a little more experience and/or preparation.

enneff 16y ago
"Yeah, no. Of the dozens of Googlers I've met, their take is that this is just not the case." I am a Googler. I mentioned explicitly that false negatives happen, and stated why they are preferable. Why, then, do you preface your comment with a disagreement?
- csallen 16y ago
  Because you also said this: >> If the feedback from five different interviewers led to a 'no hire' decision, the chances are good that it was the right decision.

btilly 16y ago

"Ensure" is too strong a word. Best efforts notwithstanding, there remains a lot of luck in the process.

prospero 16y ago

They go to great lengths to ensure this is not the case. If the feedback from five different interviewers led to a 'no hire' decision, the chances are good that it was the right decision. As a recent hire at Google, I don't really think this is the case. There's not just a bias towards false negatives, there's a strong bias. It's well understood here that lots of qualified people are turned away. And for whatever it's worth, the offer to keep your resume on file wasn't just lip service. I interviewed two years ago unsuccessfully, and was recruited a year and a half later based on the strength of that failure. It's also maybe worth mentioning that my only prior work experience was four years of desktop software development in C#, so I don't think the Microsoft thing is that much of a black mark.

enneff 16y ago
"As a recent hire at Google, I don't really think this is the case. There's not just a bias towards false negatives, there's a strong bias. It's well understood here that lots of qualified people are turned away." This is pretty much exactly what I said. Do you think if I'd pointed out that I'm actually a google employee also, I might have been spared the down votes?
- prospero 16y ago
  You said there was a good chance it was the right decision. That may be true in some amortized sense across all hires, but you implied that it was also likely the correct choice in this specific situation. I don't think putting that much faith in the results of the hiring process is justified. Jobs interviews at Google aren't near perfection with a slight bias towards false negatives, and it's unfair to the people who don't make it through to suggest that they are.