3 ms·

How does flooding the market with developers that will never be able to pass their interviews help them? I guess it will increase the amount of people in the 1%

How does flooding the market with developers that will never be able to pass their interviews help them? I guess it will increase the amount of people in the 1% by expanding the size of that pool? Just seems like Google out of all companies has a need for the best, not just blue collar code slingers. Many people with 4 years CS degrees from good schools do not get hired.

hobofan 9y ago
Maybe the want to free up "good" developers that work jobs requiring a lower skill level, by providing a better fitting low skill person for the job? (Not to be taken too seriously)
- FLGMwt 9y ago
  I'll take you seriously. $1bn is a lot of money when put towards education and Google can make 5+ year investments when it comes to tech talent.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    It's a nice sum of money, but education is extremely expensive, it's probably less than you think. It's enough to pay roughly, for 7000 to go to college, or maybe 50,000 people to take a one semester programming bootcamp. A great start, but it's not exactly transformational.
sulam 9y ago
A couple misconceptions seemed buried in here. First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads. Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there. The hiring process is far more random than we’d like to imagine it is when you have a “high bar”.
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  > First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads. Google's hiring process does not reflect this at all. Even entry level positions have very high bar. Boring has nothing to do with it, Google wants the best. > Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there. That's not random, that's just setting a really high bar. Have you been through a Google interview? Their phone screen questions are equivalent to many companies' "hardest" interview problems.
  - sulam 9y ago
    I've been through the entire Google interview, yes. And I'm going to go (slightly) out on a limb and say that if Google could reduce their false negative rate, they would. IOW, yes, that's a factor of having a high bar, but what that statement is capturing in aggregate is the fact that their interviewers are not all equally calibrated and the interview process can be very uneven, although always looking for very strong people. They then turn around and give those really strong engineers a very high salary and (in many cases) relatively uninteresting work. It would be surprising to me if that changes as a result of this $1B grant, but I would be equally surprised if they don't try to skim the cream off that particular crop.

hobofan 9y ago

Maybe the want to free up "good" developers that work jobs requiring a lower skill level, by providing a better fitting low skill person for the job? (Not to be taken too seriously)

FLGMwt 9y ago
I'll take you seriously. $1bn is a lot of money when put towards education and Google can make 5+ year investments when it comes to tech talent.
- speedplane 9y ago
  It's a nice sum of money, but education is extremely expensive, it's probably less than you think. It's enough to pay roughly, for 7000 to go to college, or maybe 50,000 people to take a one semester programming bootcamp. A great start, but it's not exactly transformational.

sulam 9y ago

A couple misconceptions seemed buried in here. First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads. Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there. The hiring process is far more random than we’d like to imagine it is when you have a “high bar”.

jorblumesea 9y ago
> First of all, plenty of Google engineers are doing “boring” work that can be done by coding school grads. Google's hiring process does not reflect this at all. Even entry level positions have very high bar. Boring has nothing to do with it, Google wants the best. > Secondly, Google declines qualified candidates roughly 50% of the time according to people who work there. That's not random, that's just setting a really high bar. Have you been through a Google interview? Their phone screen questions are equivalent to many companies' "hardest" interview problems.
- sulam 9y ago
  I've been through the entire Google interview, yes. And I'm going to go (slightly) out on a limb and say that if Google could reduce their false negative rate, they would. IOW, yes, that's a factor of having a high bar, but what that statement is capturing in aggregate is the fact that their interviewers are not all equally calibrated and the interview process can be very uneven, although always looking for very strong people. They then turn around and give those really strong engineers a very high salary and (in many cases) relatively uninteresting work. It would be surprising to me if that changes as a result of this $1B grant, but I would be equally surprised if they don't try to skim the cream off that particular crop.