4 ms·

I get that, if he applied to a particular compsci-heavy function... he's just not a good fit. That's fine. But any HR department worth its salt has a good idea

I get that, if he applied to a particular compsci-heavy function... he's just not a good fit. That's fine. But any HR department worth its salt has a good idea of the company's needs in general (i.e., the other 1000 functions that Google has), and could ascertain and recognise talents and strengths in Max, and find a fit. The notion that, as Max puts it, 90% of Google employees and a significant fraction of developers worldwide use a technology you built, but that there's no fitting function for you at a large technology company with a highly diverse set of tech initiatives, is frankly ridiculous. There's obvious talent, drive, ability-to-deliver etc there.

clarry 9y ago
> But any HR department worth its salt has a good idea of the company's needs in general (i.e., the other 1000 functions that Google has), and could ascertain and recognise talents and strengths in Max, and find a fit. The more I read stories about hiring, the more I get the feel that all too often hiring people are preoccupied with trying to come up with reason -- any reason at all -- to reject a candidate. Instead of looking for talent to cultivate, they look out for "losers" to show the way out. They must be the bad applicants, and thus anyone who makes it through must be good, right? So clever, aren't we!