5 ms·

Having Google on your resume is in no way impressive in my opinion. I have reviewed plenty of resumes and been part of the interview process. Being a Google em

Having Google on your resume is in no way impressive in my opinion. I have reviewed plenty of resumes and been part of the interview process. Being a Google employee just doesn't matter.

duxup 8y ago
Why not?
- paulie_a 8y ago
  It just simply doesn't set a candidate apart from anyone else. Just like what school someone went to. I simply don't care if it was an ivy league school or local school. It doesn't matter. what really matters is their accomplishments. Trading on a name is not going to work for me.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    But since you mentioned this is your opinion, you do acknowledge that these forms of signalling are effective for most other hiring managers, right? Your view is pretty atypical. Not to be blunt, but your perspective on Google employees is irrelevant in the context of how they're perceived by the broader market. I think that's why your other comment is being downvoted; it seems like what you're saying isn't wrong per se, it's just inconsequential to the job prospects Google employees actually have. Even though you're a hiring manager and don't personally consider Google employment to be a plus, most other hiring managers really do.
patrec 8y ago
Your opinion is not representative and thus not relevant to the argument (that ex-Google engineers have very good job prospects).
- lostlogin 8y ago
  What type is that? Genuine question, as I’m in healthcare in a country far away.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  That is fine that it is not representative, I don't think I said that it was. I said it doesn't matter to me. As someone that reviews resumes it is actually relevant.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >Your opinion is not representative and thus not relevant to the argument (that ex-Google engineers have very good job prospects). He never claimed it was. More importantly, he is providing a data point, whereas the original claim did not provide anything to back it up.
q3k 8y ago
Indeed. I even had one door closed by having Google on my resume! ("We've had bad luck with ex-Google types in the past")
- Fnoord 8y ago
  "Luck" is a BS excuse, including in said argument
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    ...they don't literally mean "luck", except to express that there is variance. They're using the word to mean bad results, happening more often in ex-google employees. And that's not BS at all.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      They don't have to use the word or mention it at all because bad results are already implied by the context. The reader already gathers as much. Mentioning the word luck draws it in a different light, as if next time the odds might be on their end. Luck is meaningless if there's enough skill. Its an overused (if not downright abused) word.

Having Google on your resume is in no way impressive in my opinion. I have reviewed plenty of resumes and been part of the interview process. Being a Google employee just doesn't matter.

duxup 8y ago

Why not?

paulie_a 8y ago
It just simply doesn't set a candidate apart from anyone else. Just like what school someone went to. I simply don't care if it was an ivy league school or local school. It doesn't matter. what really matters is their accomplishments. Trading on a name is not going to work for me.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  But since you mentioned this is your opinion, you do acknowledge that these forms of signalling are effective for most other hiring managers, right? Your view is pretty atypical. Not to be blunt, but your perspective on Google employees is irrelevant in the context of how they're perceived by the broader market. I think that's why your other comment is being downvoted; it seems like what you're saying isn't wrong per se, it's just inconsequential to the job prospects Google employees actually have. Even though you're a hiring manager and don't personally consider Google employment to be a plus, most other hiring managers really do.

patrec 8y ago

Your opinion is not representative and thus not relevant to the argument (that ex-Google engineers have very good job prospects).

lostlogin 8y ago
What type is that? Genuine question, as I’m in healthcare in a country far away.
paulie_a 8y ago
That is fine that it is not representative, I don't think I said that it was. I said it doesn't matter to me. As someone that reviews resumes it is actually relevant.
BeetleB 8y ago
>Your opinion is not representative and thus not relevant to the argument (that ex-Google engineers have very good job prospects). He never claimed it was. More importantly, he is providing a data point, whereas the original claim did not provide anything to back it up.

q3k 8y ago

Indeed. I even had one door closed by having Google on my resume! ("We've had bad luck with ex-Google types in the past")

Fnoord 8y ago
"Luck" is a BS excuse, including in said argument
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  ...they don't literally mean "luck", except to express that there is variance. They're using the word to mean bad results, happening more often in ex-google employees. And that's not BS at all.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    They don't have to use the word or mention it at all because bad results are already implied by the context. The reader already gathers as much. Mentioning the word luck draws it in a different light, as if next time the odds might be on their end. Luck is meaningless if there's enough skill. Its an overused (if not downright abused) word.