4 ms·

Google went crazy with hiring in 2006 and relaxed its standards, letting in a bunch of duds. There's a higher chance at Google that your manager is going to be

Google went crazy with hiring in 2006 and relaxed its standards, letting in a bunch of duds. There's a higher chance at Google that your manager is going to be a creep and your coworkers are going to be mouth breathers. Facebook is younger and smaller so does not face these issues (yet). If you do encounter a poser at Facebook, at least they are a cool, young , good looking poser, not a yucky beardo comp sci Phd poser... Also, every bullshit funded startup in NYC pays what Facebook is paying, or better. (just a pro tip in case anyone else here is too old for facebook but needs to make some dough after spending too much time in the 80-90k zone, like I did)

tectonic 16y ago
Why the level of negativity about Google? Do you have prior experience there?
- catch23 16y ago
  Let's just say I know enough Googlers who are currently fed up with the influx of subpar nooglers. It's not just one data point -- at least 4 of my googler friends complained about the new employees. They mention that Google stopped hiring around the economic crisis, and when the economy picked up again, they had to hire twice as fast to make up for the lost time and in doing so, they let in people who should have been rejected. I also recall that Eric Schmidt says his biggest mistake was to halt the hiring during the recent economic downturn.
  - wh-uws 16y ago
    please define subpar
    - wh-uws 16y ago
      I was asking to get an objective definition of a "subpar" noogler. I'm about to be a recent college grad and I want to know what subpar is so I can spend my time now making sure that I am not that. It's really frustrating to me when people say things like "Let's just say I know enough Googlers who are currently fed up with the influx of subpar nooglers." And I have no idea what they mean.
  - haberman 16y ago
    I'm a Googler with the opposite complaint: in my neck of the woods we seem to be so picky that you start to wonder how any of us ever got hired. A person can do 10 or 20 interviews and have none of them (even the ones who seemed good) get an offer. Google's a big company, so I'm sure that some pockets err on one side, some on the other.
    - strlen 16y ago
      > A person can do 10 or 20 interviews and have none of them (even the ones who seemed good) get an offer. That's actually fairly common in the Silicon Valley. It's 10 to 20 people on the market, not 10 to 20 programmers selected at random: some are specialists in fields other than the ones you're looking for (or their resume is misread by the recruiter e.g., someone who has experience with enterprise search but is being interviewed for a web search position), others lack certain specific knowledge you do want, yet others are looking for a place where they can be "promoted to their level of incompetence". A rate of 1/10 or 1/20 (5-10%) is actually very good and indicates an ability to recruit and screen well.
      - smackfu 16y ago
        If 10 or 20 people are getting to the technical interview stage and failing to qualify, that points to a problem. That adds up to a lot of non-productive time for the interviewers.
        nostrademons 16y ago
        If you reject those 10-20 people at the phone screen stage, you end up with another problem that Google has been accused of: you overlook many qualified candidates who just had a bad day on their phone screen or drew a bad interviewer or got quizzed on questions that aren't their specialty. It's a balancing act. Reject too many in phone screens, and you miss out on talent. Reject them at the interview stage, and you waste interviewer time. Accept them and put them on teams, and you drag down the level of the team and cause morale problems. Google's been accused of all of them, but in my experience, hiring sucks wherever you are, and they do the best they can given the data available.
JabavuAdams 16y ago
> cool, young , good looking poser, not a yucky beardo comp sci Phd poser... Is this some kind of official policy? Because ...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

tectonic 16y ago

Why the level of negativity about Google? Do you have prior experience there?

catch23 16y ago
Let's just say I know enough Googlers who are currently fed up with the influx of subpar nooglers. It's not just one data point -- at least 4 of my googler friends complained about the new employees. They mention that Google stopped hiring around the economic crisis, and when the economy picked up again, they had to hire twice as fast to make up for the lost time and in doing so, they let in people who should have been rejected. I also recall that Eric Schmidt says his biggest mistake was to halt the hiring during the recent economic downturn.
- wh-uws 16y ago
  please define subpar
  - wh-uws 16y ago
    I was asking to get an objective definition of a "subpar" noogler. I'm about to be a recent college grad and I want to know what subpar is so I can spend my time now making sure that I am not that. It's really frustrating to me when people say things like "Let's just say I know enough Googlers who are currently fed up with the influx of subpar nooglers." And I have no idea what they mean.
- haberman 16y ago
  I'm a Googler with the opposite complaint: in my neck of the woods we seem to be so picky that you start to wonder how any of us ever got hired. A person can do 10 or 20 interviews and have none of them (even the ones who seemed good) get an offer. Google's a big company, so I'm sure that some pockets err on one side, some on the other.
  - strlen 16y ago
    > A person can do 10 or 20 interviews and have none of them (even the ones who seemed good) get an offer. That's actually fairly common in the Silicon Valley. It's 10 to 20 people on the market, not 10 to 20 programmers selected at random: some are specialists in fields other than the ones you're looking for (or their resume is misread by the recruiter e.g., someone who has experience with enterprise search but is being interviewed for a web search position), others lack certain specific knowledge you do want, yet others are looking for a place where they can be "promoted to their level of incompetence". A rate of 1/10 or 1/20 (5-10%) is actually very good and indicates an ability to recruit and screen well.
    - smackfu 16y ago
      If 10 or 20 people are getting to the technical interview stage and failing to qualify, that points to a problem. That adds up to a lot of non-productive time for the interviewers.
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        If you reject those 10-20 people at the phone screen stage, you end up with another problem that Google has been accused of: you overlook many qualified candidates who just had a bad day on their phone screen or drew a bad interviewer or got quizzed on questions that aren't their specialty. It's a balancing act. Reject too many in phone screens, and you miss out on talent. Reject them at the interview stage, and you waste interviewer time. Accept them and put them on teams, and you drag down the level of the team and cause morale problems. Google's been accused of all of them, but in my experience, hiring sucks wherever you are, and they do the best they can given the data available.

JabavuAdams 16y ago

> cool, young , good looking poser, not a yucky beardo comp sci Phd poser... Is this some kind of official policy? Because ...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]