3 ms·

Yesterday I read that Google actually decreases their expectations in the white boarding exercises for experienced hires because they realize the leetcoding tec

Yesterday I read that Google actually decreases their expectations in the white boarding exercises for experienced hires because they realize the leetcoding techniques will not be as fresh in an experienced dev's mind. The expectations are higher in regards to system design and resume questions. That seems to be fair imo. Later in the material it said that they reject over 80% of people who make it onsite. The bar at FAANGs is just relatively high regardless what kind of role you are trying to get. My mentality is preparing for high bar whiteboard interviews best case lands a job at a FAANG and worst case makes it incredibly easier to land a job elsewhere at a company that doesn't rely on whiteboarding or has a lower bar in general. That's to say investing in whiteboard practice has little downside and has an acceptable time/reward ratio given the results if you are even just ok at it. In terms of ageism whiteboarding is not required to filter older devs out. Resumes viewing can do that. Why would they waste 6+ hours of their expensive Sr. devs time to put someone through a pointless exercise? Serious candidates will commit the same 1-3 months of study whether they are 23 or 43.

zerogvt 7y ago
Great to hear that. I went through that hell (of course fell into the 80%) a few moths ago. Needless to say I was in total awe by the whole process. Awe as in, what the heck did I waste whole weeks for? How can the -seemingly best IT company- hire like that? Funniest part was that the recruiter giving me the bad news was assuming that I'd spent some more time in the future trying again to get in g. Like this is a life purpose or sth and she actually mentioned exactly that. Most people don't get in at first attempt. Which is like saying "we know we do it wrong because we hire the same people the second time around" so what the heck is all that supposed to test? Perseverance? Anyway - after that I had serious doubts that I'd ever be happy working there anyway so I was pretty confident that there wouldn't be no second time.
- twblalock 7y ago
  They hire that way because they are optimizing to avoid hiring bad engineers. Their entire process is shaped around that goal. In such a process, passing on good people is not considered a problem -- especially when they will reapply, which they do.

zerogvt 7y ago

Great to hear that. I went through that hell (of course fell into the 80%) a few moths ago. Needless to say I was in total awe by the whole process. Awe as in, what the heck did I waste whole weeks for? How can the -seemingly best IT company- hire like that? Funniest part was that the recruiter giving me the bad news was assuming that I'd spent some more time in the future trying again to get in g. Like this is a life purpose or sth and she actually mentioned exactly that. Most people don't get in at first attempt. Which is like saying "we know we do it wrong because we hire the same people the second time around" so what the heck is all that supposed to test? Perseverance? Anyway - after that I had serious doubts that I'd ever be happy working there anyway so I was pretty confident that there wouldn't be no second time.

twblalock 7y ago
They hire that way because they are optimizing to avoid hiring bad engineers. Their entire process is shaped around that goal. In such a process, passing on good people is not considered a problem -- especially when they will reapply, which they do.