3 ms·
Speaking as someone who has been through the process now twice [1], once unsuccessfully and once successfully, I can certainly sympathize with the frustrations,
by cletus 16y ago
Speaking as someone who has been through the process now twice [1], once unsuccessfully and once successfully, I can certainly sympathize with the frustrations, particularly the lack of feedback.
The unfortunate thing is that Google wants to avoid their system being gamed.
There can be some luck of the draw both when it comes to recruiters (mine was excellent) and interviewers. Effort is made to normalize for that sort of thing but no system is perfect.
My experience has been that the top tier companies are all selective and keen to avoid false positives. Google is really no different in this regard.
I can say that being a Googler of only a few months now it is an amazing place to work and well worth the effort, frustrations notwithstanding.
[1]: http://www.cforcoding.com/2010/07/my-google-interview.html http://www.cforcoding.com/2010/07/my-google-interview.html
- alecco 16y ago> My experience has been that the top tier companies are all selective > and keen to avoid false positives. Google is really no different > in this regard. That's not what I've seen. One of the dodgiest tech managers I've ever encountered went to work on a very, very senior tech development position in Google. This guy regularly spied on other manager's email inboxes every night (disrupting regular email backups) among other things. He had no qualifications other than being political and a bit lucky. Zero. The team he left behind improved a lot afterwards (and he quit suddenly, being very irresponsible.) The delusion of googlers is ridiculous. A big part of getting to Google seems to be plain luck with moment/position and interviewers/HR involved. Outside Mountain View and a few teams here and there (like V8/Chrome), Google is just another big software/advertisement company.
- cdavid 16y agoSo your argument against false positive is one special case ? This happens everywhere, you cannot avoid it at scale. The only meaningful number in that aspect is the ratio of false positive compared to the number of hired people (they should also control false negative, ideally, but that's much harder to do I think).
- alecco 16y agoA very obvious false positive for somebody so unqualified for such a senior position. My point is Google's hiring system is not as good as what (lucky) googlers who got through believe. From my limited exposure it looks there's selection bias at play.