3 ms·
> 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.
by 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.