4 ms·
Full disclosure: I work for Google and like it I left Google in 2009, quite unhappy about the difference between a startup and corporate politics. After that I
by mikaraento 7y ago
Full disclosure: I work for Google and like it
I left Google in 2009, quite unhappy about the difference between a startup and corporate politics. After that I worked at 3 startups (5 years), 1 telco (1 year) and at McKinsey (3 years).
I ended up interviewing at Google again in 2018, after deciding that a) I liked programming more than management consulting and b) my comparative advantage was in programming. I definitely could have felt entitled after 1) passing Google interviews once before, 2) having had three somewhat successful startups and 3) proving I can also handle the corporate side.
I was asked multiple questions that could be interpreted as 'algorithmic' (and I have to admit that after 3 years of not coding I was nervous about them). However, they can also be interpreted differently, more charitably. They all followed the structure of: 1) give a reasonable but not completely defined problem - you should be able to clarify enough of this to show you can deal with some ambiguity; 2) turn that into an algorithm - you should be able to articulate an easy algorithm and be able to discuss improvements to it; 3) turn your algorithm into code - you need to show you can actually program. I definitely didn't have to memorize and regurgitate textbook solutions.
I acknowledge that a) the above may optimize for rejecting all negatives at the cost of some false positives and b) it's still a very basic lower bar and doesn't predict who will perform highly vs. ok. However, I did think it tested for the core skills I expect from programmers.
I've also set up interviewing processes at startups. I did end up emphasizing ownership and 'getting things done' more than Google does. I do think startups should test for different attributes than 100k+ FTE corporations.
- philjohn 7y agoYou missed a big one - giving them an idea of how you approach a problem and work through it. That's the biggest take away. If someone just spits out an optimal solution straight away that's not actually a great sign. It doesn't matter if you struggle a little, or need a few hints, but showing you know how to break a problem down into smaller sub-problems and work your way up is an invaluable signal.
- watwut 7y agoThis is incomprehensible for me. If someone happen to see your question before it is bad sign? And also, what exactly about my internal process are people trying to learn from "how I approach a problem and work through it"? I think I tend to make good impression on these ... but I am aware it is interview skill where I somehow picked up social signals I am supposed to send. I am adjusting what I am saying to how interviewer looks like (happy, annoyed, bored, etc). It is social skill, but not same social skill as pretty much anything I do in actual work. In actual work, people are not interested to listen to me work out problems in front of them. It is even more useless if you know the answer and then proceed pretend to split it into smaller problems and then work your way up or down. That neat thought process is neat precisely because I know the answer and I am performing idealized problem solving process. In case of actual real problem, you don't do that so nicely. You have at least some bad turns, random guesses, break it multiple times badly and so on.
- philjohn 7y agoI’ve been in interviews where I’ve seen the problem before, and know the solution. I’ve always said so if that happens and the interviewer either continues and delves into why it’s an optimal solution, or switches to a different question.
- tomnj 7y agoDon’t forget 4) find the optimal solution with very few hints and write that too.