3 ms·

Google wants people who are desperate to work at Google. The plus (for them) of getting someone to invest so much effort into getting in means that they will be

by diego 7y ago

Google wants people who are desperate to work at Google. The plus (for them) of getting someone to invest so much effort into getting in means that they will be committed for a while because of the sunk costs / defeated ultimate boss effect. Luckily there is a large supply of those people for now. They won't change their interview process until this stops being the case. Edit: I guess someone at Google didn't like this comment :)

hello_moto 7y ago
I did not downvote you but ask yourself: do you want to hire a primadona candidate that thinks she/he is above the company? Of course you'd want to hire people who want work for your company. That's call a matching-process. Would you marry someone who's not into you?
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > Would you marry someone who's not into you? Trophy spouses are a thing. It ends about the same way. An opportunist doesn't change their ways because they achieve one goal.
  - aznd 7y ago
    Indeed, companies are opportunists and don't change their ways. Incidentally, companies are perfectly capable of exploiting a superstar developer who thinks he is above the company by the usual group pressure tactics. Especially if that developer is self motivated.
- diego 7y ago
  That is a non sequitur. Not being able or willing to invest dozens of hours of effort spread over weeks (maybe months) into having relatively good odds of being offered a job by Google doesn't make you a prima donna.
dominotw 7y ago
> because of the sunk costs how is that a sunk cost? all the tech companies use the same leetcode questions. If anything it makes it easier to switch job out of google because oftheir prep.
jrockway 7y ago
I just don't think that's true. If people worked there because they were desperate to work there, they wouldn't pay industry-leading salaries.
- diego 7y ago
  That doesn't follow. Once people work there, they don't want those people to leave for Facebook et al. so they have to compete on retention.
  - totalZero 7y ago
    Sure it does. Retention is discounted if people are desperate to work specifically at your company. (Not commenting on the underlying discussion, just the particular logical point.)

by diego 7y ago

hello_moto 7y ago

I did not downvote you but ask yourself: do you want to hire a primadona candidate that thinks she/he is above the company? Of course you'd want to hire people who want work for your company. That's call a matching-process. Would you marry someone who's not into you?

Supermancho 7y ago
> Would you marry someone who's not into you? Trophy spouses are a thing. It ends about the same way. An opportunist doesn't change their ways because they achieve one goal.
- aznd 7y ago
  Indeed, companies are opportunists and don't change their ways. Incidentally, companies are perfectly capable of exploiting a superstar developer who thinks he is above the company by the usual group pressure tactics. Especially if that developer is self motivated.
diego 7y ago
That is a non sequitur. Not being able or willing to invest dozens of hours of effort spread over weeks (maybe months) into having relatively good odds of being offered a job by Google doesn't make you a prima donna.

dominotw 7y ago

> because of the sunk costs how is that a sunk cost? all the tech companies use the same leetcode questions. If anything it makes it easier to switch job out of google because oftheir prep.

jrockway 7y ago

I just don't think that's true. If people worked there because they were desperate to work there, they wouldn't pay industry-leading salaries.

diego 7y ago
That doesn't follow. Once people work there, they don't want those people to leave for Facebook et al. so they have to compete on retention.
- totalZero 7y ago
  Sure it does. Retention is discounted if people are desperate to work specifically at your company. (Not commenting on the underlying discussion, just the particular logical point.)