5 ms·

This seems fraught with adverse selection issues. 1. Only Fan Boys Apply. Only people who are willing to pay $100 to work at google will do so. 2. Only people

by noahc 16y ago

This seems fraught with adverse selection issues. 1. Only Fan Boys Apply. Only people who are willing to pay $100 to work at google will do so. 2. Only people without other opportunities will apply. For example, why would I pay $100 to apply to google, when I can apply to everywhere else for free. 3. Reduce the number of linchpin applicants. If I know I don't fit the stereotypical google employee, why would I spend $100 to apply and be told no. Where as I might apply for free, and hope they can see that I am actually a good hire, although, I break the mold. If these aren't enough, how do you handle the PR side of things?

orijing 16y ago
It's interesting that you bring up adverse selection issues, because I thought it would reduce them. 1. Can you explain why fan boys would be "bad" for Google? 2. The argument was that if your probability of being accepted is greater than 4% (greater than their goal), you stand to gain more than you lose with their revenue-neutral provision. 3. Good point. This could be one of the false-negatives that the program introduces. Of course the PR side of things are the most difficult to handle. Colleges are allowed to do it, but companies may be put in bad light for it.
- famousactress 16y ago
  Can you explain why fan boys would be "bad" for Google? A healthy dose of cynicism/skepticism is healthy for innovation, and the term 'fan boy' suggests to me a level of zealotry that's at least slightly abandoned rational thinking for emotion. I don't want to hire anyone who thinks everything we do is perfect, what will they fix!?
  - orijing 16y ago
    Ah, makes sense. Thanks.
endtime 16y ago
>The optimal thing to do with those revenues would be to return them to successful applicants: Say, 4% of the 250,000 applicants get job offers and 60% of them accept the job. Then they can get anywhere between $1041 and $4166 in "bonus bonus" (i.e. bonus on top of the sign-on bonus) to keep the program revenue-neutral. Another idea would be to pay out the bonus to anyone who receives an offer, rather than just those who accept one. I think this addresses your second point, Noah, because if I think I have a good chance of getting an offer from Google then I might actually expect to profit for having applied.
- orijing 16y ago
  Not sure why you were downvoted for that because you bring up a good point (upvoted). The thing is, that would encourage people to apply for the sake of gaming the system--essentially wasting a lot of recruiting time even if they didn't want to get the job.
  - xiongchiamiov 16y ago
    You could just make it a refund, then.
  - endtime 16y ago
    Well I think Google would quite like the opportunity to find and pitch qualified people. I'm sure they'd happily pay $500 for the opportunity to pitch directly a good candidate who just wanted the bonus on his way to a competitor or startup.
- famousactress 16y ago
  Reminded me of this story about the company that gave iPads away to applicants: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/7770520/Red-Gate-Software-woos-geeks-with-free-iPads.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/7770520/Red-...

by noahc 16y ago

orijing 16y ago

It's interesting that you bring up adverse selection issues, because I thought it would reduce them. 1. Can you explain why fan boys would be "bad" for Google? 2. The argument was that if your probability of being accepted is greater than 4% (greater than their goal), you stand to gain more than you lose with their revenue-neutral provision. 3. Good point. This could be one of the false-negatives that the program introduces. Of course the PR side of things are the most difficult to handle. Colleges are allowed to do it, but companies may be put in bad light for it.

famousactress 16y ago
Can you explain why fan boys would be "bad" for Google? A healthy dose of cynicism/skepticism is healthy for innovation, and the term 'fan boy' suggests to me a level of zealotry that's at least slightly abandoned rational thinking for emotion. I don't want to hire anyone who thinks everything we do is perfect, what will they fix!?
- orijing 16y ago
  Ah, makes sense. Thanks.

endtime 16y ago

>The optimal thing to do with those revenues would be to return them to successful applicants: Say, 4% of the 250,000 applicants get job offers and 60% of them accept the job. Then they can get anywhere between $1041 and $4166 in "bonus bonus" (i.e. bonus on top of the sign-on bonus) to keep the program revenue-neutral. Another idea would be to pay out the bonus to anyone who receives an offer, rather than just those who accept one. I think this addresses your second point, Noah, because if I think I have a good chance of getting an offer from Google then I might actually expect to profit for having applied.

orijing 16y ago
Not sure why you were downvoted for that because you bring up a good point (upvoted). The thing is, that would encourage people to apply for the sake of gaming the system--essentially wasting a lot of recruiting time even if they didn't want to get the job.
- xiongchiamiov 16y ago
  You could just make it a refund, then.
- endtime 16y ago
  Well I think Google would quite like the opportunity to find and pitch qualified people. I'm sure they'd happily pay $500 for the opportunity to pitch directly a good candidate who just wanted the bonus on his way to a competitor or startup.
famousactress 16y ago
Reminded me of this story about the company that gave iPads away to applicants: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/7770520/Red-Gate-Software-woos-geeks-with-free-iPads.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/7770520/Red-...