6 ms·

I've never been hired or approached by Google. However, as a University lecturer I know a lot of people Google have employed. In my opinion, they have rejected

I've never been hired or approached by Google. However, as a University lecturer I know a lot of people Google have employed. In my opinion, they have rejected some of the greatest students I have ever taught, and accepted some idiots who know how to speak well. While they have employed some good people, I believe they purposefully taret the type of people who think working at Google makes you a fundamentally better person than anyone else, rather than the best programmers/researchers/AI/whatever.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> In my opinion, they have rejected some of the greatest students I have ever taught There's no question that Google is happy to have false-negatives in interviews. > I believe they purposefully taret the type of people who think working at Google makes you a fundamentally better person than anyone else why would they do this? And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? (this is also an amusing comment because the only group I find more critical of Google than HN is Googlers)
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? The usual recipe for success in tech: competitors who are even less competent. See also: how Microsoft dominated personal computing back in the day.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Then this would imply that selecting for people who want to work at Google, instead of the "best candidate" is a valid strategy because it leads to better outcomes. Again I think this whole line of thinking is nonsense, but even if you take it at face value, it still doesn't make sense.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    >Microsoft dominated personal computing back in the day. By making illegal deals with PC sellers, and by vandalizing apps running on their OS.
- glogla 6y ago
  > And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? They have almost complete monopoly on online search, web ads, online video, on phone OS, on browsers. And they are not afraid to abuse those to get more, and are getting away with this. You don't need to do anything right when you rent-seek most of the online world.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    How is this rent seeking and not just profit seeking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Profit-seeking with market power is rent-seeking.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        I think it's very destructive of meaningful discussion to redefine a term of jargon in order to exploit the stigma of the original definition while talking about something else.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        No, if you have market/pricing (empirical monopoly) power, profit-maximizing behavior is inherently rent-seeking by the standard definition.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      In real estate, the value of a property is often tied to the value of the rental income it could bring in, even if it's never been offered for rent. 'Rent seeking' doesn't refer to the same kind of 'rent', of course, but I think the analogy holds up pretty well. All Google has to do is turn a few screws, and the rest of us will have no choice but to sing whatever tune they call.
    - 6y ago
- michaelt 6y ago
  > And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? When a company has a lot of money coming in, they can be successful despite decision X, rather than because of decision X. Microsoft can interview people asking about filling airliners with golf balls. Valve can just not bother with Half-Life 3. Google can have zero support and a self-driving car division that keeps avoiding chances to release anything. That the companies are successful doesn't mean all their actions are smart - sometimes it's that their successes are big enough the occasional bad decision doesn't hurt them.
dhanna 6y ago
As a counter argument, I don't hold much confidence in my former professor's ability to rank the real-world competence of their student's.
- CJefferson 6y ago
  You may be right, I can only give my point of view. Also, even if I am right, real-world competence may involve more bluffing, less high quality knowledge of algorithms, than I would like.
  - username90 6y ago
    Google don't want knowledge of algorithms, Google want fluency in creating algorithms. As a lecturer you likely missed a lot of gems since college testing doesn't test peoples ability to create algorithms and instead mostly test their ability to apply known algorithms. A lot of people who are great at applying known algorithms actually suck at algorithms in practice.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Maybe the ability to get along with people is more important than some people are willing to admit? I’ve met plenty of “smart people” who couldn’t get things done to save their lives partially because they couldn’t communicate well or play well with others.
gumby 6y ago
> In my opinion, they have rejected some of the greatest students I have ever taught, and accepted some idiots who know how to speak well. This has been a source of angst for friends of mine at google for over 15 years, which is almost 3/4 of google’s existence. The hiring process is just random. Part of it is due to measures put in to avoid certain unconscious biases (hire your friends, regardless of how good they are; hire only people like yourself, etc). So I have some sympathy. But only some.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> In my opinion, they have rejected some of the greatest students I have ever taught There's no question that Google is happy to have false-negatives in interviews. > I believe they purposefully taret the type of people who think working at Google makes you a fundamentally better person than anyone else why would they do this? And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? (this is also an amusing comment because the only group I find more critical of Google than HN is Googlers)

CamperBob2 6y ago
And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? The usual recipe for success in tech: competitors who are even less competent. See also: how Microsoft dominated personal computing back in the day.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Then this would imply that selecting for people who want to work at Google, instead of the "best candidate" is a valid strategy because it leads to better outcomes. Again I think this whole line of thinking is nonsense, but even if you take it at face value, it still doesn't make sense.
- sukilot 6y ago
  >Microsoft dominated personal computing back in the day. By making illegal deals with PC sellers, and by vandalizing apps running on their OS.
glogla 6y ago
> And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? They have almost complete monopoly on online search, web ads, online video, on phone OS, on browsers. And they are not afraid to abuse those to get more, and are getting away with this. You don't need to do anything right when you rent-seek most of the online world.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  How is this rent seeking and not just profit seeking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Profit-seeking with market power is rent-seeking.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I think it's very destructive of meaningful discussion to redefine a term of jargon in order to exploit the stigma of the original definition while talking about something else.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        No, if you have market/pricing (empirical monopoly) power, profit-maximizing behavior is inherently rent-seeking by the standard definition.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    In real estate, the value of a property is often tied to the value of the rental income it could bring in, even if it's never been offered for rent. 'Rent seeking' doesn't refer to the same kind of 'rent', of course, but I think the analogy holds up pretty well. All Google has to do is turn a few screws, and the rest of us will have no choice but to sing whatever tune they call.
  - 6y ago
michaelt 6y ago
> And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? When a company has a lot of money coming in, they can be successful despite decision X, rather than because of decision X. Microsoft can interview people asking about filling airliners with golf balls. Valve can just not bother with Half-Life 3. Google can have zero support and a self-driving car division that keeps avoiding chances to release anything. That the companies are successful doesn't mean all their actions are smart - sometimes it's that their successes are big enough the occasional bad decision doesn't hurt them.

dhanna 6y ago

As a counter argument, I don't hold much confidence in my former professor's ability to rank the real-world competence of their student's.

CJefferson 6y ago
You may be right, I can only give my point of view. Also, even if I am right, real-world competence may involve more bluffing, less high quality knowledge of algorithms, than I would like.
- username90 6y ago
  Google don't want knowledge of algorithms, Google want fluency in creating algorithms. As a lecturer you likely missed a lot of gems since college testing doesn't test peoples ability to create algorithms and instead mostly test their ability to apply known algorithms. A lot of people who are great at applying known algorithms actually suck at algorithms in practice.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Maybe the ability to get along with people is more important than some people are willing to admit? I’ve met plenty of “smart people” who couldn’t get things done to save their lives partially because they couldn’t communicate well or play well with others.

gumby 6y ago

> In my opinion, they have rejected some of the greatest students I have ever taught, and accepted some idiots who know how to speak well. This has been a source of angst for friends of mine at google for over 15 years, which is almost 3/4 of google’s existence. The hiring process is just random. Part of it is due to measures put in to avoid certain unconscious biases (hire your friends, regardless of how good they are; hire only people like yourself, etc). So I have some sympathy. But only some.