8 ms·

You are assuming a lot. Many stanford phd's fail the google interview. I'd guess larry, sergey and zuckerberg had a pretty good chance of failing their own swe

You are assuming a lot. Many stanford phd's fail the google interview. I'd guess larry, sergey and zuckerberg had a pretty good chance of failing their own swe interviews...

codegladiator 6y ago
You are assuming a lot. Many stanford phd's /dont/ fail the google interview. I'd guess larry, sergey and zuckerberg had a pretty good chance of /passing/ their own swe interviews...
- danielmarkbruce 6y ago
  You might be semi joking, so apologies if I took it too literally: I'm assuming nothing really. And we are saying almost the exact same thing. Many pass, many fail. Pretty good chance of succeeding, pretty good chance of failing.
pyrale 6y ago
Maybe the issue is with the Google interview? I mean, plenty of very capable people are filtered out of Google and go on to do great things. It is bound to happen when you receive hundreds of applications and hire one person.
- whydoineedone 6y ago
  Those interviews select for different things. To start a company, you prioritize speed and the big picture when coding, when being hired by a big company, what matters is that you can conform to the way they do things. While related, they’re not the same
onion2k 6y ago
I am assuming a lot, but everything I've read about Larry, Sergey and Zuck tells me that they're pretty exceptional people (even if that doesn't extend to their coding ability, which I have no idea about). They're people who are driven, focused and hugely ambitious. If they don't have what it takes to pass a SWE interview then there's little hope for the rest of us.
- tinco 6y ago
  I think the point is, that even if they are intelligent and capable and definitely contributed a lot to their initial codebases ( I don't know why you singled out Gates, but he most certainly did as well), all of these companies grew to the point where almost any code change requires a bunch of expertise with technologies that they probably have not been exposed to. I don't know if they wouldn't get hired, I mean it's not like those companies never hire straight out of college, they obviously do, so expertise is not an absolute requirement. But they probably couldn't be hired as drop-in experienced SE's. Half their tech stacks are on technology that didn't even exist when they last touched code. All of these CEO's are famous for their excellent early talent acquisition of software engineers. Microsoft and Apple for leveraging those engineers to initiate a new digital world, and Facebook and Google for attracting (and motivating) the worlds best to achieve global domination.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    But they probably couldn't be hired as drop-in experienced SE's. That's exactly what I said in my first post - "I doubt any of them could drop in to a high level coding role and be productive, but they could all do intern or junior level stuff."
  - jbroson 6y ago
    If this is the standard that "they couldn't get hired TODAY" I'm sure that's not a very interesting fact worth discussing. I mean if we reanimated Big Al Einstein today and he had a blind interview for a tenure track physics position at Princeton Physics dept he would probably fail. The field has changed too much although with months of prep he'd be able to catch up, the same as L & S could for SWE interviews.
dcolkitt 6y ago
The dirty truth is that most whiteboard industries are heavily loaded on raw cognitive ability. Sure, it’s ostensibly about data structures, but what it’s really about is fluid intelligence. Gates, Zuckerberg, Larry, Sergey and Bezos all have extremely high intelligence, and would most likely pass with ease.
- EvilEy3 6y ago
  Sorry, but that's offensive to stupid people.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  I agree with you, and I think that this "dirty turth" is unpopular, because lots of people want to feel bright and intelligent, but the algorithm interviews, when interpreted in this way, tells them they're not that super bright -- and they don't like that, so they want to interpret the interviews in other ways, eg it's just luck, or anyone can do it with enough practice or things like that. At the same time, I think the coding interviews generally are harder than what's needed to do the job well, just because there're so many job applicants so the bar gets unnecessarily high? And people who fail the interviews can still be really bright. (Also, some people get nervous and fail mostly related to that. I wonder how to avoid that happening)
jbroson 6y ago
What? You honestly think the Stanford PhDs who created Google couldn't get hired as basic SWEs? Seriously? I mean if true that says a lot more about the SWE interviews than it does about Stanford PhDs. I mean there are Yale JDs that fail the bar exam but no one would claim that the average Yale JD couldn't get hired as a Big Law associate or judicial clerk.
- walto2 6y ago
  In a very literal sense, that's exactly what's broken about the interview process in the software industry. The philosophy is to avoid false positives at all costs, so a high rate of false negatives is seen as OK. The prevailing advice is, just try your luck again in six months.
  - mlcrypto 6y ago
    That's the good thing about Bitcoin. I don't have to prove anything to anyone anymore. It doesn't matter where you work if you convert your fiat to the superior store of value
- Alex3917 6y ago
  > You honestly think the Stanford PhDs who created Google couldn't get hired as basic SWEs? Seriously? They would definitely get a phone screen based on their resumes, but there is a good chance they wouldn't even make it to the virtual onsite round. It's not like the interviewers would use their products or look at their code or dissertation or whatever.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Google famously refused to hire Max Howell, the programmer who wrote Homebrew, which (based on Google's own statements) was used by 90% of Google's engineers at the time of his interview, because he couldn't invert a binary tree in the specific (but unstated) manner that the interviewer wanted. So it's definitely possible, indeed likely, that Serge and Larry wouldn't get hired at the Google of today. The "average Yale JD" would not get hired as a judicial clerk. Competition for clerkships is fierce, and generally only the top students get them. Any judge would probably take a "top" Yale JD, but unless the judge is a Yale graduate they'll all pass on the "average Yale JD," in favor of a better-performing graduate from another law school (usually their own).

You are assuming a lot. Many stanford phd's fail the google interview. I'd guess larry, sergey and zuckerberg had a pretty good chance of failing their own swe interviews...

codegladiator 6y ago

You are assuming a lot. Many stanford phd's /dont/ fail the google interview. I'd guess larry, sergey and zuckerberg had a pretty good chance of /passing/ their own swe interviews...

danielmarkbruce 6y ago
You might be semi joking, so apologies if I took it too literally: I'm assuming nothing really. And we are saying almost the exact same thing. Many pass, many fail. Pretty good chance of succeeding, pretty good chance of failing.

pyrale 6y ago

Maybe the issue is with the Google interview? I mean, plenty of very capable people are filtered out of Google and go on to do great things. It is bound to happen when you receive hundreds of applications and hire one person.

whydoineedone 6y ago
Those interviews select for different things. To start a company, you prioritize speed and the big picture when coding, when being hired by a big company, what matters is that you can conform to the way they do things. While related, they’re not the same

onion2k 6y ago

I am assuming a lot, but everything I've read about Larry, Sergey and Zuck tells me that they're pretty exceptional people (even if that doesn't extend to their coding ability, which I have no idea about). They're people who are driven, focused and hugely ambitious. If they don't have what it takes to pass a SWE interview then there's little hope for the rest of us.

tinco 6y ago
I think the point is, that even if they are intelligent and capable and definitely contributed a lot to their initial codebases ( I don't know why you singled out Gates, but he most certainly did as well), all of these companies grew to the point where almost any code change requires a bunch of expertise with technologies that they probably have not been exposed to. I don't know if they wouldn't get hired, I mean it's not like those companies never hire straight out of college, they obviously do, so expertise is not an absolute requirement. But they probably couldn't be hired as drop-in experienced SE's. Half their tech stacks are on technology that didn't even exist when they last touched code. All of these CEO's are famous for their excellent early talent acquisition of software engineers. Microsoft and Apple for leveraging those engineers to initiate a new digital world, and Facebook and Google for attracting (and motivating) the worlds best to achieve global domination.
- onion2k 6y ago
  But they probably couldn't be hired as drop-in experienced SE's. That's exactly what I said in my first post - "I doubt any of them could drop in to a high level coding role and be productive, but they could all do intern or junior level stuff."
- jbroson 6y ago
  If this is the standard that "they couldn't get hired TODAY" I'm sure that's not a very interesting fact worth discussing. I mean if we reanimated Big Al Einstein today and he had a blind interview for a tenure track physics position at Princeton Physics dept he would probably fail. The field has changed too much although with months of prep he'd be able to catch up, the same as L & S could for SWE interviews.

dcolkitt 6y ago

The dirty truth is that most whiteboard industries are heavily loaded on raw cognitive ability. Sure, it’s ostensibly about data structures, but what it’s really about is fluid intelligence. Gates, Zuckerberg, Larry, Sergey and Bezos all have extremely high intelligence, and would most likely pass with ease.

EvilEy3 6y ago
Sorry, but that's offensive to stupid people.
cutemonster 6y ago
I agree with you, and I think that this "dirty turth" is unpopular, because lots of people want to feel bright and intelligent, but the algorithm interviews, when interpreted in this way, tells them they're not that super bright -- and they don't like that, so they want to interpret the interviews in other ways, eg it's just luck, or anyone can do it with enough practice or things like that. At the same time, I think the coding interviews generally are harder than what's needed to do the job well, just because there're so many job applicants so the bar gets unnecessarily high? And people who fail the interviews can still be really bright. (Also, some people get nervous and fail mostly related to that. I wonder how to avoid that happening)

jbroson 6y ago

What? You honestly think the Stanford PhDs who created Google couldn't get hired as basic SWEs? Seriously? I mean if true that says a lot more about the SWE interviews than it does about Stanford PhDs. I mean there are Yale JDs that fail the bar exam but no one would claim that the average Yale JD couldn't get hired as a Big Law associate or judicial clerk.

walto2 6y ago
In a very literal sense, that's exactly what's broken about the interview process in the software industry. The philosophy is to avoid false positives at all costs, so a high rate of false negatives is seen as OK. The prevailing advice is, just try your luck again in six months.
- mlcrypto 6y ago
  That's the good thing about Bitcoin. I don't have to prove anything to anyone anymore. It doesn't matter where you work if you convert your fiat to the superior store of value
Alex3917 6y ago
> You honestly think the Stanford PhDs who created Google couldn't get hired as basic SWEs? Seriously? They would definitely get a phone screen based on their resumes, but there is a good chance they wouldn't even make it to the virtual onsite round. It's not like the interviewers would use their products or look at their code or dissertation or whatever.
gamblor956 6y ago
Google famously refused to hire Max Howell, the programmer who wrote Homebrew, which (based on Google's own statements) was used by 90% of Google's engineers at the time of his interview, because he couldn't invert a binary tree in the specific (but unstated) manner that the interviewer wanted. So it's definitely possible, indeed likely, that Serge and Larry wouldn't get hired at the Google of today. The "average Yale JD" would not get hired as a judicial clerk. Competition for clerkships is fierce, and generally only the top students get them. Any judge would probably take a "top" Yale JD, but unless the judge is a Yale graduate they'll all pass on the "average Yale JD," in favor of a better-performing graduate from another law school (usually their own).