6 ms·
Like one expense they saved on is sending out recruiters and engineers to likely thousands of career fairs, recruiting sessions, etc. Nobody would reasonably ar
by seoaeu 6y ago
Like one expense they saved on is sending out recruiters and engineers to likely thousands of career fairs, recruiting sessions, etc. Nobody would reasonably argue that skipping all of them is a sustainable strategy long term even if it hasn't hurt them much so far.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fukmbas 6y agoRecruiting is a total waste
- Guest42 6y agoWith the amount of resumes they get, I'd question how important it is for tier 1 companies. I have gone to career fairs and learned a great deal about companies I had never heard of, but it seems as though Google would just receive thousands of applications per opening and approach it algorithmically anyways. Although I've had contacts get poached via LinkedIn or given challenges from Googling certain tech topics.
- paxys 6y agoIt helps because they can also do the initial screening round with basically the entire graduating CS class in-person at the university.
- Guest42 6y agoThat is practical. Wouldn’t have thought of that.
- quantumsequoia 6y agoGoogle is one of the most sought after companies, but this is due to them actively advertising Google as a great place to work. Actually talking to someone who works at Google makes it more real and attainable in candidates minds and reinforces Google as a desirable place to work If Google were to stop attending, they risk newer generations of engineers shifting their perspective on Google, especially these days when most portrayals of Google in the media are negative. The point of Google attending these events isn't for recruiting. It's to advertise their brand to job seekers. Seeing a bunch of candidates flocking to the Google recruiters triggers FOMO is candidates who might not have been as enthusiastic
- SilverRed 6y agoSounds about right. The OP sounds like "Why does coke advertise their product so much when they are the most well known product in existence" Because that status will decline without advertising.
- BiteCode_dev 6y agoI wonder if this is not a good argument to actually make all kind of advertising illegal. There is no way that ensuring huge entities with enormous capital are able sustain their dominant position thanks to flushing cash at ads is healthy. I've yet to see a situation where advertising was better than word of mouth, personal experience or expert feedback. It seems it's all gain for them, no gain for us.
- rtx 6y agoIt is at many places one recent example anti maskers word of mouth against cdc mask promotion.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mrisoli 6y agoI always thought about this, but not about Coca-Cola, since people actually need to want to buy it to acquire it, but Visa and Mastercard have huge advertising budgets, notably for events like the World Cup and the Olympics, and I never met someone who actively pursued a specific card flag when getting a new card and instead just get whichever their bank has to offer.
- C4stor 6y agoBut then someone at the bank has to decide between Visa and Mastercard. And this persons surely thinks "ok, the conditions are roughly the same, what is going to make sure none of my clients even bother to ask why we chose this". So the bank picks something they know that for sure their clients won't question, and here you are. Even if a newer provider emerged with better conditions, they probably wouldn't pick it because they don't want to deal with the inevitable questions.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y agoCompanies compete with each other for the best talent, and often lose. They could always stop spending on recruiting and hire anyone from the pile of resumes, but they aren’t looking for just anyone. One could argue that the money spent sending people to career fairs would be better spent on bigger signing bonuses. I assume Google uses data to make these decisions, but it could just be keeping up with the Joneses.
- lrem 6y agoUnsolicited resumes are the most noisy channel of all. TBF I'm somewhat surprised it is even cost effective to keep reading them. But, send an engineer to spend an hour talking at a university and you get a bunch of very promising leads every time. Source: I've been an interviewer in Google for a number of years and talked at a university at some point.
- kyawzazaw 6y agoHow do you determine promising leads among hundreds? Let’s say for example you send someone to UMinnesota or UMD. What’s the process here to get leads for internships or new grad roles?
- lrem 6y agoThe folk hanging around to ask follow-up questions are my bet. Some of the questions really show the person is sharp enough to suggest you can put them into the system. Obviously this misses the good leads that simply don't care about your today's topic. That's in line with Google's approach being fine with a lot of false negatives.
- lrem 6y agoOh, it is causing pain already. Recently I pitched to a friend fixing a component as a great project for a very junior engineer. Only to find out that neither his nor my team has any sufficiently junior engineers on hand. So the oceans will keep getting ever so slightly boiled until we hire some, or one of the too senior engineers runs out of more important things to do. Sure it won't bring Google down right away, but having cruft like that accumulate kills efficiency in the long run. And Google thrives in cutting those epsilons.
- PostThisTooFast 6y agoGoogle also excels in turning off qualified hiring targets by acting like douchebags in the interview process. They admitted as much years ago (and two of my coworkers confirmed from personal experience) and said they were going to try to be less douchey, if I recall correctly. But the culture there is still douchey, as reported by people who DID tolerate the interview process and worked there.
- vlovich123 6y agoGoogle cuts epsilon’s in engineering cost that operate on efficiencies of 10s of thousands engineers or engineering components that underpin multiple high-value products. They have entire teams of very senior engineers dedicated to this problem. Conversely, a smaller project wouldn’t demand this kind of attention because solutions don’t scale well and so are managed as local costs at the most local level possible. What kind of scale project are you and your friend working for and which component is the problem in? Note that I’m not disagreeing with the consequences being that there are ever growing tech debt that will live on forever and you just try to manage that and fit that into “fixit week” or “20% time”. That’s kind of the discount for why they still pay the crazy salaries for all work, not just in the teams closest to the revenue generation.
- lrem 6y agoWe're SREs working on the rollout system used for vast majority of internal software. The component in quesiton collected enough tech debt to start showing "unfixable" defects, but still not enough to justify anything more than "make it retry harder". Any year now it will become worthwile to quantify the actual impact.
- thrower123 6y agoWhy exactly would Google need to do any of that? They're Google, people will come to them for as long as they are Google (and as long as they hand out very generous six-figure salaries).
- oblio 6y agoBetter signal to noise ratio.