17 ms·

There are two modes of hiring: 1. General purpose: Typical FANG like where hire first and then do team matching later 2. Targeted hiring: Companies want speci

There are two modes of hiring: 1. General purpose: Typical FANG like where hire first and then do team matching later 2. Targeted hiring: Companies want specific people and they try to recruit them A sizable number of top open-source contributors get recruited are in #2. Eg. 1) Top contributors in Rust lang hired by AWS. 2) FANG companies targeting top AI researchers from academia. One's open-source presence needs to be really prolific and the project has to make an large impact to be in #2 category. For #1 category folks, your public profile does not matter that much (atleast for FANG companies) Other way to think is #1 are treated as cattle, #2 are treated as pets. The famous incident where author of homebrew was rejected by a top company because he could not invert a binary tree got in the wrong channel (#1) to begin with where he was treated as a cattle. Note: Recruiter from FANG calling you still goes in #1 category for most people

kylec 5y ago
I don't know if hire first, team match later is a FAANG thing, I've worked for two of FAANG and neither did that, I was interviewed by and hired onto the team I ended up working on.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sudeepj 5y ago
  Actually there both cases happen: 1. Team matching before hiring commitee [1] 2. Hiring committee approved but rejected because no team matched [2] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/o6gs9m/google_borderline_onsite_interview_team_match/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/o6gs9m/g... [2] https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-failed-at-the-team-matching-phase-when-interviewing-with-Google https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-failed-at-the-team-mat...
tdeck 5y ago
I'm not sure if the extra work is rewarded as much as you might think. For example, I was shocked to see a prominent open-source contributor hired into Google as an L5. Without going into detail, this person built projects used by many people reading this comment. Granted, I don't know what their comp or interview process was like, but 5 is basically an ordinary senior engineer level at Google.
- vmception 5y ago
  You shouldn’t be shocked by that, there are similar stories where the maintainer of a project, used by most engineers at Google, couldnt get hired due to the lesser relevant leet code / design / behavioral interviews
- sudeepj 5y ago
  The key question imo is: Was he still subjected to same interview process where he has to prove his coding skills inspite of being prominent open-source contributor? As for L5 level based on anecdotal stories anything beyond L6 is hard in Google. Search for "Crossing that barrier to L6 is getting more and more difficult with time" in [1] [1] https://debarghyadas.com/writes/why-i-left-google/ https://debarghyadas.com/writes/why-i-left-google/ The article is from 2019 and its not that old.
  - tdeck 5y ago
    Yes, but my point is plenty of fairly ordinary engineers make it to L5 - it's nothing special. I feel uncomfortable going into this person's accomplishments, but other engineers I know were similarly shocked. If that and skipping some interviews is all being a leader in open source buys you, it isn't worth the extra effort from a bigCo career perspective.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Was he still subjected to same interview process where he has to prove his coding skills inspite of being prominent open-source contributor Google don't want people who are generally great developers though. They want people with specific skills who can solve the complex compsci problems they think they have. Consequently they hire people who can invert binary trees rather than people who can just write good or popular open source code. Google's failure to capture the public imagination is why so many Google products get killed off, so I reckon they're solving the wrong problems. If Google engineers were less inclined to think 'this is a hard problem that only very clever people can solve' and more 'this is a simple problem that needs a better solution' they'd launch more things people actually want to use. This actually means Google would be far better off hiring the popular open source dev instead of (or as well as) the PhD in Binary Tree Gravity dev.
fibonachos 5y ago
After interviewing with multiple FAANGs and receiving no offers, my current employer recruited me based on my LinkedIn profile for a role on new team. I have since started telling the FAANG recruiters “thanks for reaching out, but no thanks“. I guess that puts me in group number 2?
- EvilEy3 5y ago
  No, you're still a cattle. Until you receive an actual offer, you're always a cattle.
eru 5y ago
> The famous incident where author of homebrew was rejected by a top company because he could not invert a binary tree got in the wrong channel (#1) to begin with where he was treated as a cattle. It's apocryphal at best. The guy was rejected by Google, but was never asked about inverting binary trees, like he claimed. (I can believe that he was rejected on some other technical trivia, no clue. But the 'invert a binary tree' thing never happened.)
- cableshaft 5y ago
  Okay, so you admit he claims it did happen, but you say it didn't without supporting that claim at all. Do you have a source we can verify?
  - eru 5y ago
    I was working for Google at the time, and saw an internal post by the guy who interviewed the candidate. I'm not sure if there's anything public (and what I am even allowed to say.) See https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejecting-Max-Howell-the-author-of-Homebrew-for-not-being-able-to-invert-a-binary-tree https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejectin... where he (at least partially) admits that he was bullshitting: > I want to defend Google, for one I wasn't even inverting a binary tree, I wasn’t very clear what a binary tree was. See also https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/7l5ibp/max_howell_homebrew_creater_finally_opens_up_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/7l5ibp/max_howell_h... for a discussion.
    - nanidin 5y ago
      I highly recommend interested readers to follow through to the Quora page. It’s more or less a public apology, and helped break me out of the echo chamber that occurs here and on Reddit related to interviewing at Google.
      - ant6n 5y ago
        It looks like there are a bunch of programmers who think that having taken the first year uni course on data structures is more important than having experience actually building product and having it used by millions. It's kind of silly. Most programmers out of school have a lot to learn about building product and actually getting a big project done - which they are supposed to learn on the job. At a place like Google. Somebody who knows this part already could probably spend some time on the job learning about data structures. It's like these conventionally-taught programmers think they get to look down on somebody who actually built something cuz he's self-taught. (As a conventionally-taught programmer who is very comfortable with data structures I find that attitude aloof at best)
wodenokoto 5y ago
I’m not sure I fully agree. There are plenty of good positions (at least in Europe) where they ask for an engineer who can work with tool/Lang x, and won’t ask you to invert a binary tree, but will ask you about what kind of projects you’ve worked on. I thought that was what you meant by #2, until you mentioned that it required “really prolific” engagement with open source.

kylec 5y ago

I don't know if hire first, team match later is a FAANG thing, I've worked for two of FAANG and neither did that, I was interviewed by and hired onto the team I ended up working on.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sudeepj 5y ago
Actually there both cases happen: 1. Team matching before hiring commitee [1] 2. Hiring committee approved but rejected because no team matched [2] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/o6gs9m/google_borderline_onsite_interview_team_match/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/o6gs9m/g... [2] https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-failed-at-the-team-matching-phase-when-interviewing-with-Google https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-failed-at-the-team-mat...

tdeck 5y ago

I'm not sure if the extra work is rewarded as much as you might think. For example, I was shocked to see a prominent open-source contributor hired into Google as an L5. Without going into detail, this person built projects used by many people reading this comment. Granted, I don't know what their comp or interview process was like, but 5 is basically an ordinary senior engineer level at Google.

vmception 5y ago
You shouldn’t be shocked by that, there are similar stories where the maintainer of a project, used by most engineers at Google, couldnt get hired due to the lesser relevant leet code / design / behavioral interviews
sudeepj 5y ago
The key question imo is: Was he still subjected to same interview process where he has to prove his coding skills inspite of being prominent open-source contributor? As for L5 level based on anecdotal stories anything beyond L6 is hard in Google. Search for "Crossing that barrier to L6 is getting more and more difficult with time" in [1] [1] https://debarghyadas.com/writes/why-i-left-google/ https://debarghyadas.com/writes/why-i-left-google/ The article is from 2019 and its not that old.
- tdeck 5y ago
  Yes, but my point is plenty of fairly ordinary engineers make it to L5 - it's nothing special. I feel uncomfortable going into this person's accomplishments, but other engineers I know were similarly shocked. If that and skipping some interviews is all being a leader in open source buys you, it isn't worth the extra effort from a bigCo career perspective.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Was he still subjected to same interview process where he has to prove his coding skills inspite of being prominent open-source contributor Google don't want people who are generally great developers though. They want people with specific skills who can solve the complex compsci problems they think they have. Consequently they hire people who can invert binary trees rather than people who can just write good or popular open source code. Google's failure to capture the public imagination is why so many Google products get killed off, so I reckon they're solving the wrong problems. If Google engineers were less inclined to think 'this is a hard problem that only very clever people can solve' and more 'this is a simple problem that needs a better solution' they'd launch more things people actually want to use. This actually means Google would be far better off hiring the popular open source dev instead of (or as well as) the PhD in Binary Tree Gravity dev.

fibonachos 5y ago

After interviewing with multiple FAANGs and receiving no offers, my current employer recruited me based on my LinkedIn profile for a role on new team. I have since started telling the FAANG recruiters “thanks for reaching out, but no thanks“. I guess that puts me in group number 2?

EvilEy3 5y ago
No, you're still a cattle. Until you receive an actual offer, you're always a cattle.

eru 5y ago

> The famous incident where author of homebrew was rejected by a top company because he could not invert a binary tree got in the wrong channel (#1) to begin with where he was treated as a cattle. It's apocryphal at best. The guy was rejected by Google, but was never asked about inverting binary trees, like he claimed. (I can believe that he was rejected on some other technical trivia, no clue. But the 'invert a binary tree' thing never happened.)

cableshaft 5y ago
Okay, so you admit he claims it did happen, but you say it didn't without supporting that claim at all. Do you have a source we can verify?
- eru 5y ago
  I was working for Google at the time, and saw an internal post by the guy who interviewed the candidate. I'm not sure if there's anything public (and what I am even allowed to say.) See https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejecting-Max-Howell-the-author-of-Homebrew-for-not-being-able-to-invert-a-binary-tree https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejectin... where he (at least partially) admits that he was bullshitting: > I want to defend Google, for one I wasn't even inverting a binary tree, I wasn’t very clear what a binary tree was. See also https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/7l5ibp/max_howell_homebrew_creater_finally_opens_up_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/7l5ibp/max_howell_h... for a discussion.
  - nanidin 5y ago
    I highly recommend interested readers to follow through to the Quora page. It’s more or less a public apology, and helped break me out of the echo chamber that occurs here and on Reddit related to interviewing at Google.
    - ant6n 5y ago
      It looks like there are a bunch of programmers who think that having taken the first year uni course on data structures is more important than having experience actually building product and having it used by millions. It's kind of silly. Most programmers out of school have a lot to learn about building product and actually getting a big project done - which they are supposed to learn on the job. At a place like Google. Somebody who knows this part already could probably spend some time on the job learning about data structures. It's like these conventionally-taught programmers think they get to look down on somebody who actually built something cuz he's self-taught. (As a conventionally-taught programmer who is very comfortable with data structures I find that attitude aloof at best)

wodenokoto 5y ago

I’m not sure I fully agree. There are plenty of good positions (at least in Europe) where they ask for an engineer who can work with tool/Lang x, and won’t ask you to invert a binary tree, but will ask you about what kind of projects you’ve worked on. I thought that was what you meant by #2, until you mentioned that it required “really prolific” engagement with open source.