4 ms·
This sub-thread is missing the forest for the trees. This interview was not the highlight of the interviewer's day. They most likely didn't overthink every ang
by tmp_anon_22 5y ago
This sub-thread is missing the forest for the trees.
This interview was not the highlight of the interviewer's day. They most likely didn't overthink every angle and every word. They probably were on autopilot looking for some pre-defined criteria - and could care less if the candidate was qualified, accepted, or rejected.
- dolni 5y agoThat's plausible, but it doesn't change the fact that the interview was bad.
- tmp_anon_22 5y agoRight but Google really needs to be called out on the amateurism in interviewer training, selection, and quality control, as displayed throughout these comments. They clearly use volume and redundancy to make up for the number of failures. I'm sure they'll come out with the argument "we give xx million interviews, we are within an acceptable failure rate with these outliers". No you're not Google. No you're not.