3 ms·

I appreciated your comment. I want to believe what you are saying... but at the end of the day none of the people that I interviewed with were the final decidin

by twox2 5y ago

I appreciated your comment. I want to believe what you are saying... but at the end of the day none of the people that I interviewed with were the final deciding factor in whether I was offered the role or not. This was decided by a hiring committee. I might be giving away which company this was at this point, I don't know if this is how it's done at other large companies. The thing is, I was asked to provide certain details after my interview process, like an extremely detailed chronology of my education and work history, explain every single gap greater than 3 weeks, etc. etc. The fact that this all happened after I rocked my interviews (which was the feedback provided via the recruiter) tells me that yes, it's possible that they wasted everyone's time to interview me and potentially disqualified me on some kind of technicality. It was an odd experience altogether. I was even invited to spend an afternoon with someone on the team after getting the verbal Ok. Either way, it was interesting experience, but pretty unpleasant through and through. In hindsight, I'm quite glad I didn't get the job, but in principal I didn't like the way the process went.

filoleg 5y ago
> I might be giving away which company this was at this point, I don't know if this is how it's done at other large companies. Yes, you are, it sounds like Google, and I had the same experience with them, except I had a degree. > I rocked my interviews (which was the feedback provided via the recruiter) A lot of times, recruiters aren't at liberty to provide truthful and direct feedback. Also, you might have done well overall, but one of the interviewers tanked you. It all depends. You might have gotten a good signal (but not strong on all of them, just "good enough") from all your interviews except one, and on that one you got a strongly negative one. Hiring committee looks at this combination of signals and decides "no". This is really common. Hiring a bad candidate and having to fire them later is extremely expensive, so the interview process prioritizes decreasing false positives rather than false negatives. Which means that unless they are absolutely certain you are a good fit, it is a pass. But I can pretty much guarantee you that if you got to onsites and then later got declined by the hiring committee, it wasn't your lack of degree that got you passed over.
- twox2 5y ago
  Thanks for the feedback and context, really appreciate it!

by twox2 5y ago

filoleg 5y ago

> I might be giving away which company this was at this point, I don't know if this is how it's done at other large companies. Yes, you are, it sounds like Google, and I had the same experience with them, except I had a degree. > I rocked my interviews (which was the feedback provided via the recruiter) A lot of times, recruiters aren't at liberty to provide truthful and direct feedback. Also, you might have done well overall, but one of the interviewers tanked you. It all depends. You might have gotten a good signal (but not strong on all of them, just "good enough") from all your interviews except one, and on that one you got a strongly negative one. Hiring committee looks at this combination of signals and decides "no". This is really common. Hiring a bad candidate and having to fire them later is extremely expensive, so the interview process prioritizes decreasing false positives rather than false negatives. Which means that unless they are absolutely certain you are a good fit, it is a pass. But I can pretty much guarantee you that if you got to onsites and then later got declined by the hiring committee, it wasn't your lack of degree that got you passed over.

twox2 5y ago
Thanks for the feedback and context, really appreciate it!