3 ms·

Google receives about 3 million applications per year, and hires less than 1% of them. Not all of them for dev positions, but still probably at least a million.

by em500 5y ago

Google receives about 3 million applications per year, and hires less than 1% of them. Not all of them for dev positions, but still probably at least a million. Google is probably the most popular, but even the maligned Facebook gets a few hundred thousand applications per year. I concur with the parent's point. HN is perpetually complaining about tech interviews, but nobody ever suggests a viable alternative that can cope with such application volumes. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/17/heres-how-many-google-job-interviews-it-takes-to-hire-a-googler.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/17/heres-how-many-google-job-in...

vanusa 5y ago
Google (and all the other companies with similar net hiring ratios) use multiple factors to narrow their pre-interview pool; including standard techniques such as resume and phone screening. And then there's in-person interview itself, which involves broader cognitive and personality assessments (apart from in-person LC recitation). The parent poster was literally saying that LC screening by itself will get you your 99 percent reduction.
- em500 5y ago
  Of course, LC-only won't get you there, and all companies with LC use the whole arsenal. But I don't doubt that LC will filter out a very large fraction of applicants (hence the incessant whining on HN). The point is though, with Google-like application volumes, if they drop LC they'll need to substitute it with something that also filters out a very large fraction. The actual hiring ratio at google is something like 0.2%. They pass over 998 out of 1000 applicants, so no matter what they do, they'll pass over a substantial number of qualified people, and no matter what they do there will be complaints on HN.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    I'll go with a "very large fraction". It was this resorting to made-up numbers that I found to be kind of weird.
Beltalowda 5y ago
Companies like Google (and similar) are kind of the exception; I'm starting a job next week, and I had an initial video call for almost all jobs I applied for when searching. Sometimes I wrote a cover letter, often I don't. My CV is decent enough, but not uniquely "oh wow!"-type of impressive. I don't think I was filtered out of thousands of applicants in ~90% of the cases. While remote positions can certainly receive a lot of "noise applicants", as I discovered in my last job, you can filter out half, if not more, on just a quick pass. Most companies are dealing with dozens of candidates at the most, often less. Certainly not thousands of them.

by em500 5y ago

vanusa 5y ago

Google (and all the other companies with similar net hiring ratios) use multiple factors to narrow their pre-interview pool; including standard techniques such as resume and phone screening. And then there's in-person interview itself, which involves broader cognitive and personality assessments (apart from in-person LC recitation). The parent poster was literally saying that LC screening by itself will get you your 99 percent reduction.

em500 5y ago
Of course, LC-only won't get you there, and all companies with LC use the whole arsenal. But I don't doubt that LC will filter out a very large fraction of applicants (hence the incessant whining on HN). The point is though, with Google-like application volumes, if they drop LC they'll need to substitute it with something that also filters out a very large fraction. The actual hiring ratio at google is something like 0.2%. They pass over 998 out of 1000 applicants, so no matter what they do, they'll pass over a substantial number of qualified people, and no matter what they do there will be complaints on HN.
- vanusa 5y ago
  I'll go with a "very large fraction". It was this resorting to made-up numbers that I found to be kind of weird.

Beltalowda 5y ago

Companies like Google (and similar) are kind of the exception; I'm starting a job next week, and I had an initial video call for almost all jobs I applied for when searching. Sometimes I wrote a cover letter, often I don't. My CV is decent enough, but not uniquely "oh wow!"-type of impressive. I don't think I was filtered out of thousands of applicants in ~90% of the cases. While remote positions can certainly receive a lot of "noise applicants", as I discovered in my last job, you can filter out half, if not more, on just a quick pass. Most companies are dealing with dozens of candidates at the most, often less. Certainly not thousands of them.