4 ms·
Google actually kept statistics on how much they liked candidates and how well they did after hiring. This has the obvious problem of not tracking those they tu
by svachalek 4y ago
Google actually kept statistics on how much they liked candidates and how well they did after hiring. This has the obvious problem of not tracking those they turned down, or those who turned them down, but they published a paper on the results and IIRC basically found no correlation at all.
But I think like you say, what they did do was create a filter that only very patient and technically qualified candidates could get through. Beyond passing the filter, their very standardized process did not derive any useful information about candidates. But I feel pretty certain if they made an offer to every candidate and not just those on the pass side of the filter line, they would have seen some differences.
- corrral 4y agoMy guess is that by the time the self-selection of people who think they're ready to apply and have a good enough shot to make it worth all the time the interviews take, happens, and they get to an in-person (having perhaps passed a less-harsh phone-screen leetcode question), most further leetcoding isn't doing much aside from keeping the self-selection effect strong. The other parts of the interview might be doing something per se useful, I suppose.