5 ms·

Money? Resume building?

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
Perceptions change over time, and I can't tell if this is a widespread view or just my own personal journey. But it seems like the cracks are showing a bit more these days. These companies are maybe not yet cancerous, but they seem past their prime to me. I question whether there's any prestige associated with starting working for one in 2023. If you did something you're proud of at a FAANG, or got exposure to a really interesting problem that changed your perspective, that'll shine in an interview, but I don't think it'll win you any points over having worked there over anywhere else.
- drums8787 4y ago
  Agree. It seems it would buy you points at another FAANG but if I were interviewing an ex FAANG I would be concerned about mismatching perspectives and experience around scale and appropriate solutions. Then there’s the issue of “if you can get into a FAANG you must be really good”. Maybe. But not sure it would outweigh other concerns.
  - Infinitesimus 4y ago
    > mismatching perspectives and experience around scale and appropriate solutions. This is an interesting one. If you're talking about software engineering, I hope you interview questions check for that. Many people memorize by rote, "build x system, make it FAANG scale" and our industry rewards that. Many small and medium companies have delusions of grandeur that they need solutions Meta and Google do because obviously, they will be the next Google with enough time. Things get overengineered and pragmatic choices are discouraged. Promotions become about building complex systems/services and the goalposts keep changing. I hope your group is able to both hire for and promote the kind of culture you need for your domain.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  Personally, FAANG candidates start with a strike against them when interviewing with me. I do not want to see any company corrupted by these people, because they absolutely are coming from positively cancerous work culture. This might sound unreasonable, but I have worked with too many of these types to believe otherwise. Bad apples have spoiled the entire lot.
  - id00 4y ago
    Please consider working on yourself to eliminate any kind of biases including this and treat all candidates independently from each other
    - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      Your job, as an interviewer, is to be biased against candidates that will not help your company meet its goals. I don't know enough about FAANGs to say whether they cause enough lasting damage to their employees such that they should considered a red flag on a resume--but I don't think that there's anything wrong with that kind of reasoning. Personally, I feel that way about defense contractors. If you're content with moving at the speed of red tape, then you're going to be at a slight disadvantage when it comes to convincing me to hire you.
      - roland35 4y ago
        I think that may be fair to bring up in an interview but I don't think it's fair to be biased against a candidate. What you see as red tape may be important safety and quality steps in that industry. A good engineer should be able to recognize what process is good for what product! It's important to check our biases because even filtering out based on industry makes your candidate pool less diverse (age, experience, gender, etc) and leads to the tech monoculture which at least I don't think is a positive thing.
        __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
        If it turns out to be useful red tape and not just justification for corruption then there's no problem. But the fact that you're going into an interview with a todo-item for finding out, and you wouldn't for a different candidate... That's a bias, but it's not a problem.

Perceptions change over time, and I can't tell if this is a widespread view or just my own personal journey. But it seems like the cracks are showing a bit more these days. These companies are maybe not yet cancerous, but they seem past their prime to me. I question whether there's any prestige associated with starting working for one in 2023. If you did something you're proud of at a FAANG, or got exposure to a really interesting problem that changed your perspective, that'll shine in an interview, but I don't think it'll win you any points over having worked there over anywhere else.

drums8787 4y ago
Agree. It seems it would buy you points at another FAANG but if I were interviewing an ex FAANG I would be concerned about mismatching perspectives and experience around scale and appropriate solutions. Then there’s the issue of “if you can get into a FAANG you must be really good”. Maybe. But not sure it would outweigh other concerns.
- Infinitesimus 4y ago
  > mismatching perspectives and experience around scale and appropriate solutions. This is an interesting one. If you're talking about software engineering, I hope you interview questions check for that. Many people memorize by rote, "build x system, make it FAANG scale" and our industry rewards that. Many small and medium companies have delusions of grandeur that they need solutions Meta and Google do because obviously, they will be the next Google with enough time. Things get overengineered and pragmatic choices are discouraged. Promotions become about building complex systems/services and the goalposts keep changing. I hope your group is able to both hire for and promote the kind of culture you need for your domain.
voakbasda 4y ago
Personally, FAANG candidates start with a strike against them when interviewing with me. I do not want to see any company corrupted by these people, because they absolutely are coming from positively cancerous work culture. This might sound unreasonable, but I have worked with too many of these types to believe otherwise. Bad apples have spoiled the entire lot.
- id00 4y ago
  Please consider working on yourself to eliminate any kind of biases including this and treat all candidates independently from each other
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    Your job, as an interviewer, is to be biased against candidates that will not help your company meet its goals. I don't know enough about FAANGs to say whether they cause enough lasting damage to their employees such that they should considered a red flag on a resume--but I don't think that there's anything wrong with that kind of reasoning. Personally, I feel that way about defense contractors. If you're content with moving at the speed of red tape, then you're going to be at a slight disadvantage when it comes to convincing me to hire you.
    - roland35 4y ago
      I think that may be fair to bring up in an interview but I don't think it's fair to be biased against a candidate. What you see as red tape may be important safety and quality steps in that industry. A good engineer should be able to recognize what process is good for what product! It's important to check our biases because even filtering out based on industry makes your candidate pool less diverse (age, experience, gender, etc) and leads to the tech monoculture which at least I don't think is a positive thing.
      - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
        If it turns out to be useful red tape and not just justification for corruption then there's no problem. But the fact that you're going into an interview with a todo-item for finding out, and you wouldn't for a different candidate... That's a bias, but it's not a problem.