3 ms·
I'm also an interviewer at a FAANG. 2% is extremely low, and would be a massive waste of time. You have to interview 50 people to fill one role? Complete waste
by sidfthec 4y ago
I'm also an interviewer at a FAANG. 2% is extremely low, and would be a massive waste of time. You have to interview 50 people to fill one role? Complete waste of time.
Maybe your FAANG experience is different than mine, but 2% means either you're very picky or your hiring pipeline is awful.
- surgical_fire 4y agoYou misunderstood me. I approved about 2% of candidates. The actual hiring rate was much lower, meaning that even when I approved them, they ended up being rejected anyway.
- sidfthec 4y agoWhich strengthens my point. Either your org was way too picky, or your hiring pipeline was absolutely awful. There's no real reason to interview 100 people and only hire 0-2 of them.
- surgical_fire 4y agoI wanted more people to be approved. But I didn't make the rules, I just worked there.
- ikrenji 4y agoso only 1 out of 50 people can solve a leetcode medium?
- isthiseasymode 4y agoIn my experience, FAANG leetcode questions are generally pretty easy. Once in a while, one of the interviewers just tries to flex on the interviewee and just throw out a trick question that may be easy in the right mindset, but not really a good question. I’ll call out Google specifically for this. They seemed to just make up their own questions. Difficultly ranged from basic coding to a math brain teaser with a lot of easy graph questions in between. For context: this was last November. Edit: lost the point in my rant - 2% approval is probably the result of flexing.