> > ...there is much to hate about the process. > That's a signal that's trying to tell you something. Indeed, and what it is telling me isn't what your point

> > ...there is much to hate about the process. > That's a signal that's trying to tell you something. Indeed, and what it is telling me isn't what your points are about. I'm fairly vocal internally about certain changes I believe need to be made. But I'm also not really in a position to do anything about it but suggest changes. There have been non-generalist interviews for over ten years, although not for every team. This problem has been addressed several times over the years. I think the post above is about the most recent round. But Cloud and many other orgs have always had their own inteview style. Generally speaking, the more senior the candidate, the less generalist the interview seeks to be. And the more specialized the role, the less generalist the interview seeks to be. Some interviewers haven't gotten the memo, and many situations end up being, say, 50% generalist, and 50% specific role. But plenty also go purely role-based, especially in areas like security or UX design. However, one thing Google strongly seeks is someone not wedded to this or that technology. If you think of yourself as, say, a Ruby-on-Rails developer, then you are probably a bad fit for most roles at Google, even the ones that involve Ruby-on-Rails. Google expects you to be able to pick up whatever knowledge you need to do your job, whether that is learning a new framework on the fly, or debugging a system you aren't familiar with. It's not exactly a "generalist", but more like someone who can learn tools and techniques easily.