5 ms·

For software engineers at least, I think the Google interview process would naturally select younger people. You need to have a pretty good grip on algorithms /

by math 11y ago

For software engineers at least, I think the Google interview process would naturally select younger people. You need to have a pretty good grip on algorithms / ability to do programming competition like problems and in my experience at least you're not frequently practicing a lot of the required knowledge in real world software dev roles. You get rusty. By comparison, this is fresh in the minds of people just out of university. Also, I think younger people are more open to doing the required prep. I've heard many an older developers complain that they think their time is better spent learning / doing other things (which have more immediate real-world benefit). I also don't think Google should consider changing an interview process that is working for them on the grounds that it may be indirectly penalizing older people. note: I'm an older software dev about to go through the Google interview process.

ChristianGeek 11y ago
Didn't Google admit recently that there was not a strong correlation between how well a developer did on their interview questions and how well they performed within the company?
- r0naa 11y ago
  citation needed...
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    The interview with Google HR stating this finding right is here (Googled "google" + "interview" + "correlation"): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b...
    - r0naa 11y ago
      I am not sure if you read the article but they never claim that they have found a correlation between performance on technical interviews and ability on the job. Yes, brainteasers are worthless and "structured behavioral" questions yield better informations but there is a gap between claiming that technical interviews are worthless and that. Also, it is usually the duty of the author to support their claims with a direct reference to sources not the opposite.
- math 11y ago
  Probably, but you'd expect that because the interviews only test part of what is required to be a good employee. It's just a in-precise filter - a bar they force you to jump over, which if you manage to do so pretty much proves you're not hopeless (and have enough dedication to learn the material). So amongst the guaranteed-non-hopeless people there is fairly random distribution of ability to perform well in the company.
  - math 11y ago
    user CHY872 says it much better than me :-)
- CHY872 11y ago
  that's actually what you want, though. It's because only successful candidates appear in the statistics. If Google let everyone in, you'd see a good correlation between how well developers do in the interviews and how well they do at Google. If you dump the 95% of people who don't perform well in the phone interview, then what you're left with is a bunch of high performers who performed well to different extents (where the purpose of the interview is not to gauge ability but to demonstrate minimum ability), where the extent to which they performed well is largely noise. Either a positive or negative correlation would be bad in this case.
  - Retric 11y ago
    You’re assuming everyone did well at their job. Google selects a lot of terrible people suggesting their process is broken.
    - CHY872 11y ago
      No such assumption made. If you have a positive correlation in your data, you're probably not placing enough weight on your interviews in your hiring process (i.e. you knew people weren't as good at interview but you still hired them). If you have a negative correlation you're similarly placing too much emphasis on interviews; you're likely hiring people who interview well over people who'd be better in the job. You might still hire bad engineers, but the uncorrelated nature of your interview/job performance data won't help you explain that.
- kagamine 11y ago
  Considering how many google products have failed in the past and are how divided users are on the existing ones I would question whether google's culture is worth anything at all. Seems to me that many of the big tech companies are losing the reality plot like coked up Hollywood starlets. I think we might see a paradigm shift in tech again soon including how recruitment is carried out.
  - diminoten 11y ago
    > I would question whether google's culture is worth anything at all. Uh, how about $385.46Bn?
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      You think Google's products and assets are worth zero?
  - serge2k 11y ago
    I would much rather work at a company that is willing to risk failed projects than one which refuses to take risks.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jonas21 11y ago
  No, what they found was that there was no correlation between doing well on brainteasers (like "How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane?") and job performance.
jebblue 11y ago
>> For software engineers at least, I think the Google interview process would naturally select younger people. If true then it violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA): http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
- ChrisLomont 11y ago
  Not if what they look for results in younger people, but they don't stop old people capable of meeting the same requirements, as long as that requirement is not specifically age. Some jobs likely have a lot more young applicants than old applicants - would those places be required to match the county, state, or national ratio of young to old in their workforce? (which of course is impossible for most locales). If hiring practices don't match the overall ratios, that in itself is not illegal. Otherwise we could sue the NBA for both age and sex discrimination. However, if an old person or a woman could perform as well, they could get NBA spots. If they were as capable at everything as a younger/male athlete, and the reason they were not selected is because they are also old/female, then it's illegal. Some jobs just have more capable candidates in various age/gender pools, so those hired reflects that reality.
loopbit 11y ago
As an old-ish developer that has gone through the google process twice, my problem with them is not the kind of questions they ask, it's the length of the process. I don't know anyone working in Google that hasn't gone through 6 months+ of weekly interviews. The second time I entered the process I went through six phone interviews without any indication on when the presential interviews would begin. I'm willing to do a lot of things for the right position. But I won't put everything on hold and let other interesting opportunities pass for half a year or more just in case Google deems me worthy.

by math 11y ago

ChristianGeek 11y ago

Didn't Google admit recently that there was not a strong correlation between how well a developer did on their interview questions and how well they performed within the company?

r0naa 11y ago
citation needed...
- jnbiche 11y ago
  The interview with Google HR stating this finding right is here (Googled "google" + "interview" + "correlation"): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b...
  - r0naa 11y ago
    I am not sure if you read the article but they never claim that they have found a correlation between performance on technical interviews and ability on the job. Yes, brainteasers are worthless and "structured behavioral" questions yield better informations but there is a gap between claiming that technical interviews are worthless and that. Also, it is usually the duty of the author to support their claims with a direct reference to sources not the opposite.
math 11y ago
Probably, but you'd expect that because the interviews only test part of what is required to be a good employee. It's just a in-precise filter - a bar they force you to jump over, which if you manage to do so pretty much proves you're not hopeless (and have enough dedication to learn the material). So amongst the guaranteed-non-hopeless people there is fairly random distribution of ability to perform well in the company.
- math 11y ago
  user CHY872 says it much better than me :-)
CHY872 11y ago
that's actually what you want, though. It's because only successful candidates appear in the statistics. If Google let everyone in, you'd see a good correlation between how well developers do in the interviews and how well they do at Google. If you dump the 95% of people who don't perform well in the phone interview, then what you're left with is a bunch of high performers who performed well to different extents (where the purpose of the interview is not to gauge ability but to demonstrate minimum ability), where the extent to which they performed well is largely noise. Either a positive or negative correlation would be bad in this case.
- Retric 11y ago
  You’re assuming everyone did well at their job. Google selects a lot of terrible people suggesting their process is broken.
  - CHY872 11y ago
    No such assumption made. If you have a positive correlation in your data, you're probably not placing enough weight on your interviews in your hiring process (i.e. you knew people weren't as good at interview but you still hired them). If you have a negative correlation you're similarly placing too much emphasis on interviews; you're likely hiring people who interview well over people who'd be better in the job. You might still hire bad engineers, but the uncorrelated nature of your interview/job performance data won't help you explain that.
kagamine 11y ago
Considering how many google products have failed in the past and are how divided users are on the existing ones I would question whether google's culture is worth anything at all. Seems to me that many of the big tech companies are losing the reality plot like coked up Hollywood starlets. I think we might see a paradigm shift in tech again soon including how recruitment is carried out.
- diminoten 11y ago
  > I would question whether google's culture is worth anything at all. Uh, how about $385.46Bn?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    You think Google's products and assets are worth zero?
- serge2k 11y ago
  I would much rather work at a company that is willing to risk failed projects than one which refuses to take risks.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jonas21 11y ago
No, what they found was that there was no correlation between doing well on brainteasers (like "How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane?") and job performance.

jebblue 11y ago

>> For software engineers at least, I think the Google interview process would naturally select younger people. If true then it violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA): http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

ChrisLomont 11y ago
Not if what they look for results in younger people, but they don't stop old people capable of meeting the same requirements, as long as that requirement is not specifically age. Some jobs likely have a lot more young applicants than old applicants - would those places be required to match the county, state, or national ratio of young to old in their workforce? (which of course is impossible for most locales). If hiring practices don't match the overall ratios, that in itself is not illegal. Otherwise we could sue the NBA for both age and sex discrimination. However, if an old person or a woman could perform as well, they could get NBA spots. If they were as capable at everything as a younger/male athlete, and the reason they were not selected is because they are also old/female, then it's illegal. Some jobs just have more capable candidates in various age/gender pools, so those hired reflects that reality.

loopbit 11y ago

As an old-ish developer that has gone through the google process twice, my problem with them is not the kind of questions they ask, it's the length of the process. I don't know anyone working in Google that hasn't gone through 6 months+ of weekly interviews. The second time I entered the process I went through six phone interviews without any indication on when the presential interviews would begin. I'm willing to do a lot of things for the right position. But I won't put everything on hold and let other interesting opportunities pass for half a year or more just in case Google deems me worthy.