Hacker News Reader

Comment by btilly | Hacker News Reader

Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in.

How do you know that the basic question is what sank you? Is it possible that the interviewer didn't like the architectures that you came up with? Or perhaps you left the impression that you would not like to find yourself in a hands on position where you have to do things like set the sticky bit? (Based on this post I'd get that impression myself. But everyone here is hands on. "Architecture Astronaut" is not a job type we want to encourage.)

But whatever the cause, I absolutely guarantee that all three of the qualifications that you think we have are wrong. Because I am none of the three and managed to get hired.

View on HN

I'll disagree on the notion that Google's hiring practices don't allow a small error to derail the entire process. Basically, within Google we haven't noticed any of the problems around our hiring practices enough to solve them.

The problems are clear; unfocused interview loops leading to poor feedback, much too long process between phone screen and receiving approval from MTV, a focus on hiring those good at interviewing and not those good at engineering (hiring scores do not correlate with performance scores), and ignoring experience by offering salaries or positions significantly below candidate's current levels in the industry.

We end up being a place which is great for college hires and those getting their first chance, e.g. moving from test to dev, but not for experienced hires. And the effect is larger in some groups than others, but the senior engineers on my floor are mainly those without motivation to advance their careers and move on, even to internal projects.

Let's walk through the criticisms you make.

unfocused interview loops leading to poor feedback

Yes, and it sounds like that is an issue they are trying to address that.

much too long process between phone screen and receiving approval from MTV

Absolutely. I am an outlier there. I took over a year from initial interview to hire thanks to the hiring freeze. I'd like to see us A/B test different interview formats to figure out how much of the process we can remove without hurting the performance of the people we hire.

a focus on hiring those good at interviewing and not those good at engineering (hiring scores do not correlate with performance scores)

This is not so simple. There is a skill to impressing people, and everyone has trouble limiting its impact on interviews. My impression is that Google does much better than most. For instance how many times have you heard someone say that their impression was really good, but when they went through the notes the person wasn't as good as they seemed. That is a case where someone's interview skills didn't have its usual impact.

The best anyone has managed do with any hiring process is to filter out the vast majority of bad people. Successfully ranking the best is pretty much impossible. The toy model I offer at http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intelligence.ht... is a pretty good explanation of why. Just replace TST with "interview skills", INT with "actual performance" and IQ with "hiring scores". Since both actual performance and ability to interview affect your interview results, being really selective winds up with people who are good at both, and not those whose performance is truly exceptional.

ignoring experience by offering salaries or positions significantly below candidate's current levels in the industry.

This I'll actively disagree with. Google is in a strong negotiating position. They would be amiss to their shareholders to not negotiate well. Particularly since the ability difference between "got in solidly" and "just missed the cut" is rather small. But even so, if you're good at negotiating, the salary drop is much less. And there are various kinds of incentives that make your overall compensation significantly more than just your salary.

Besides, whenever you put people into a different kind of job than they have had before, you run a real risk that they will prove not to be a good fit. A drop in compensation is only appropriate in that situation. And Google's environment is different enough that lots of people wind up in that situation. (For instance I'm an SRE. That's a Google role that you don't find elsewhere.)

This I'll actively disagree with. Google is in a strong negotiating position. They would be amiss to their shareholders to not negotiate well.

For someone with a short tenure at Google, I'm worried that you haven't seen the larger picture yet.

The corporate policy is to hire the best and treat them well. But we are not hiring the best with consistency, instead often weighing cost and patience higher than talent and experience.

Ask around about your colleague's referrals. For the very few that get through HC, many of those engineers pass up the opportunity to work at Google precisely because our offers were to drop them a level or two and 10-15% salary. Make no mistake, that this hurts Google. We would be much stronger to have the talent from Cisco, Amazon, and Microsoft that I've seen turn away Google.

If you only look at the people who would have been better than average here and get lost for that reason, sure.

What happens if you include the people who would have been worse here and get lost for that reason?

Unless you can make the case that the ones who are unwilling to come really are better than the ones who do come, then there is no net difference. Given the difficulties with measuring relative talent at that level, this is a really hard case to make. (You could try to do it by A/B testing two different hiring processes...)

In fact my inclination is to believe the opposite. People who are more excited by the culture, co-workers, and problems that Google has are generally willing to take that drop. Which is a sign that they will fit in better here in the long run.

I don't understand why people think that some company's hiring process is broken because they reject good or even excellent people. A hiring process is bad only if it leads you to hire incompetent people or -- to be more precise -- people who you later regret having hired.

> ignoring experience by offering salaries or positions significantly below candidate's current levels in the industry.

I've heard Microsoft also does that. Though I don't know their rationale, I think it's in line with these two assumptions:

1) There's a large variation in skill among programmers 2) There's no strong correlation between programming skill and years of experience

So while newly grads with no work experience will likely get an above average pay in those companies, more experienced people might take a pay cut. I think it makes sense.

I upvoted you because I appreciate the feedback. Just to let you know, 3 years ago I interviewed with Google, made it through the recruiter phone screen, the second "technical phone screen", and flew to Mountain View to do the in-person interview.

The entire process took about 3 months, and at the end of it all, I was told: "At this point, we're going to be pausing on the recruiting for this position and therefore will not be scheduling any additional candidates for this role. Because the company is in a major push to meet certain software hiring numbers soon, the majority of our operations positions are slowing down at this point. I really appreciate your patience and flexibility with us. I'll be keeping your information here on file and once things begin to move again, AND if you're still interested in us, I'll be in contact."

This was back in 2007, now they contact me in 2010, and I don't even make it past the initial phone screen.

The interview process at Google is probably one of the worst I have been through. I understand you want to put everyone on the spot and make them write code on a white board right in front of you, without any access to a computer, compiler, tab completion, or any of the niceties of a modern IDE, but please:

If you're a software engineer interviewing system engineers, don't expect them to regurgitate code verbatim without errors every time. I can write a quick Perl or shell script when needed but I don't live in an IDE all day long and I don't think of every solution as a software solution. Sometimes a good hardware solution can fix bad software. I do it every day, over-engineering hardware to accommodate bad code.

But seriously, if anything, I'm overqualified for a position there and perhaps that is the problem. Google just comes off as a company that wasted a lot of my time in their hiring process. I'm happy to work in my corporate job and pull in $200K/yr. as a senior systems engineer. Google probably wouldn't pay me that much anyway.

>Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in.

Well, yeah. New employees aren't going to want to start off on a bad foot, so they won't say anything. But I have several friends who've been hired by Google and they all told me they found the recruiting process to be extremely frustrating and, at times, insulting. Their experiences are really no different than mine (I applied for an APM internship a couple years ago, and passed two rounds of interviews and submitted an essay before being turned down, so you guys must have been at least a little interested in me).

I've just gone through the process (succesfully), and while it dragged on longer than seemed necessary, I didn't find it insulting. What exactly happened?

Part of what I found insulting when I went through it: I could have been interviewing for kitchen staff, for all the information I was given. I was being screened intensely on relatively arbitrary criteria by relatively unpleasant people (as far as I could tell!), but I could get no assurance from anyone that I was interviewing for a position that I would find interesting, or even that I would be working with people whom I liked.

When you interview with Google, you're operating on faith that the interminable, silly process will result in a position that makes you happy. But there's rarely any assurance that you'll get a job that you enjoy, or even that you'll work with people that you don't find extremely annoying. This sort of interview process works better for inexperienced people than it does for more senior employees, who tend to want luxuries like career growth and cultural fit.

Exactly. I found that they couldn't even give me a job description. They just told me some hand waving statement like "we have a number of open positions in several engineering departments and we look at your qualifications and match you to one."

In addition you interview with a bunch of sometimes friendly, yet sometimes extremely condescending engineers. Some of the engineers I interviewed with were very respectful and corteous, while others acted as if I were wasting their time.

In general, I got the impression that Google is full of huge egos and that I should feel lucky if I had the opportunity to work there. No other company would act like this toward potential employees.

In any case, another disadvantage to working at Google is that they are getting involved in so many businesses, almost any side project is likely to become their property. The company I work at now is great because as long as I don't compete with their vertical, I can start any business I want on the side.

I wasn't insulted by the CS questions. In fact, they were the most challenging and nontrivial questions I'd had in any interview (one of the first round engineering* ones included writing up an inductive proof of my solution and emailing it in later).

* I applied for both APM and dev, and chose the APM route after passing first round for both.

What I found insulting was the lack of communication, complete disregard for my time, and general attitude of the HR people. It shouldn't take three weeks to let me know if I passed an interview, for an internship, when I tell you I'm under time pressure. I had an exploding offer from Microsoft, which they graciously extended so I could keep interviewing with their rival, and Google still took their sweet time. I was told I couldn't write the essay until they'd decided I'd passed the second round interview, even though it would have cost them nothing to let me write it and then throw it out if they decided I hadn't passed the interview. And when I turned it in, I was told it had to be "reviewed by the hiring committee, which meets every Friday, but they're not going to look at it this Friday, you'll have to wait a week and a half." When I basically told them that I wasn't going to let my other offer expire, they begrudgingly looked at it that week, but they made it very clear they weren't happy about doing me the "favor".

As someone else said, Google gives the impression of being full of huge egos who think that everyone is just dying to work for them, and that working anywhere else is a distant second choice. It's arrogant and egotistical. Think that if you want (even though it's not true, at least among Stanford CS students), but it shouldn't come off so blatantly to potential recruits.

Edit: timr just reminded me of something else - the interviewers seem trained to emanate disinterest. They were the least friendly interviewers I've ever had. And like I said, Google seemed at least a bit interested in me, since I got through both rounds of interviews, so I doubt it was personal.

The process is long and slow, hence frustrating. Particularly if (like me) you're approved by the hiring committee and then a hiring freeze puts your application in limbo for the better part of a year.

However I didn't see the insulting bit of it. I really didn't.

When I think hard about it I do note that they ask some basic CS questions that many people forget the answers to. And people tend to avoid cognitive dissonance by finding excuses for their failings. So certainly some people walk away (as the grandparent poster did) upset that they are asked questions which are "below" them. Someone who has done this may become insulted at being asked questions.

But focus on the critical facts. The questions are asked because they are relevant to Google. When you operate at Google's scale, having people with good gut instincts about scalability matters. Most software developers don't develop that. Therefore is it really an insult to try to find out whether someone has that knowledge?

>And people tend to avoid cognitive dissonance by finding excuses for their failings.

I wondered this of myself. It's a reasonable question. But like I said, I spoke to people who've been hired by Google and their experiences matched mine.

>So certainly some people walk away (as the grandparent poster did) upset that they are asked questions which are "below" them.

That wasn't my problem. I thought the questions were fine. See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1205593

> Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in.

Self-selection (in both directions)?

Is it sour grapes to complain that on multiple occasions that Google recruiters have contacted me unsolicited? That they've told me that "A Googler recommended you for an open position?" That they couldn't identify the person or the position or the reason for the recommendation? That they knew nothing about me or what I know or have done and can do? That they promised to ask the recommender for more details and talk to me again? That they've disappeared for several weeks and then said "Let's just go through the normal interview process and figure out where to put you?"

At least the much maligned headhunters (sorry, "IT Recruiters") are more honest about their intentions.

This has happened multiple times, every one unsolicited. I'm sure it'll happen again in 12 to 18 months.

I wouldn't hold Google up as a platonic ideal of hiring. It's a big company and who you draw as an interviewer matters. It's quite possible that random chance sank the parent commenter and not anything he did. On average the quality of the Google hiring process may be high but it is far from consistent. They've hired some people I consider incompetent. My own interview process was horrible. A friend of mine (who is awesome) had a challenging interview process and they hired him anyway because they liked the way he thought (that's how it is supposed to work!).

They seem to hire good people on average. But they are not infallible.

Sr. Architect Astronaut Cowboy Millionaire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com