Why I Don’t Hire Ex-Google Employees [2015] | Hacker News Reader

Why I Don’t Hire Ex-Google Employees [2015]

medium.com

13 pointsfagnerbrack16 comments

> Almost all of the people I have run across suffer severely from the Dunning-Kruger effect

Sidenote: Is there a name for a phenomenon for people who are aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect to believe themselves to be immune to it? Like a meta-Dunning-Kruger effect?

  I want to like what he is saying, but he wears his bias on his sleeve like a badge. He really just seems to be complaining about one type of ex-Googler. Google was their first job, and then they moved on within 1-2 years. Not people who were there for 2+ years or worked other places first.

  He also seems to just straight up hate Google based on how he views their business model in a very negative light. They steal your information?

  He acts like he is getting his revenge for something Google did by not hiring their ex-employees. What goes Google care? They are likely ex for a reason. To look at his opinion from a more positive perspective you could just call them Google's rejects. But he takes it so much further than that.

 With his real point being about ones that are post their first job, he might as well be complaining about millennials. Then how Google hires the worst of the worst of them. I would guess Google also leans towards the more Ivy League, which increases the entitlement.

Having worked with a few ex-google employees I can only agree. I don't think I'd have a ban, but for some reason they do seem entitled and have a superiority complex.

Interviewing there a few times I have definitely felt it as well, and that's what made me turn them down.

This seems like an incredible generalization. While it could be true in a lot of cases, you are branding an entire group with a bunch of labels that probably doesn't cover everyone in that group.

Note that Google specifically hires heavily for "culture fit" or "Googliness". From my experience as well, I'd say Google hires people who think like Googlers, and ergo, Googlers tend to be pretty similar.

I couldn't help but mentally replace the word "Googlers" with "blacks" and find that it makes about as much sense. What if one of the developers he considers good were hired by Google? Would the latter then automatically be turned to junk?

It's an interesting counterpoint. Except his generalization is based on the actual behavior of whatever sample he's seen. I'll also note that Google hyperfocuses recruiting on specific types of people in a way that automatically excludes all kinds of talent and people based on superficial criteria. Your counterpoint works on them too. ;)

Sure, but how big can that sample have been? People who claim to be able to make absolute judgements for a whole population based on a few samples can be lumped in the same category, but Google interviewers don't say "I'll never hire an X person". The article, however, does say "I'll never hire a Googler".

"but Google interviewers don't say "I'll never hire an X person""

You sure? I thought originally you couldn't get your foot in the door unless you were willing to solve some specific puzzles that might be an insult to someone with great resume and references. Or that their interviewing process naturally filters out all kinds of people who mentally handle work in IT better than bogus interviews. That's definitely saying we won't hire X person but in an indirect way where the traits of that person aren't specified clearly. They just follow from the obstacles Google creates for them.

"The article, however, does say "I'll never hire a Googler"."

That is true. Unlike Google, it's direct, honest, and gives us what we need to evaluate it. I see that it goes too far in a number of criteria where some Google employees clearly don't fit into the category. It would be unfair discrimination. There is one I think is worth evaluating: will they stick with the company over the long haul? This is going down in general but startup and high-tech culture has huge risk of turnover for average company. A smart, experienced candidate focused on life/job stability is a much safer bet by default than a Googler.

It's old (2015).

It's an interesting point of view, but generalizing everything is always dangerous.

It will be nice if the OP removes the anonymity.

Thank god someone finally said it.

So they are proud to make ads?

It really just sounds like the author has a vendetta against Google.

Oct 28, 2015.

Yes, it's old. Just found it randomly.

Weird.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com