Which is how it is typically presented because it sounds much better than "reject a lot of candidates who would probably have worked out just fine". It is useful to perceive both the potential value in an approach like this and the shortcomings. Google can absorb the massive expense in man hours, lost opportunity, etc. that comes with trying to craft genuinely predictive interview processes, but a lot of the companies trying to emulate them can't. Too often, interviewees don't realize a process of this sort is stacked against them, and interviewers don't appreciate the negatives of adopting a still-nascent approach that sounds more reliable simply because it is quantitative - and assuming since Google does it it must work.
Its not like Google pays the best or still has the best workplace. It's a large company with large company politics and red tape.
I've met a few such people in this forum. Not many.
I'm not sure how one would even begin getting a rigorous estimate of that number. What is a credible sample of "great candidates" in this industry?
That seems to be an unproven assumption, and quite likely to be a wrong assumption. For example if good people turn out to be less interested in "honing their interview skills", adding parasitic noise to the signal.
This gets tossed around as a truism. I'm curious, does anyone have any evidence for it? Call me a skeptic, but these kinds of "everyone knows" truths are often wrong.
Google and other such companies have a vested interest in getting hiring right. They also have the wherewithal to conduct studies, collect data, and let the evidence guide their hiring practices. Google in particular has shown a willingness to completely overhaul their practices by eliminating ineffective practices (remember their reputation for "thought puzzle" type questions?).
So I'm curious if you have anything to back up the idea that they're doing it all wrong.
I know it from my own experience and that of many others who have been through the gauntlet. Take it for what it's worth, I'm not selling you anything. I don't look impressive on the whiteboard, but I do have a rather impressive track record. Something doesn't line up. :-)
FWIW, as far as I recall there was another experiment at Google where they tried to establish correlation between interview performance and job performance, and as far as I recall, there was no meaningful correlation. This, of course, is not fully representative, because it does not include poor whiteboard performers.
This is not data.
These were their conclusions: 1. The ability to hire well is random. This is referring to individuals, not the system as a whole. 2. Forget brain-teasers. Focus on behavioral questions in interviews, rather than hypotheticals 3. Consistency matters for leaders 4. Grades don’t predict anything about who is going to be a successful employee. School grades, that is.
So, stop making stuff up from behind your throwaway account.
Google is collecting and analysing data to improve its hiring process... not to improve the hiring process of the industry at large.
There is an effectively limitless supply of great engineers who will jump through hoops to work for Google.
That's just not true for the vast majority of the industry.
If this were true, Google would have crashed and burned a long time ago.
Obviously, their interview process selects for much more versatile engineers than that. Engineers who not only produce reliable and maintainable code, but who can actually come up with products that generate billions of dollars over the years.
Actually, Google pays under the average of top companies, because as a top tier company, they can afford. Most people I know who went to work for Google took a pay cut but don't have a single regret about it.
> A simpler explanation is that they pay well and are prestigious and so get a lot more good candidates.
Their pay and prestige will attract even more bad candidates.
How do you separate good from bad candidates?
That's right: a kick-ass interview process.
Compared to who? They pay more than AMZN/MS/FB/AAPL/etc. for equal level, but are stingier with levels. You might be correct that certain other companies pay more than Google (Netflix maybe?), but they're certainly above average.
Google is more generous to good performers via bonuses once you are working there, but if you have two offers in hand, you are going to find Google highly resistant to negotiating. The notion of people taking a pay cut to work at Google sounds plausible to me.
If one's goal is to maximize compensation (particularly in the short term), a Google offer is better used to get a higher paying offer at one of their competitors.
I don't think that's true. While google is by all accounts (including in my personal experience) unwilling to move significantly on base salary, they'll happily match pretty much any offer with stock from my experience (and the experience of others I've talked to).
Perhaps I dealt with a particularly nasty Google recruiter. I felt like the recruiter had misrepresented the health benefits and relocation package once I got the actual offer letter and related paperwork.
That said, from what I've seen, compensation growth at Google from everything I've seen is faster than at the other companies, which means that for someone coming in at L>3, they will likely be given greater compensation at google than elsewhere.
I'm curious as to how they misrepresented things. I was actually pleasantly surprised once I got here by how extensive the benefits were, but I'm always interested in learning more, since while I actually think that 4 google interviews is a decent way to judge someone for google, I really hate their interview/negotiation process.
How many of their projects succeed simply because they are google? Some major ones (like android) come to mind.