I wish someone at Google had the courage to admit how inconsistent and arbitrary the hiring/interviewing process is at Google.
"Googliness" is just a qualitative lever in hiring that allows Google interviewers to enforce whatever biases they have.
"Googliness" is just a qualitative lever in hiring that allows Google interviewers to enforce whatever biases they have.
The problem is that it isn't inconsistent and arbitrary, so that would simply be wrong to admit.
There is a tremendous amount of data/studies/etc to back this up, done repeatedly over time. Both independent of Google and not. Certainly much more than any other interview system i've seen suggested or used here.
As for the second, general "Googliness" is not used to turn people down - horrible communication skills/being an asshole/etc are.
Despite your claim, one interviewer noting an issue there will not get you not hired. Two or three noting it would. One noting it and then followup fit calls/interviews confirming it would.
So it's not an effective mechanism for single interviewer to enforce biases anyway.
Three of my friends (all similar backgrounds) interviewing at Google this year have had completely different interviewing experiences. One even bypassed the phone screen and was flown to Mountain View for an IRL technical screening/interview. These are all for the same role.
How does your data reconcile that?
Is it: You think they should have had exactly the same experience/path?
Regardless, any of the points i can think of don't really seem that relevant to your original point and my response.
Did you respond to the wrong subthread?
I'm providing an example as to how it is inconsistent (friends experience) as well as an a priori rationale for why it's arbitrary (e.g Googliness is a fuzzy criterion that allows interviewers to make any arbitrary call).