> Even if they aren't representative of ability it's a strong signal if I keep getting rejected from Facebook (3 times for internship with final interviews, 2 times for onsite) and Google (2 times for internship, 1 time for full time onsite).
Strong signal of what, exactly, and how are you connecting the dots? It's natural for the brain to fill a void with faulty speculation, and that seems to be what you're doing: "If I didn't get in, there must be a rational explanation." (faulty speculation 1). "That explanation is I'm not that smart." (faulty speculation 2).
This type of thought pattern is what I often refer to as "Out of ignorance comes certainty." Realize these are speculations, and go and seek concrete information to validate them.
FWIW, I've been rejected by all 3 - twice by Amazon. Yet it didn't do anything to my feeling of self worth. I work a job in a company which, although they're a giant in the field they're in, I (and most engineers there) earn less than you.
It also doesn't hurt that I know people who've left my company to work for Amazon. I know their abilities and achievements, and while decently intelligent, they are not at all remarkable. I can do things they can't. The same goes for two former coworkers who are in Facebook (both decently smart, and one of them often credits me for teaching him various stuff that made him a better developer). I know people in all 3 companies who struggle with functional programming and calculus (something every one in every engineering major outside of computers has to become quite competent at).
You want me to throw away all that data and focus on the fact that I didn't get a job offer? Why would I take concrete information I have and replace it with nebulous information (namely: I have no idea why I got rejected).
It also doesn't hurt that I've sat in interview committees in my company and I've seen how it is the norm that a candidate is rejected (or hired) capriciously. People have all kinds of weird ideas on what a good candidate is. Now I imagine that FAANG companies are a bit more structured in their interviewing and this is less of a factor, but I'm sure it's still a factor. You can go and read on Medium how Google interviewers evaluate candidates and it won't be hard to spot problematic themes. I recently read something from a LinkedIn interviewer who described what he felt was a "red flag" in a candidate's coding style (essentially fell into the pragmatic vs elegant bucket). Amusingly, I had an interview 2 days ago elsewhere where the interviewer and I discussed this exact issue, and we both felt that what the LinkedIn guy felt was a red flag was actually good coding practice.
Along those lines, I wish I could find the article (perhaps it was on HBR?) that pointed out that studies showed that the variance in an employee's annual rating was mostly due to the variance in the managers' beliefs in what constitutes a good performance, and had little to do with the variance in the employees' performance. In a company like mine, this is very obvious. Yet so many employees tie their ego to that rating.
> It's easy to say that I shouldn't make getting hired into a company as a badge of honor...but I truly have no other accomplishments to speak of, even within Amazon. All of my friends seem to think I'm some sort of disappointment, or at least not successful.
Your attitude reminds me of my experiences with universities. I went to a mediocre undergrad and a top ranked grad program. The differences between the students in both existed, but were not as significant as one would expect. One of my friends had only been in top schools, and he had a vastly inflated idea of how much better an education he was receiving compared to an average school. And then he went on to interact with people from those schools (via conferences), and the experience really shook him. He found way too many people at no-name schools doing more impressive research than he was.
One of my undergrad friends ended up working for a small business and got paid extremely low. I went on to work for one of the top companies. Yet I've never achieved anything at the top company that matches what he's done. I recall advice I saw when I was in school: The opportunities to do innovative work in a small shop are much higher than in a big company because resources are much more limited.
Yeah - I got into a big company and get paid a lot more than he does, but he is more accomplished.
All those friends who think you're a disappointment - what have they accomplished beyond getting into those companies?
And the most, most important thing of all: Is your definition of accomplishment tied to work? And if so, why? I once helped someone out who was in dire need. I put in a fair amount of effort to help him, and it was risky as there was no guarantee it would. Fortunately, it all worked out and the person is in a much better position now, and doing well.
It is very unlikely that any accomplishment at work will match that. There's a whole world out there outside of SW and outside of work.
> You yourself say in a different comment that Amazon is easier to get into - that just means I'm less intelligent right?
People have studied intelligence, and published papers on it, for decades. I don't recall seeing any that used "Getting into Google/Facebook" as a measure of intelligence.
If the experts on intelligence don't do it, why are you doing it?
Once again, I would strongly suggest pondering over what standards you should have that aren't dictated by peer pressure. And I don't think the harsh part of my earlier comment has sinked in: Should you get into Google tomorrow, it is not an achievement. Realize you'll be the same person tomorrow as you are today. Getting in didn't suddenly make you more intelligent.
(I want to get into Google too, but my goals are higher compensation and access to interesting work - the former is guaranteed, the latter isn't. And frankly, Amazon is doing better on the latter metric).
Most people who do not get into any FAANG company are a lot happier than you are. I suggest you find out why.