Nope.
I was an interviewer for one of the FAANGs. My approval rating was around 2%. And I was one of the most lenient ones, at least in my org.
Nope.
I was an interviewer for one of the FAANGs. My approval rating was around 2%. And I was one of the most lenient ones, at least in my org.
Maybe your FAANG experience is different than mine, but 2% means either you're very picky or your hiring pipeline is awful.
I approved about 2% of candidates.
The actual hiring rate was much lower, meaning that even when I approved them, they ended up being rejected anyway.
Either your org was way too picky, or your hiring pipeline was absolutely awful.
There's no real reason to interview 100 people and only hire 0-2 of them.
But I didn't make the rules, I just worked there.
I’ll call out Google specifically for this. They seemed to just make up their own questions. Difficultly ranged from basic coding to a math brain teaser with a lot of easy graph questions in between.
For context: this was last November.
Edit: lost the point in my rant - 2% approval is probably the result of flexing.
The actual hire rate was lower than that. Maybe much lower. As I said, I was one of the most lenient ones. I did my best to approve, while still remaining within calibration and hiring guidelines.
I interviewed people over the course of years. I was a developer, so interviewing was not my main role.
And I never felt angry about having my time wasted. I work for money. As long as the company is paying me, what they want me to do during billable hours is at their discretion.
Time spent interviewing has an opportunity cost in terms of learning new things or working on promotion-grade projects.
I studied new things on the side (very important for switching jobs).
It isn't that bad, interview one per week and you end up hiring about one person per three years (5 interviewers per onsite, so about 50 there and 100 phone screens). Most people interview 1-2 times per week there, and that was roughly how fast they grew, so the numbers adds up.