> although I'd passed the interview, my interview performance was too poor to be considered for hiring.
In what world of hiring would passing an interview be considered a failing interview? If it's too poor for hire then it's a fail.
In what world of hiring would passing an interview be considered a failing interview? If it's too poor for hire then it's a fail.
1. Weeding out the people you surely don't want... that is it answers: does this candidate meet the minimum bar for working here?
2. Providing enough information about a candidate to give them a score... that is it answers: how good is this candidate?
You can "pass" an interview - that is the answer to question 1 is "yes, this person meets our qualifications", but fail in question 2 under conditions where there are more qualified candidates than there are positions. It's really common actually to wait until there are a few qualified candidates before making a hiring decision, rather than just hiring the first person that meets the minimum standards. This bit of hedging allows for making better teams from the available hiring pipeline (on average anyway).
Unironically yes. Although it's arguably a win-win. Google constantly keeps its pipeline of candidates open which means that if you're looking for a job and you clear the resume bar, you'll get an interview. Meanwhile teams are constantly hiring so they'll want a steady stream of candidates.
The alternative would mean that unless your timing for a job search is perfect, you won't even get a foot in the door and teams within Google will also struggle to fill open positions since it would take a while to interview the candidate pool.
People still line up for their purported incentives, despite these stories.
Unfortunately that simple.
The reason why nerds nevertheless apply at MAANG companies is thus the same reason why "ordinary" people buy lottery tickets - nerds are not that different. :-)