Why I can’t work at Google

The article is just marketing. He mentions multiple times that he works for Bright.com, "a San Francisco-based company that is building algorithmic tools to match candidates and employers."

He is purposely reading into the "do you know anyone here?" question so that he can make a story out of it.

His affiliation is fully disclosed in the article. I don't understand why you're outing someone for "bias" when they describe it in the body of the article. Are you trying to suggest that bias somehow means you're not allowed to have opinions about things related to your work?

I've been helping other people through the Google hiring process, as I'm about to graduate from my PhD and head off to Google (I went via the intern conversion, so my experience is atypical). I know a couple of talented undergrads, and some have applied there.

The recruiters have always asked every one that I knew of "who do you know at Google?" I know this because they have come to me saying "The recruiter is asking who I know and you're the only person, can I say you?" They all seem to have a sense of urgency in the question, which indicates to me they've been told it's important.

I think that the OP made it to phone screen alone indicates that he was past the first cut. I would be surprised if referrals matter from that point on, as you say.

I'm applying to Google right now and was sent a form with an input box called "Do you know anyone at Google who is familiar with your technical abilities?"

edit: I'm an undergrad applying for an engineering internship and have an on campus interview.

Hey, it's the person I know at Google!

I came here to say the same thing that you did. The article smells of someone promoting their own venture rather than really critiquing Google.

Both times I applied to Google, I was asked who I knew at Google. Having said that, I didn't get the feeling that saying "nobody" would have really been a deal breaker for them.

"Knowing somebody" is something that scores some points in your hiring game, but it's not a deal breaker. In my case I had a few referrers that I only knew online -- some good contacts, but nobody that I had worked together or even met in person. Rest assured you're good enough in the resume and interviews, you should get an offer. Of course, strong referrals can make the threshold for "good enough" a little lower; even Google's extensive recruiting process has limitations. The point of referrals is not nepotism, it's just providing important information about the quality of any candidate.

I suspect he may be conflating recruiters and interviewers to some degree, if one assumes he is being honest.

Recruiters know that an employee referral is more likely to yield a hire, so it makes sense they might use that to prioritise those people in terms of scheduling interviews.

It would probably only rarely affect the end result (and if so, only on really edge-case candidates), but it would affect the speed to getting to on-site.

Well then that wouldn't make for a very good article would it?

How would a person, who doesn't have a CS background, network with people at Google?

I'm genuinely curious.