Hacker News Reader

Comment by jemfinch | Hacker News Reader

The author works for a company marketing a "a scientifically driven way to quantify the match between a job candidate and an open position" and is making claims derogating another mechanism for matching candidates and position. He's not exactly an unbiased observer.

For the record, I've been involved in hiring here, and I've never asked candidate who he knows at Google, I've never heard of a candidate being asked such a question, I've never seen anything related to such questions on interview feedback, and so on. If Hardtke's account is true (and that's extremely doubtful), his experience bears no relation whatsoever to mine on the either side of the interview table.

View on HN

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.

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'm sure that's exactly what he was trying to imply...Are you trying to suggest you're not a very good troll?

"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'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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com