Google never, ever used brainteasers in interviews (unless you count coding exercises - which you shouldn't).
More interesting was the fact they have given up screening on academic credentials.
More interesting was the fact they have given up screening on academic credentials.
How did they arrive at this conclusion, having never, ever used brainteasers? Why did they allow this perception to persist for so long (and apparently continue to play along even now)? Why do the websites like Glassdoor, in which Google interviewees share the questions they were asked, contain hundreds of brainteaser and guesstimate questions?
Brain teasers? Banned. (Of course, everyone has a different definition of a brain teasers.) If an interviewer were to ask a candidate a brain teaser, despite the policy, the hiring committee would likely disregard this interviewer’s feedback and send a note back telling the interviewer not to ask such silly questions. ... Now, let’s look at the very widely circulated “15 Google Interview Questions that will make you feel stupid” list. You want to believe these are real questions, given that Business Insider feels like such a reputable source. Except that they didn’t get this list from a direct source. They borrowed their questions from some blogger (I won’t link back here) who was posting fake questions. ... How can you tell that they’re fake? Because one of them is “Why are manhole covers round?” This is an infamous Microsoft interview question that has since been so very, very banned at both companies . I find it very hard to believe that a Google interviewer asked such a question.
http://www.technologywoman.com/2010/05/17/debunking-the-goog...
In my experience (10+ Google interviews) there's been a lot of brain-exploding algorithmic questions but nothing that would be called a traditional brain teaser.
Try & find a first hand, non anonymous account of someone being asked brain teasers at a Google interview.
I know of one guy who did get a "cannibals and nuns crossing a river" question, and others who got some complicated thing about how much to bet on the outcome of drawing black or white stones from a sack.
But the majority of a Google interview has always been (to my knowledge) more practical.
I agree. I've always thought screening based on a three tier system based on how quickly you can solve problems, quality of solution and personality (ability to get along with co-workers) would more accurately reveal the best candidates.
Politics.