> the interviewer required Heath "to read the program coding over the phone."
Yeah, if that actually happened, Google should fire the interviewer. How incredibly absurd.
Yeah, if that actually happened, Google should fire the interviewer. How incredibly absurd.
After showing up to the call half hour late, we got started. My interviewer was quite verbally irate when I asked clarifying questions and had some connection problems. Then he asked me to explain my code over the phone, brace-by-brace, colon by colon. I asked to share a document it was declined, I asked if we could talk about the algorithm and pseudo-code, but he wanted the C++. Afterwards he told me it wouldn't compile because it was missing some semicolons.
A few months later I tried again, thinking it was a fluke. Second interview started much the same as the first. I just hung up, not worth my time.
I had a phone screen with Google earlier this year and it had great audio quality and used a shared Google Doc. It is really sad to hear that you and others are having such a different experience.
I wonder if the quality of people's interviews are affected by the location and position they're interviewing for. I was interviewing for a smaller location instead of the main campus.
My impression is that bad interviews are the exception and get disproportionate attention. Glassdoor interview ratings for Google are 54% positive, 26% neutral, 18% negative. http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Google-Interview-Question...
(source: first hand experience with Google recruiters, and first hand experience of being sent further in the process after explaining the long list of ridiculous flaws in the phone interview I had, all of which the recruiter agreed with me on. I declined to continue the process, though, after it became clear that if I had gotten the job I would have been managing the guy who gave the phone screen; I had no desire whatsoever to ever work with that person based on the way he acted).
Twenty minutes later, he returned and asked for a solution, which my friend didn't have. The interviewer ended the call and my friend was turned down. He raised his objections to the process to his recruiter, who apologized and agreed to send him a Google branded mug and T-shirt for his troubles (what a joke). He still hasn't received them.
It's understandable if people find it ridiculous to read their code line by line but it's not at all clear from the article this is what was being asked as opposed to asking about the general approach to the problem. I feel like if the person's English was not that good, one thing that the interviewer might have wanted to know was whether the person could communicate effectively with coworkers.
Indeed, the article even says that the interviewer could not understand what was being read. For someone so senior, it's likely that he would have had to mentor junior developers. Seems like it would be a bad experience if they were unable to understand him and vice versa.
person = interviewer, or candidate?
The interviewee may have wanted to know the same thing about Google employees...
And indeed the interviewee should probably know that too. Either way it sounds like it was a poor fit if they couldn't understand each other
One more possible scenario: some manager thinks your team absolutely needs more people. You don't think so, because there's some limit on how many people are needed to change a light bulb. So you, in fact, actually aren't that interested in the candidate unless you see that he is perfect fit, somebody you just cannot lose only because you don't need more people right now. And I cannot judge you, it's, well, _OK_ to not to hire someone. Yeah, in the perfect world everybody is always polite and sincerely interested in others and so on, but c'mon, lets just allow people do their job and keep them away from all these political bullshit.