Defining Google 1024
pbaumgar writes "Did anyone catch the 60 Minutes piece on Google this evening? They mention their hiring process a bit in the story: 'For example, Google is hiring about 25 new people every week, and receives more than 1,000 resumes a day. But they're determined to stick to their rigorous screening process. Google uses aptitude tests, which it has even placed in technical magazines, hoping some really big brains would tackle the hardest problems. Score well on the test, and you might get a job interview. And then another and another. One recent hire had 14 interviews before getting the job - and that was in the public relations department.' As a person who recently interviewed with them this past summer (I didn't get the job), I was wondering what others' experiences were like who interview with Google. I had 4 interviews, and it was by far the longest and most interesting interviewing process I've been involved in. I'd love to hear others' experiences in their attempt to get hired."
Can't Imagine this on 60 seconds... (Score:3, Funny)
For some reason I can't see 60 Seconds including a little passage about Brin's splurging action, mentioned in the quote.
Google employment (Score:4, Funny)
Working FOR google is a whole different ball game.
Re:Google employment (Score:5, Funny)
More ass-talking from the Slashdot crowd.
My Google custodial job took 12 interviews, 6 aptitude tests, 5 references and a letter of commendation from the local Sanitation Department. Even then, I probably wouldn't have the job if not for my exceptional refuse-handling and my skills with a toilet brush.
I hate college (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate college (Score:5, Funny)
My experience has been that those companies that require you to have an education to even apply to work for them do so to ensure that you have balance in your life. A real Bachelor of Science degree includes enough liberal arts, writing, and, in general, thinking in its attainment that companies know you'll be balanced enough to do things like bathe before work, read a good book after work to stay sane, and spell the name of the degree you have correctly. These are just examples - their expectations may be much higher, but the key thing they are looking for is balance.
Re:I hate college (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hate college (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hate college (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hate college (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, so that's the other thing you can do with a history degree.
Re:I hate college (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate college (Score:4, Insightful)
This person can tolerate a certain level of bullshit to receive compensation.
That's it. My wife's job has nothing to do with her degree (music degree for an IT job), but her company would not have hired her without it. For some employers, the fact that you can go through the crap that is some college classes, deal with university financial aid, stupid graduation requirements, idiotic nonsense policies, all to get a piece of paper at the end that qualifies you for some jobs, means that you'll go through the same level of muck at the job, and tolerate it, for your paycheck.
Employers want people who will stick through the boring parts of work. A college degree can show that you will do this.
Re:I hate college - university and autonomy (Score:4, Interesting)
While many people without college degrees can do organize their own work as well, they only pick it up over time. Many skilled trades such as plumbers and mechanics don't require that you prioritize work; most tradesmen just do one job (fix that sink, install that furnace), then move on to the next one. Even if they work without direct supervision, their priorities are short term and usually set by someone else - ie, go fix the sinks at these four addresses today.
That reality hit one of the managers in my area. He originally managed only IT people, but recently inherited a customer service call group as well. While he adjusted to it, one of the differences was that he couldn't just tell the customer service employees to do something. He had to tell them to do it, make sure they understood what they were told, and then have someone check up that they're in fact doing what you told them.
So, along with that tolerance for bullshit comes the motivation to deal with it without someone looking over your shoulder all the time.
Maybe you'd learn English? (Score:5, Funny)
who, not whom.
degrees, not degree's.
Re:I hate college (Score:5, Funny)
Only in the US. Everywhere else, when you take a degree in science, you study... science!
Re:I hate college (Score:3, Funny)
U don't need an education to succeed. Google is ghey!
Indeed! (Score:5, Funny)
I see you have a CS degree.
Re:I hate college (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many people with degrees who are terrible workers, and plenty of people without degrees who are excellent workers. (Or spellers.) For what it's worth, I don't think using any sort of blanket disqualification is a good idea, either ethically or from a business perspective.
The new Apprentice starts up in a few weeks, and it pits the "book smarts" against the "street smarts" (those with degrees vs. those without). Granted, it's just a TV show, but I'll still find it interesting.
Re:I hate college (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hate college (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly if Google does not interview somebody because of a degree they are being silly. Remember Bill Gates, the man without a degree! Exceptions exist all the time. However, this Google attitude does not surprise me. For example I still to this day cannot get a Goog
Re:I hate college (Score:4, Interesting)
A college student* shouldn't be looking for the kind of job that requires a degree. You probably can't handle both school and a job of that sort at the same time, and even if you manage to get by at it, it'll suck. You'll hate it, and your boss and profs won't like it much either.
Instead college students should look for jobs that don't expect you to focus your mental energies on them, the kind you can completely forget about when you're in class or studying for an exam. College jobs are for A) money and B) work experience (i.e. showing up, following instructions, etc.) not to be confused with job experience (i.e. x years of Java.NET). If you can get it in an organization that does work in you intended field, all the better, but that's gravy.
*Unless you're a current student looking for a job for after graduation, in which case you will have the degree, so the complaint is moot.
Re:I hate college (Score:5, Funny)
Now I are one.
I had two interviews at Google (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I had two interviews at Google (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I had two interviews at Google (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I had two interviews at Google (Score:5, Funny)
LK
Long intervies processes suck (Score:5, Insightful)
14 interviews!? There are only so many flat tires and sick aunts one can come up with for missing a couple of hours of work.
LK
14 interviews != 14 rounds (Score:3, Funny)
So that's one flat tire, one sick aunt, and a dentist appointment.
This is a new trend (Score:5, Informative)
I had *10 hours* of interviews for a company that didn't end up hiring *ANYONE*, for a shity 50k a year entry position (yes, 50k a year is shitty in the area it was in when an apartment costs 1500/m).
A friend of mine got hired for a company who wanted an expert in *3* non-related research fields (he has a PHD and luckily and experience in those fields). He flew up there and did several *days* of interviews, Then they called him back and said he would also have to be an expert in Unix and could he fly back up to meet their Unix team.
We were able to maniupulate the test conditions and make him appear to be a unix expert. Hes been employed for a couple months now, and has worked entirely as a unix admin, which isnt even what hes hired for.
The job market is nothing less then crazy
Re:This is a new trend (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Learnn the API - Learn the Language (Score:5, Insightful)
Programming is about algorithms and design. The language you use to implement those ideas is nothing more than a tool. If I was interviewing anyone this is where I would be focusing my evaluation.
The days of needing to know the language's API inside and out are over - Google took care of that. I don't want to know if you know what the method of creating a vector in Java is - any monkey can find that out with Google in less time than it took you to read this sentence. I want to know if you know what the *difference is* between a vector and a list, and if you instantly know when to use which. This is not something you find in 2 seconds on Google, and this is what you should look for in a good coder - the ability to quickly and easily identify the best algorithm for the situation.
Re:This is a new trend (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a new trend (Score:5, Insightful)
I put a stop to it - the problem was poor interviewing and poor decision making. Some interviewers were not skilled in asking good questions. And no one in the hiring process wanted to be the person to "veto" or "take the blame" when things go wrong.
But the fact is, we all had a good idea after the first round of interviews once we thought out our interview process. Subsequent interview rounds were just there to make some individuals happier with decision making - or to do a better job interviewing.
But I thought (and still think) subsequent interview rounds were simply abusive to the applicant.
So our new hiring proces is streamlined: (1) telephone interview, and then if still good, (2) a single round of personal interviews with a manager and then a peer.
If we don't know after this, then it's likely that there isn't a match, and the candidate is not hired.
If we think there is a match after this process, we make an offer to the person (which is sometimes accepted, sometimes rejected).
The candidate is initially hired with the caveat that it might not work out (in the USA it is very easy to release a new employee that isn't working out).
We only had to fire a new employee once, and this problem happened simply because my boss overrode my hiring veto (they attended the same university). Sadly, I had to do the firing.
Re:I'll tell you what they're doing! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. They should rely on a single product to produce billions of dollars for the rest of the life of the company. They shouldn't ever plan for the future, or diversify their offerings just in case someone develops a competing search engine.
That business model worked real well for Altavista, didn't it?
Or, for that matter, Microsoft--after all, MS can make money forever with just Windows and Office, right? Nobody would ever consider independently developing a product to challenge the market leader....
If Google is worth just one billion dollars, they can pay a hundred grand per year to a staff of a thousand for ten years just to dick around. And if they keep hiring the best and the brightest, then they ought to be able to get at least one more billion-dollar idea (or a few hundred-million-dollar ones) out of that crew over the course of the next decade, right?
I'm prepared to trust the business acumen of Google over that of a Slashdot poster, I'm afraid.
Article flaws (Score:5, Insightful)
The index does not reflect the Internet, but the World Wide Web. And only a small part of it, with the Deep Web being much larger.
Algorithms are not computer code.
Please don't give us more of those regular media articles on Google. They mostly suck when it comes to the technical side. And we have all heard about the free food a gazillion times.
A Technical Look At Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-Google Fortune? (Score:4, Funny)
To every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D. -- B. Duggan
Re:Anti-Google Fortune? (Score:3, Funny)
Innovative practices... (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a few years ago they ran a contest to see who could come up with the best project presentation solving some big issue in search technology, and I think I remember hearing about them making the guy who won a big offer (can't remember what the project was on...I'll try to find a link in a minute).
On the other hand, we have IBM, where I start my job this month. The job is in their Business Consulting Services division, and their interviewing process was totally on the other end of the spectrum. I had two rounds of non-technical behavioral interviews, and don't believe they ever even checked my references. Go figure. I would think that IBM would have a large amount of applicants as well and that they would want to be a bit more picky about their interviewing process, but I guess I'm not going to complain because at least I'll be getting a paycheck (I went back to grad school after getting laid off...don't look a gift horse in the mouth, I guess).
IBM isn't entirely stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, basing your business plan around hiring a bunch of geniuses is not automatically a smart idea. Geniuses can be lazy, they can be terribly hard to manage because think they know better than their managers, and the supply of grade-A ones is rather limited and competition for them will remain pretty hot. It may well be smarter if your business is set up in such a way that you didn't require all your employees to be geniuses, but through good training and good procedures equipped them to deliver the services that you wish to offer.
Sure, maybe your business is going to be less flexible and adaptable this way. Maybe you're going to need more staff, and more intensive oversight, than the "hire geniuses" route. But the supply and cost of moderately competent, reliable staff is much, much more favourable than competing for geniuses.
In 20 years time, when Google is a mature company trying to protect its patch, let's see whether people are chewing off their right arm to work there, and how the company copes then.
When Genius Failed (Score:5, Interesting)
The basic story is of a hedge fund [wikipedia.org] in the mid to late 1990's, and its dramatic rise and spectacular failure. The fund hired only the best of the best, and amongst its cadre of partners were 2 Nobel prize winners for economics. These people were bright. Their prime failing came down to two points.
Whilst on the topic of finance, long interviews here are no exception. I recently applied for an internship at a certain bank. The application process was completed on-line. After about 10 pages of copying from my resume and short essays, I clicked submit -- only to find out that I was now ready to complete the on-line math and communication skills tests. These took about an hour each, and were graded instantly. I made it past the first stage. If I do progress further, I am expecting a few days of interviews, as this is the norm even for internship positions.
Re:Innovative practices... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is standard human psychology to overvalue something that was dificult to obtain. That is one big reason that fraternities haze their pledges - the pledges that "survive" the hazing will usually overvalue their membership in the fraternity and behave accordingly.
Similarly, an extremely difficult interview process will tend to make the employees that put up with it feel that their new job is something really special and unique, when if looked at from an objective point of view, it might not really be so.
Re:Innovative practices... (Score:4, Informative)
i interviewed (Score:5, Interesting)
first I got the e-mail, said it would be a 3-3.5 hour interview. this is apparently normal stuff for google interviewing procedure.
so I show up about 20 minutes early dressed in business professional attire. they have a very cool lobby, lava lamps everywhere, soft sofa to sit on and read the paper, while one waits. there's an overhead display of the current searches on the website.
I met with the woman, who was a contractor, who had e-mailed me. we spoke briefly about contrator positions at google. there's a test every 6 months for who will be let on as a permanent employee and who won't.
the interview is in 3 one hour blocks, all water/soda/snacks/whatever, are on the house if offered. I opted for water. the first people I met with were two of the team members i'd be working with. we went over technical questions they ahd for me, is was a good time, all smiles and "that's good" comments. the position was more of a hardware ops type so it wasn't particularly unix admin type stuff, but we touched on that since it was more above and beyond the requirements, but below junior admin status for google. I figured I'd be ok for a hardware ops.
hour one. very positive response ended on a good note. Grade A (my metric)
the second two were the technical lead adn the supervisor of the team. very smart people, really put me in my place but in a friendly way with the admin stuff, and asked for an example of some shell code, I wrote some on the board stressing it may not be syntactically correct but it's as far as I know accurate. went well but I flopped on easy stuff like fping and reasoning for zone record trimming. another and I think a larger one was "waht do I look for in a leader" I answered in a bitter way as i'd been let down by most of my managers/directors/leaders at all palces i've worked for previously. (not too too important, but I view it as a demerit) still a positive experience. end of hour 2. Grade B
bathroom break. they were really stressing that I be comfortable throughout the process. always stating clearly if I need anything, feel free. the bathroom is very clean and they allow the luxury of paper towels in the mens room. i was pleased.
hour three were two people from another hardware group, I think NOC as they worked a 24x7 type position. one was a manager and another a technical person. at this point i think they were running out of questions. we went over some technical stuff. the difference between runlevel 0 and 6, =) other stuff of nebulous concern to hardware, I hate to toot my own horn but i'm really sharp on pc hardware and linux, so I really answered all the questions completely. after about 30 minutse we were just shootign the shix and I could see they were eager to cut it short, not due to myself but becasue they were out of things to ask. end of hour 3. Grade A
i was escorted out and i haven't heard a word since.
so evern getting the interview might be iffy. I think had I been better with the shell scripting, and perhaps less embittered by my previous employment experience i'd have been accepted.
but honestly, it's a honor just to get nominated.
Re:i interviewed (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a technical manager that has recruited contractors and permanent staff. I have ruled out otherwise excellent candidates because they have bad-mouthed their previous employers. Don't do it.
Re:i interviewed (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, most companies in the US listen to their legal dept. who tells them not to notify people when they do not get the job, for fear of legal reprisal. Instead if he had called back two weeks later, and they had hired someone else for the position he was interviewing for, the HR people would probably tell him that the position had been filled, and that they will keep his resume on file, should another position open for which he might be qualified. Although, chances are, his resume hit the circular file once the position had been filled.
If I had been in that position, and I felt the interview process had gone well, I would have made regular contact with the contact I had made from the company, or the person would would be my immediate superior should I fill the position. Calling them on a regular basis (daily even!) shows that you are eager for the position, and may help you win out in the decision process. If everything between yourself, and your competitors is generally even, your regular contact would bolster your image as you would be viewed as a "go-getter", and someone who takes the initiative. I would make a warning about this, however, as you would need to listen to the feedback you get, and respond accordingly. For example, if you call back the day after your interview, and they tell you they are still interviewing other candidates, respect that, and wait a few more days before making contact again.
I don't see what is so special here. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not applied at Google, but here are my last two getting-hired experiences:
Current job - 9 interviews
Previous job - 12 interviews
How is that number of interviews considered unique enough to bring up in the headline? I thought this was common practice for IT shops.
The testing is a bit unusual, but if you guys wanted to even work at Wal-mart or Home Depot in the 80's you had to take a couple of tests. I even had to take a couple of lie detector and voice stress tests for minimum wage crap when a teenager.
Like Hazing (Score:5, Interesting)
got through in person interviews twice... (Score:3, Interesting)
My impression was that they value youth and brightness (as in, just out of school, being able to quickly recall or come up with stuff irrelevant to actual work) over actual experience... (but yes, this is obviously sour grapes !)
Discarding too many people (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, such people are usually poor programmers. When faced with a problem, they may hack together a solution quickly, but the code they write is often poor from a readability, structural, and maintainability perspective because none of those things are "interesting" in their own right.
Google is discarding many people who are very talented programmers, but who just aren't good at solving puzzles in real-time during an interview. Additionally, the added pressure of you getting hired riding on not only your answer but how quickly you can give it is enough to make a lot of people freeze up.
Personally, when faced with a really hard problem, I often think of a solution when I'm not consiously thinking about the problem. Showering and that period between the time I get into bed and the time I actually fall asleep are two examples of such times. (I keep a notpad and pen next to my bed to write down stuff I think of just before falling asleep and often discover that the next morning when I try it it's the solution I was looking for.)
Re:Discarding too many people (Score:5, Insightful)
Google may believe that they can teach good programming methods, but they can't teach insight or intuition.
Considering that what they have avaliable works as well or better than anything else on the web, I think they've got "code quality" down pat.
Re:Discarding too many people (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Discarding too many people (Score:4, Funny)
Google uses perl?
Re:Discarding too many people (Score:5, Interesting)
By interviewing this way, you're not directly asking the candidate to solve a hard problem on the spot and, consequently, you're not making the candidate into a frazzled, nervous wreck.
Re:Discarding too many people (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't Last Long (Score:5, Informative)
The phone interview with the employee, who was working at a position very similar to the one I was interviewing for, was rigorous. He asked questions that required me to speak code to him, on the fly. I ended up asking if I could take my time and write the code out before I read it to him, because I didn't want to screw up. I screwed up anyway. I was really nervous and even though the questions weren't very complex, they were things that I wasn't prepared to have to answer on the spot.
I finally heard back from them almost a month later, with the (no surprise) rejection.
Searching Questions (Score:3, Funny)
- what
did I like about my last job?" When my answers were repetitive, I asked the interviewer if they wanted me to reiterate my answers. how strange.Re:Searching Questions (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Searching Questions (Score:4, Informative)
Fairly typical these days (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Ability to work well with others and in a team environment. This is pretty much critical in tech industry today.
2) Ability to learn quickly and on your own. No one realistically expects you to know *everything*, there is just too much for most people to absorb. What they do expect you to do though, is to be able to teach yourself the things you need to know and learn quickly.
3) Background experience. What companies analyze out of your background really varies from company to company. But, in the end all they are looking for is data that backs up point number 1 and 2. They want evidence that you are balanced, that you can learn well, that you can work well with others. Be it college background, work experience, tech demos you build yourself, etc, all that stuff really is just hard data to confirm your background.
As for the aptitude tests, those are just a way for companies to narrow down the potential applicants. With so many people looking for a job, it helps to shrink the applicant pool any way you can. Trust me, your potential future employer knows you are going to BS on the aptitude test. In fact, they are pretty much expecting it. They just want to ween out the people who aren't serious enough about getting the job and who aren't smart enough or serious enough to BS the test based on what they feel the employeer is looking for.
Honestly, aptitude tests are just a quick and easy filter to get the dumbest of dumb out of the way. What really and truly matters when you apply for a job is the interview(s). That is where your potential bosses can really judge you.
80% of what matters in the hiring proces is all about the interviews. 10% is background, and the last 10% is your BS filter(aptitude tests, on the spot programming challenges, etc).
I interviewed in May (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I interviewed in May (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I interviewed in May (Score:4, Funny)
Hiring attempt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hiring attempt (Score:3, Funny)
So are the handicapped *not* welcome at Google? (Score:3, Insightful)
With rigorous testing, you'll get a lot of smart people...smart at passing tests anyways.
Work ethic and love for ones occupation should far exceed aptitude in any hiring criteria.
So if you have any handicap(s), you can forget ever working at Google?
Seems like Google has already become severed from reality using that filter.
Too bad.
I did have high hopes.
Not only Google looks for big brains (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost all hightech companies look for big brains. Typical questions would look like this:
five pirates have 100 gold coins. they have to divide up the loot. in order of seniority (suppose pirate 5 is most senior, pirate 1 is least senior), the most senior pirate proposes a distribution of the loot. they vote and if at least 50% accept the proposal, the loot is divided as proposed. otherwise the most senior pirate is executed, and they start over again with the next senior pirate. what solution does the most senior pirate propose? assume they are very intelligent and extremely greedy (and that they would prefer not to die).
The answer is in the no. 63 of techInterview [techinterview.org]. Don't feel depress when you couldn't come up with the right answer, and don't bother memorizing all those answers before going to interview. They probably wouldn't reuse any of them anyway. If you don't have extremely high IQ, you probably want to learn techniques to solve those problems.
As a matter of fact, questions as such are mostly problems in Game Theory [gametheory.net](Yes, Game Theory as in the movie A Beautiful Mind [abeautifulmind.com]). Pirates problem above is a typical game that can be solved by backward induction on an extended subgame. I've actually seen this question in a final examination of Game Theory in my prograduate Economics studies.
I know how to define Google! (Score:3, Funny)
oh wait...
Easiest Interview EVER!! (Score:5, Funny)
Me: "What Up?"
Them: "What Up?"
then I pulled down my pants and they were like:
"You're Hired!!"
then I'm like "Respect."
Re:Easiest Interview EVER!! (Score:4, Funny)
"You're Hired!!"
No no no. This article is about Google [google.com], not Booble [booble.com]
My interview process (Score:5, Insightful)
Google set up shop at one of our job fairs with about 120 other companies. Anyone could walk up to the booth and give them their resume and talk to the people there. If they liked you, they e-mailed you later for an interview
There are then 2 on campus interviews. The first on one day, and if the interviewer likes you, then you get called back to the next day. If that interviewer likes you, you get flown out to their head quarters by San Fransisco. For my trip, there were 8 kids from CMU, and about 25 total from 7 other schools.
Out in their headquarters, you have 3 interviews with different sets of people. One of my interviews had 2 people each asking questions. They also feed you though and give tours of the campus. They definitly treated the applicants very well out there, great hotel, very nice all around.
Finally a week later people found out if they had offers or not. I heard rumors that in interviews with Google, each interviewer has 'veto' power, so if just one person didn't like you, no luck.
As for interview topics, there was a large range. Most were data structure concepts and problem solving. One interview was very unique though, the guy had a sheet of general software eng questions ranging over topics such as application design and testing, server-client software design, internet concepts. He would ask you just to describe a general topic, and see how much you could explain about it. For instance, one question was like "If you wanted to improve one of your programs, what would you do?" So you had to talk about testing, bottle-necks, better hardware, etc, just about everything.
As for coding questions, some people have complained in this thread that they don't display if you are a good coder, and I quite disagree. The purpose of those questions are to find out how you think, not how you code. They look for if you can logically lay out a problem in entirety and solve it one step at a time. Yes it's under a stress you would normally not have, but I think the stress helps sometimes. The part that all my interviewers spent the most time with was if I could improve my current solution. To see if you could do it with less memory, less cpu. The hardest part is just not knowing if there's something obvious that you should see. But a hint, start with the worst solution, then 'think up' a better solution while you're writting out the first. Do not try writting out the optimal solution from scratch from your head. They want to first see that you can solve it, but then to make sure that you don't settle for that solution and instead cringe at every line to make sure it's perfect.
Other tips I would suggest, spice up your resume with team projects. Also, the breadth of experience you have, not depth. As for positions at Google, I was hired as a Software Eng, which means I can work on just about any project, so they wanted people with skills in many areas. Lastly, don't be afraid of saying 'I don't know' to a question. I did this a few times for 'quiz' questions where I knew I could just go look up the answer (for instance, one question was 'list and define all the different type casts in c++'). But just don't wait time trying to make up something or giving a wrong answer.
After that babble, I also wanted to mention that every interviewer seemed to love their job there, like some people in the thread have said.
I hope this might give some insight into the process, although it's specific for college grads. But the general idea I got was that Google was looking for genearally bright people with decent experience and good team skills.
Google's Process Seems Pretty Standard to Me (Score:5, Informative)
Google/Amazon/Microsoft all do it pretty much the same way, with a few variations. Everybody's looking for the same super-awesome programmers, and so you have basically a gauntlet of programmer-led technical interviews. Google's aptitude tests, advertisements are just it's way of leting the super-awesome programmers know that Google Wants You!
The main difference between places is how exactly they define "super-awesome". Here's my take on the companies I know about:
1. Google will hire really hardcore theroetical people into pretty applied positions. Raw intelligence seems to be job #1 at google, so they hire people without a solid pratical track record.
2. Amazon will hire hardcore hackers, even if they don't have perfect academic credentials. Stuff like sucess in Open Source project is way up there at Amazon.
3. Microsoft will hire people who have decent (but not awesome) coding skills and social skills and give them a Project Manager job. Because they have so many Project Managers, I think that also frees them to hire programmers with even fewer social skills.[pmjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjn
Google and Others (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in August, on a Tuesday (you'll see the days matter in a second) I did a phone interview with a hiring manager; I did well enough that toward the end of the interview she asked me when I could come in; I said Thursday would be earliest (I was unemployed). After shouting over to some people, Thursday turned out to be OK. Lets call this Day 0
Day 0+2: I came in on Thursday and was interviewed for about three hours. Four teams, two singletons and two pairs. Oh, and I hate pair interviews. I remember distinctly that I managed to establish an amazing rapport with the hiring manager fairly early on and had an interview that left me feeling like a million bucks (this is probably the only interview where I've ever said, in response to a salary question, "you can't pay me what I'm worth" and meant it
Day 0+3: On Friday, I was contacted by another company and told they wanted to bring me in. We arranged the interview to occur Tuesday (so a week after the first phone interview).
Day 0+4: Company A calls me and wants to hire me. I tell them I've got to check out Company B and we negotiate to have me give them an answer by Thursday (0+9, or 5 days hence). Due to the sensitivity of the project, I agree to come in for a meeting at work on Wednesday (0+8) so I can be up to speed if I take the job (this also let me see what kind of work environment they've got).
Day 0+7: I interview at company B. Process is also about three hours. They're aware of my situation, and so the last person to talk to me is the hiring manager, with an offer in hand. I tell him I'll let them know by Thursday.
Day 0+8: I come in for a meeting at company A and fall in love with the company culture -- remember, this isn't "let's tell the interviewee what the culture's like," but rather a real business meeting I'm attending, so it allows me the sort of inside intelligence that's often lacking in our decisions. It also allows me to see that, e.g., everyone dislikes the company-provided laptops, which allows me to
Day 0+9: I call company B and politely decline, I call company A to enthusiastically accept and negotiate a better laptop (the 'negotiation' process wasn't exactly lengthy -- "I'd like a laptop, but your standards suck. What can we do about this?" "Yeah, we're not happy with the standard. Can you work with the IT Director to come up with something better?").
As for the Google process
The face-to-face happened about 15 days later. It was about 3-3.5 hours (fairly standardized for Google, apparently). I was lucky enough (ref internal referral) to eat at the Google cafeteria ahead of time, which definitely rocked.
_That_ interview process was
I think it's natural, really -- Google goes through so many of these interviews that the first step is by necessity an emotionally disengaged "show us you're worthy of breathing Google Air[tm]" process. One of the things missing from the interview, for example, was any sort of discussion of the Google side of things, or what the job or work relationships or technology are like.
I left the interview drained. I'm actually pretty pleased with my performance -- I'd probably want to change two or three things, but overall I'd say I probably performed at about 85% or better of my optimal capacity.
About ten days later I got a phone call fr
My Google HR Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a week later, I get an e-mail from Google! O, frabjous day. They want to do a quick interview over the phone. I immediately agree, and the interviewer calls me at the appointed time. He asks me some standard HR-ish questions about who I am and where I want to be, and then the real interview starts.
"Now for this part, you can't use a computer or a calculator." Uh oh. He starts asking me networking questions. Geeky ones. Hard ones. He had me list off the port numbers for various services, calculate netmasks in my head and troubleshoot hypothetical problems. I trip up only a little bit on the mathy parts, and he informs me right on the phone that I seem good enough, and that I could be scheduled for a real live interview.
Then comes the rub: He's explaining about the job (basically live in their east coast datacenter and maintain their server farm) and in the process tells me how much they're paying. Ouch... True, it's sort of a low-level job, but with my mortgage and family, there's no way I could live on it.
He tells me that in a few years, I could move up in the company, were I willing to pack up and ship off to California. Could this really be a backdoor into a coveted position in the Engineering department for those of us without Ph.Ds? I can tell you that if I were single and commitment-free, I'd have taken that job in a second. IMO, roughing it for a few years would be worth it to work for Google.
But it was not to be. I have an excellent (and far higher-paying) job now, and I didn't even have to move to California for it.
What a complex world we live in! Is it worth it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Should we really be anxious because we went for interview at Google and someone asked us to solve a puzzle that we couldn't? does that make us less worthy of living a good life than those that have answered that question? should we be judged for the environment that we were brought up (and that we did not have a choice about, but it really shaped us)?
One would say that it is social darwinism that causes progress. But what is progress? is it only technological? how about social progress? spiritual progress? emotional progress? how about balance? how can one keep balance inside with such a competitive environment haunting him/her? What about the stress this environment creates? how will these people, that are such heavy competition, so much stress, be relaxed to create and raise a family? low birthrate is a significant problem for the western countries, and people working in such a heavily competitive environment are too stressed out to think of creating a family.
Do we, as people, still enjoy the sunset? do we still dream about the magic moment when we hold hands with our dearest under a full moon on a beach, or our minds is on profit-profit-profit only?
There are thousands of questions that are far more important than those silly Google puzzles. I couldn't care less if there are 5 or 100 C++ cast types. Life has much more important issues.
It is a great disappoinment when our society's only purpose is to gain more profit. It means we have failed as a society. We've lost our touch with what makes us humans...one day, when AI will be an everyday reality, what will become of all these clever people Google have hired? they will starve to death, along with all the millions of poor people working at McDonalds, because the Google of that era will not need them!
It is also a great disappoinment when our society continues to use sub-optimal tools to do a job, and all the brains are just used to create more profit, where they could have been used to improve and optimize the tools we work on.
If you now think I am bitter because Google rejected me, let me tell you that I don't live in USA, and I am employed, and very much respected, admired and even envied in my job. After all these years working in a corporate environment, I really haven't figured out the 'why' behind all we do: we spend so much time trying to develop new weapons, so much time trying to outrun and outsmart our competitors, so much time trying to cover our wrong-doings...but we have failed miserably to be warm, sincere and offer a big smile to others from inside our hearts on a day-by-day basis! we have failed in LOVE...
(I apologise for the bitterness and the long post.)
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just you. Google still has "do no evil" as one of their company guidelines. They also accept the fact that their will be other large players in the markets they are in and that they won't be the only ones. When Google starts putting out products that suck (as quickly as they possibly can), have the aim of monopolizing as much as they possibly can and crushing competitors, then you can claim they sound like Microsoft.
Re:Is it just me (Score:3, Insightful)
Google still has "do no evil" as one of their company guidelines.
A guideline that went right out the window when it came time to help the Chinese government try and prevent Chinese citizens from seeing things on the net that their government doesn't want them to see.
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, they assisted in censorship of information. However, you should also realise that had they not then google would likely have been blocked from access by the chinese government. In that case, the Chinese citizens would have lost a very valuable resource for finding information. And despite their efforts, it's highly likely that there is still a great deal of information to be found on google that the Chinese governement doesn't want its citizens to see.
Re:Is it just me (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, those fanatics you talked about is a foreign government. With that sort of respect it's no wonder America isn't the most popular country right now. No, not a flame. An observation.
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
By your logic google is evil for having a DMCA policy. [google.com] Now you might say "wait a minute, they have to do that, it's the law." Well I don't know if linking to infringing material is illegal, which means they're complying with censorship without being forced too. But assuming it is illegal to link to infringing material, they have to follow the law to comply with the US government. Well they have to censor material to comply with the Chinese government. If they don't do so in each case they get in a lot of trouble and risk having their business shut-down in a certain location/completely.
For a lot of people it's okay for google to comply with the US government but not the Chinese one. But if google should try to persuade people to criticise and change certain policies of the Chinese government, they should do the same with the US government (I don't think I'm alone in saying both policies are bad).
Having said that, I don't beleive in FOREIGN companies trying to persuade a country's laws. However I can see why a lot of Americans don't share this opinion, for instance some think it's the duty of their government to try to persuade other peoples to come within America's vision (democracy and capitalism).
Not all American's believe this, but many do. It only makes sense that they think it's okay for companies to try to influence foreign laws as well.
This isn't a troll, but a post commenting on this issue
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe that there is case law (the 2600 DeCSS case) that says it is illegal to link to illegal information. If google were really interested in "doing good" (which is different from doing no evil) then they would do two things in DMCA censorship cases:
1) PROMINENTLY indicate that the search returned information that is being censored by the DMCA. When the crutch of scientology sued them to stop linking to bootlegs of their "religious" texts, they put a little dinky notice at the very bottom of the search results indicating something was amiss. In my opinion, Google should put a notice like that as the very first hit and it should be in red. It would link to the DMCA take-down notice or whatever other legal document was used to force them to not link.
2) They would wait for a really good test case and push to have it taken to the Supreme Court. They obviously have got the bucks for the lawyers and after all these years, I expect they have had at least one good test case slip through their fingers.
Re:Is it just me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
They usually do an interview loop with between three and five people. I think that is a lot.
Personally, I think interviewing more than that (ie. 16 times) is just plain stupid. Google should refine their process.
On another note, eventually they will find out that all of these aptitude tests are really quite pointless.
An interview should look for traits in people such as a work ethic. Smart people are smart, but hard working people get the job done. I'm sure other people besides myself, have noticed that being smart does not equate to being successful.
Re:Interview? (Score:3, Funny)
If it was for Google pre-IPO then you are an idiot.
If not for Google, then why are you wasting our time idiot?
You are a idiot either way, no escaping that fact.
Re:Quick Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Do all the jobs require an appitutude test? Or just the high ranking ones?
Almost every job does. Most of the time the aptitude test is how well you are at faking the type of person the interviewer wants.
Yes, I'm bitter and cynical. That does not make me wrong.
Re:Quick Question (Score:5, Funny)
Good is an adjective, well is an adverb.
You are GOOD at faking who you are.
You fake who you are WELL.
Re:Quick Question (Score:5, Interesting)
"We bought that new device and it's quite sophisticated and with very specialized software, and we need someone to learn how to use it. Can you do this?"
"Is the documentation available?"
"Yes."
"I can do this."
"Great, you're hired."
(yes, I could.)
Re:Quick Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Andrew
Comprehensive interviews are very important. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think - in any field you can think of - tennis, school, etc. - some people are 'A' players and consistantly outperform others - other people are 'B' and 'C' players, that really don't stack up to the 'A' players.
A company filled with 'A' players will win every time.
Google's just in a very enviable position that so many top people want to work directly for them -- as opposed to starting their own thing in the hopes of getting bought by Google later.
Re:Comprehensive interviews are very important. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ultimately, this won't last - The top people will soon decide that they'd rather be big fish in a smaller pond, and leave to form spin-off companies.
I've seen this happen at Microsoft many times - including one friend named Steve who left Microsoft twice to start a company of his own, only to get bought back by Microsoft
Re:Comprehensive interviews are very important. (Score:5, Interesting)
But when that powerful original culture and vision (oh, god there are those words, but it's absolutely true) is disippated because the company is getting bigger with the wrong people, or the investors want to kick out the founders and put in "experienced management" or the company just starts to "do evil", then the exodus will happen and happen fast.
There's nothing better than being in a place and team that's "right". The minute the talented people feel that they're carrying the guy in the next cube who shouldn't be there or their idiot boss who got hired because somebody had to do the budget and reviews, they're gone because they know it can be better.
Some people's essential nature is to be entrepreneurial and to strike out on their own - of course, only a tiny percentage of them are successful. I think there's a large number of very talented people who would gladly stay in the right environment. Ask your friend sometime if they left MS because it changed, and you may be surprised.
I consider myself fortunate to have started working at Apple in 1981, when it was heaven and hell at the same time, but I wouldn't have missed it for the world. I saw a big chunk of the old-timers leave within a couple of years of the IPO because it wasn't the same, although I loved it then. And I left to a startup in the early 90's because culturally it had totally turned for me (and this, before the "bad years" of Gil Amelio and before the return of Steve). In the time since, I was both the "idiot boss" and the guy that made the world right, so I've had a chance to see that from both sides.
Re:Comprehensive interviews are very important. (Score:5, Interesting)
A company filled with 'A' players will win every time.
Having all 'A' players is not necessarily the path to success.
There's no reason to own the secretaries (Kelly), Security (Pinkerton), Janitorial (Blackburn), AP/AR (EDS [cringe]), Procurement (Ariba [cringe again]) or Payroll (APS), but try to keep 'A' players around who have to interface with these, ahem, organizations, and you'll either be pumping your 'A' players full of SSRIs or you'll be looking for new ones every sixteen months. (Or both!)
In fact some of the most profitable companies in the world (can we say big pharma anyone?) manage to keep very few 'A' players around for just such reasons. (buy me a beer and I'll elaborate)
Re:Comprehensive interviews are very important. (Score:4, Insightful)
Congratulations, very true, because of course there are no social processes whatsoever, no interaction with any environment etc. etc.
This is why Psychology never touched - for instance - any topics that might lead to any performance improvement by adjusting role definitions etc. etc.
And there also never was any notion that a system might comprise more than the sum of it's components.
CC.
Re:Comprehensive interviews are very important. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the obvious posiiton, like most obvious positions it does not match competitive reality: Look at the sports arena which allows fast-paced testing of such hypotheses. Real Madrid has the world's best soccer players, including Figo, Zinedine Zidane, Ronaldo *and* David Beckham. But the team as a whole has been underperforming. I see no reason why a company should not be subject to the same phenomena.
It would be nice if people on slashdot did not say the obvious thing, or at least did not mod up the obvious thing - otherwise Slashdot will in the end just model the most commonly held assumptions which are often also the dumbest ones
Re:Comprehensive interviews are very important. (Score:5, Funny)
Your comment is funny when I read it using my internal "Mr. T" voice.
14 interviews is unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a friend who applied at Chapters and was told up front that it was going to be a 5 interview process over 2 months. This was for a freakin' $7 an hour stock job. Even though she was more than qualified and had already accepted the lesser reality of working a shitty retail job, by the 3rd call back she told them to shove it. And don't say that's what the interview is designed to screen out. She was honest and hardworking and would have outperformed any of the "me too" candidates.
My experience (Score:5, Interesting)
One day, I got a letter/email from Google.
In it:
"We have noticed you have been quite active on the site and that your
comments have been well-written and comprehensive
Based on your postings we think you would be
an excellent addition to the researcher community."
They were offering me a job as a paid researcher. I was quite shocked because I had read that lots of people applied and were never given jobs, and I never even applied.
Apparently I was answering questions very quickly and thoroughly; one of their paid researchers noticed and recommended me.
It wasn't a very well-paying job and it was not a "high ranking one" per say, but it does qualify as a job that did not require an aptitude test.
Re:"do no evil" vs "nonprofit"? (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Like GMail and POP3. You see, 1GB webmail with text ads based on contents of email, all fine and clear. But a non-crippling POP3 that lets you avoid the ads?
I don't think there is one, I believe they put in the POP3 access for all the geeks who had requested it, most of the general population won't know what POP3 is, or care, they'll continue to use the web-based interface.Where's the catch?
I also suspect they're betting on people buying into the concept of having E-mail/storage/etc. available anywhere they can get a network connection. I know I'm still using Gmail's web interface and have no plans to change. I actually like the interface (first time I've ever said that about a web-based E-mail client) and having things centralized has proven to be quite useful for me. I'm frankly hoping they're planning to offer more things like it, maybe a calendar program. (Actually I could probably find a free one of those if I'd every remember to take the time to look.)
Many, many interviews (Score:5, Interesting)
If you come in and wish to interview only for the advertised position, you might be missing out on an opportunity in an area you really want to work in or would excel at (being a new, unpublicized area, you might be brilliant at it and love it, but not be aware it even exists), and so oftentimes the company puts you through interviews (in this case, ump-teen interviews), so that people in each of those areas have an opportunity to speak-up on your behalf and say, "you know, I could really use him/her here, but the position we have open hasn't been advertised." Putting you in an area that you are likely to love is worth the time "wasted" because you are more likely to be productive.
Perhaps it isn't this way at all companies, but interviewing many-times (seemingly "rigorous") is simply a placement issue, not a torture or publicity one.
Also, the tests oftentimes aren't about the right answer, but your reaction to being placed outside your comfort zone for a moment, and how well you respond. Perhaps Google is doing it for torture purposes (I am not so sure of that, though), but the "extreme interview processes" often have other purposes than the initially-perceived ones. I am speaking about other companies here, not necessarily exclusively about Google.