Slashdot Mirror
Defining Google
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."
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.
My current boss got so enthusiastic while reading my CV that he completely forgot to ask any questions that would check whether it's true or not :) Luckily my work doesn't involve deep knowledge IRIX, SunOS, VNC, embedded Linux or SCADA systems, otherwise I'd be in trouble :) He just wanted someone who learns fast...
"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.)
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I just finished up with a graduate e-Commerce class in which we did a large case study on Google. They tend to be super-cutting-edge in almost every aspect of their business from technology to revenue generation, so it should come as no surprise that they are extraordinarily innovative in their hiring practices. One of the key things I remember reading about is their extraordinarily high employee satisfaction ratings, so it follows that a whole lotta people would want to work there. So, with a stack of highly qualified resumes like that (they hire a ton of PhDs), you have to expect them to use some pretty unorthodox methods to choose the creme de la creme.
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).
I interviewed about 3 weeks ago at the hq. it was a pretty laborious process.
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.
I'd love to hear others' experiences in their attempt to get hired.
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.
I see it more as a fraternity hazing ritual than a real attempt to gauge aptitude or ability. Young companies are often like this for some reason.
I tried twice to get to google, passed the phone screens twice, which I guess I should consider myself happy about, but 'failed' the in person interviews both times (that was before IPO, I would assume it is much easier to get it nowadays).
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 !)
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 each time (for ungodly sums of money).
-
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.)
For what it's worth, it's been my experience that the original Coward's comment is more correct. Make the right environment and choose the right people and most of them will be quite happy to stay.
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.
In July of 2002, when Google Answers was hardly-known (is it very well known even today?), I did some research work--without pay--for Google.com. I love research, so I didn't mind; I was thrilled to do it.
...
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.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
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.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Oftentimes, that "rigor" is really not so rigorous as much as a process for your and the company's good. A lot of large companies/agencies do this so that they can find the right fit for you in their company. Many times, the company already plans on hiring you and has already decided you will make a "good employee," but the seemingly ridiculous number of interviews is for placement purposes.
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.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
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.
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)
This is a good point that I wanted to follow up the original article with....does anyone else think Google might be making a mistake in their hiring practices? It seems that they put a really really large emphasis on highest of high education and strong mathematics. While I appreciate that their core business (search) does require quite a bit of math skills to make it great, from my experience as a programmer, the people I run into that have "real life" programming skills usually end up writing decent enough code...while the people with masters degrees in math end up writing great code, but it often takes twice as long (they seem to have less of a grasp on the business end of things which requires promptness). Perhaps this is why 90% of Google's stuff is still in Beta?
I also think it's funny that the 60 minutes seemed to contrast the Google environment from "Big evil microsoft", but Microsoft WAS google 15-20 years ago...remember how that was an enviable place to work with the free soda and the "everyone gets an office"? At the rate Google is hiring, and now that they are public their corporate climate will end up HAVING to change. Right now they can still have fun, but when their non-voting, non-dividend paying stock begins to crash (its currently at what, a 150 P/E?), they will begin to act like every other corporation.
Let me say one thing. I got my BSc from a decent UK university (top 33-25% for Computer Science); it's a First Class Honours, the best ranking the University gave out (typically, UK degrees are graded as "First Class", "Upper Second Class", "Lower Second Class", "Third Class", and some stuff below that which isn't that great; I think some unis give "starred" firsts, mine didn't).
To be honest, I was expecting to get an upper second and was extremely damn surprised to get the first (because they don't give out details on marks, I've still no idea how the fuck they got a first from them).
Here's the crunch. I'm *not* a 'First Class' student; I'm a decent "Upper Second" at best, but I didn't cheat (or, if you think I did, then I'd point out that 90% of the class probably cheated more than me, so go figure).
How did I get a First? I don't know, but I strongly suspect that putting the extra effort into a written essay on data ethics (that ended up counting towards a small but notable percentage of the year) made the difference. I know that many people didn't put that much effort into it, but spent ages on things that didn't matter half as much.
Point is, I'm fairly mediocre when it comes to computer skills, I spent more time studying crap than I did doing actual computer stuff and preparing for a job; yeah, my essay writing is okay, but the whole experience has left me very sceptical about what a degree means.
I didn't "abuse" the system, but I certainly played along with it for all that it was worth, because I wanted a decent chance of getting a First Class. I knew that wasn't everything, but I suspected it would mean more than it did.
I could bore you with this all day, but I can't be arsed typing that much; point is that a degree teaches you stuff, but it's not the same as the real world, it's overrated, and in spite of their efforts, it doesn't really teach you the practical stuff you need for a job as much as some people would like you to believe.
I thought it was ironic that one of my lecturers asked me if I was going to be doing a PhD. The BSc drained me of the enthusiasm I would have needed to even *consider* doing a PhD. There's no way in hell I want to see the inside of a university for a long time to come.
First, the others:
:) ).
...
... I probably got in due to the fact I was an internal reference. I had a phone interview that was actually pretty cool -- my interviewer felt engaged, asked intelligent questions, and seemed really interested in me. It was a back-and-forth process, and I really liked it. I also did well enough, apparently, to qualify for a face-to-face interview.
... a little disappointing (can you tell I didn't get the job? :) ). It felt very one-sided. Forgive the fuzzy wording here -- I tend to be one of the more fuzzy, Myers-Briggs EIFPish, geeks out there.
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
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.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The basic story is of a hedge fund 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.
:wq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In order to get a decent job these days, you have to be extra-smart, extra-informed, always on the edge of your field both theoritically and practically. ...but is life about that? why should it all be about competition? is it good progress if our society clusters all good minds together for a single purpose? is profit the only reason we live? is the everything-for-profit mentality good for the environment? will this competition-crazy society of today be able to evolve, or will it be self-destroyed?
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.)
I may have to add RTFM and Googling for Information to my resumee as IT skills. It would be a good way to gauge my future employer if they knew what those two things were... If anything, we'd get a good laugh out of them during the interview.
Andrew
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
The one thing that was both thrilling and frightening about college was the degree of autonomy. In grade school, if you don't go to class, the teacher notes it, the administration gets on your back and the school can even send law enforcement after you. In college, if you don't go to class, you just deal with the consequences - bad grades. And I saw a good number of people who couldn't handle that autonomy - they could make grades in high school with teachers and parents on their case; in college, they couldn't handle the lack of structure. In short, college teaches you to manage the priority of work and how to meet various deadlines. That becomes a big differentiation in the the workplace. Generally, college educated people can work unsupervised and get it it done by a deadline. This isn't just a matter of motivation, but is an actual skill that not everyone has.
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.